ComfortMyPeople

We had a fairly recent Watchtower Study and a very recent Congregation Bible Study where it was claimed that Russell and his movement represented the larger fulfillment of the messenger [Gk. "angel"] of Malachi 3:1-4:
*** ws13 7/15 pp. 10-11 “Look! I Am With You All the Days” ***
A MESSENGER ‘CLEARS UP A WAY’
5 Long before Jesus gave the illustration of the wheat and the weeds, Jehovah inspired Malachi to foretell some of the same events. (Read Malachi 3:1-4.) John the Baptizer was the ‘messenger who cleared up the way.’ (Matthew 11:10, 11) The nation of Israel would be judged soon after John’s arrival in the year 29. Jesus was the second messenger mentioned in Malachi’s prophecy. He cleansed the temple in Jerusalem twice. The first time was at the start of his ministry, and the second was at the end of his ministry. (Matthew 21:12, 13; John 2:14-17) So the cleansing of that temple happened over a period of time. 6 What is the larger fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy? For many years before 1914, C. T. Russell and the brothers working with him did a work like that of John the Baptizer. Russell and unnamed associates are the LARGER fulfillment of Malachi, whereas John the Baptizer was therefore the SMALLER fulfillment when he cleared up the way for Jesus.
*** kr chap. 2 p. 14 pars. 5-6 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven ***
Who, though, was the other “messenger,” the first one mentioned at Malachi 3:1? This prophetic figure would be on the scene well before the Messianic King’s presence. In the decades before 1914, did anyone “clear up a way” before the Messianic King? 6 Throughout this publication, we will find answers to such questions in the thrilling history of Jehovah’s modern-day people. This history shows that in the latter part of the 19th century, one small group of faithful people was emerging as the only body of genuine Christians in a vast field of imitations. That group came to be known as the Bible Students. Those taking the lead among them—Charles T. Russell and his close associates—did, indeed, act as the foretold “messenger,” giving spiritual direction to God’s people and preparing them for the events ahead. Let us consider four ways in which the “messenger” did so.

That sentence might have just pinpointed the issue. Russell collected a body of teachings and promoted them with faith and vigor and a sense of urgency. Jehovah doesn't forget his work and the love he showed for him. Neither should we.
(Hebrews 6:10) For God is not unrighteous so as to forget your work and the love you showed for his name by ministering and continuing to minister to the holy ones. But we should not be trying to defend him as a person in such a way that we rationalize the false teachings. For most of my life I fell into the same trap of saying, yes he was wrong on this or that, but we can ignore it because of the greater good he did. I had to wonder why I am defending him as a person. He may or may not have been a good person, we can't judge. I believe that in the main he was a very good person. And when I had read through the old Watch Tower magazines, I realized that the majority of his work was still quite useful and valuable for Christians and would-be Christians. (As opposed to "The Finished Mystery" aka "The Seventh Volume," for example, for which the great majority of it is worthless and false.)
But we are not supposed to concern ourselves with Russell as a person, or defend him as if he were some kind of canonized saint. We should be concerned with the truth and "wholesomeness" of the teachings that we have basically inherited from the body of teachings he collected.
(1 Timothy 1:10) .and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching (1 Timothy 1:5-7) 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly.
One of the great problems, in my opinion, of course, is that when Bible Students and Watch Tower readers heard what Russell taught and thought, they might think: Russell might have many things wrong but who is to say?
For example(s): Russell copied and expanded upon some embarrassingly false beliefs about the value of the Great Pyramid to our faith. Russell copied and expanded upon some embarrassingly false beliefs about the times and seasons (eschatology), and built up a whole doctrine around a debate over words like "parousia" that had come up as a means to avoid admitting the complete failure of a false prophecy.
Now we may still agree with some of these teachings, but some of them were clearly wrong, and many Bible Students apparently accepted them without question: He might be wrong, but who is to say? But Jesus, in Revelation 2-3 had said that it was up to each of us to say: individual Christians and Christian congregations. Just as Paul said that even if it were apostles or angels who declared something not in line with the truth they had learned, THEY, as individuals were responsible to reject the teachings even of those who were called and seen as apostles.
(2 Corinthians 11:5) 5 For I consider that I have not proved inferior to your superfine apostles in a single thing. (Galatians 1:8 ) However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:17) 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was,. . . (Galatians 2:5, 6) 5 we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you. 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. (Revelation 2:2) . . .put to the test those who say they are apostles,. . . When Paul said: "O senseless Ga·laʹtians! Who has brought you under this evil influence . . .?" (Galatians 3:1) he knew it included some of the 12 original apostles of Jesus himself, or what we might call the "Governing Body" at Jerusalem. The Galatians were so enamored by their position and how they were so highly regarded, that Paul needed to remind them that even if it were an angel out of heaven, they shouldn't listen. Did Paul mean that everything that came out of Jerusalem and the teaching of the apostles was "evil"? Of course not! He just used it as an example to prove that they should have been more responsible to pick and choose as mature persons:
(Hebrews 5:12-14) 12 For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong. Today, we have the same issue. The "Governing Body" provides us with a wealth of valuable and nourishing spiritual food. They admit that they aren't inspired and that might even be wrong on some doctrines. But we generally go about with the attitude: They might be wrong on some things, but who's to say? In such a case, it's clearly our own faith, reasonableness and conscience that must come into play.
(1 Timothy 4:6-16) 6 By giving this counsel to the brothers, you will be a fine minister of Christ Jesus, one nourished with the words of the faith and of the fine teaching that you have followed closely. 7 But reject irreverent false stories. . . 15 Ponder over these things; be absorbed in them, so that your advancement may be plainly seen by all people. 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. . . .

I think this is important, and especially the scriptures supporting this idea in Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 13.
Also, I think it's easy to read what I said as a kind of "attack" on the "Governing Body" or even "the faithful and discreet slave." On the contrary, I think we should all appreciate the great good that is being done by the Governing Body, and all exemplary elders in leadership positions. I think that we should look back on what C.T.Russell did, and what he taught, and how he progressed, and see it with much appreciation for his efforts in the restoration of pure worship.
(1 Timothy 5:17) 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. We should give him his due, just as we would all other exemplary persons who work hard in the interests of Jehovah's Kingdom through Christ Jesus. That was Russell's primary focus, and we benefit so much from his hard work. G.A. pointed out these same types of things that I have repeated here, too:
However, no one should need a TITLE for these things. Jesus said that all of you are brothers.
(Matthew 23:8) But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. Older men and other servants who met certain exemplary criteria would be used in the congregations to lead, shepherd, oversee, administer and teach. None of those things require a "title." But to say that one person or one small group of persons should be looked up to as "leaders" is something Jesus said was wrong.
I know there is a tendency to try to defend Russell (in his day) and the current Governing Body for every current teaching. The way in which the concept of "Governing Body" is used exacerbates this issue. But this is not the way that Jesus expected congregations to work. We can love and appreciate all teachings that we can accept with a clear conscience. Fortunately, that's a very high percentage. But some here have argued that we must accept every "wind of teaching" even the ones that have tossed us about this way and that way. (As all eschatological teachings have done.)
Look at the principles of local congregational direction and personal responsibility that Jesus expected of each congregation in the examples in Revelation:
(Revelation 2:1,2,6) “To the angel of the congregation in Ephʹe·sus write: These are the things that he says who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands: 2 ‘I know your deeds, and your labor and endurance, and that you cannot tolerate bad men, and that you put to the test those who say they are apostles, . . . 6 Still, you do have this in your favor: that you hate the deeds of the sect of Nic·o·laʹus, which I also hate. (Revelation 2:14, 15) 14 “‘Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching of Baʹlaam, . . . 15 In the same way, you also have those adhering to the teaching of the sect of Nic·o·laʹus.
(Revelation 2:24) 24 “‘However, I say to the rest of you who are in Thy·a·tiʹra, all those who do not follow this teaching,. . . I am not putting on you any other burden. 25 Just the same, hold fast to what you have until I come.
We can be very appreciative of all the wonderful things we have learned from work done and distributed by the Governing Body, but Jesus implies that he might still take us to task for following teachings that we should have known were not right. I mean it as an exaggeration, of course, but notice how not-so-different these verses just quoted from Revelation are from a make-believe verse that might have said:
"Still you have this in your favor: that you have adhered to the teachings from my Word which you have learned from the beginning. Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching charts of Brother Splane.

If you believe the Watch Tower publications, however, you would have to agree that he actually did claim to be the "faithful and discreet slave." I know you have already seen the quotes in "The Biography of Charles Taze Russell" that the WTS published, along with reports from his funeral, Convention reports from both before and after his death, and A. H. MacMillan's book "Faith on the March."
Even though he did say it to some, he most certainly did not need to. Many of the most successful men of the 19th century were experts at "mock humility." In some situations it was considered the only "proper" way to communicate one's authority and title to others. One method was to always allow others to introduce your title.
(Colossians 2:18) 18 Let no man deprive you of the prize who takes delight in a false humility and a form of worship of the angels, “taking his stand on” the things he has seen. He is actually puffed up without proper cause by his fleshly frame of mind, Teaching that there was only one person in his day who should be identified as that faithful and wise servant [faithful and discreet slave] who serves meat in due season [food at the proper time] is admittedly not an explicit claim on its own. But when you also identify your own writings as "meat in due season" and publish many letters addressing you as the "faithful and wise servant" you are merely making wise use of the 19th century methods. Even the admission that you can't let "modesty" keep you from explaining that there is only ONE individual "faithful and wise servant" rather than multiple "servants" is an obvious yet sufficiently humble "reveal."
I'm afraid we would just be repeating information already covered if we dug out all the sources again, but I'm sure you know them. The reason I quoted the scripture from Colossians is to discuss the danger, not just of false humility, but of something else, which is just as relevant today:
False humility can hide a haughtiness which is often accompanied by presumptuousness and a lack of wisdom and discretion. But you are probably also aware that Russell was worshiped as an angel. When the verse speaks of the worship of angels, we know that no one worshiped angels as the highest authority, but it was a kind of secondary worship based on lower levels in the hierarchy of Jehovah's creatures. This kind of worship should not be acceptable among Christians, yet Russell allowed it. He is never seen strongly speaking out against it.
It had to wait until Rutherford who said that one of the first things he wanted to do was change this cult mentality of worshiping Russell.
*** w66 8/15 pp. 508-509 Doing God’s Will Has Been My Delight ***
Why, brother, if I [Rutherford] ever get out of here [prison], by God’s grace I’ll crush all this business of creature worship. *** yb75 p. 88 Part 1—United States of America ***
So it was understood that the “servant” God used to dispense spiritual food was a class. With the passing of time, however, the idea adopted by many was that C. T. Russell himself was the “faithful and wise servant.” This led some into the snare of creature worship. [Strange that in 1975 the writer didn't feel free to admit directly that it was Russell himself who positioned this doctrine to be applied to himself, even if it was an issue where he allowed people close to him to promote at first.]
*** kr chap. 2 p. 23 par. 32 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven ***
. Though Brother Russell wanted no such reverence, a measure of creature worship had grown up around him *** jv chap. 28 pp. 625-626 Testing and Sifting From Within ***
But you, Brother Rutherford, have a disposition which has no comparison with that of Brother Russell. Even your looks are different. It is not your fault. It was your birthday present, and you could not refuse it. . . . Did the Lord know what he was doing when he placed you at the head of affairs? He surely did. In the past we were all prone to worship the creature more than the Creator. The Lord knew that. So he placed a creature with a different disposition at the head of affairs, or I should say in charge of the work, the harvest work. You desire nobody to worship you. [I don't think it's true that so many were prone to worship the creature, Brother Russell, more than the Creator. But worshiping, or assigning reverence to an "angel" even if we know the relative place of that angel in the hierarchy, still detracts from the worship of the Creator. There is also an implication that Rutherford was different from Russell in that he did not desire to be worshiped, implying that perhaps Russell did very little to stop the worship and the development of a cult around him. I don't think this implication was intended, but I do believe there is some truth to it.]
*** jv chap. 6 p. 65 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) ***
Others, on account of their deep respect for Brother Russell, seemed more concerned with trying to copy his qualities and develop a sort of cult around him. On the topic of worshiping angels, this is a curious coincidence:
*** w85 7/15 p. 12 par. 11 “Let No Man Deprive You of the Prize” ***
A fourth-century council at nearby Laodicea found it necessary to declare: “Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God, and . . . call upon the names of angels. . . . If any one, therefore, be found to exercise himself in this private idolatry, let him be accursed.” However, fifth-century theologian and scholar Theodoret indicates that “this vice” of angel worship still existed there in his day. Places near Laodicea had an early problem with worship of angels, and I'm sure you know which angel Russell was associated with:
Rev 3:14 "And unto the angel [messenger] of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" KJV  Page 4 of the 1917 book, The Finished Mystery says:
Pastor Russell being the messenger of the Laodicean Church, and occupying the position of the Lord's special servant to give the Household of Faith meat in due season .... Page 53 of the same book says:
The special messenger to the last Age of the Church was Charles T. Russell, born February 16, 1852. He has privately admitted his belief that he was chosen for his great work from before his birth (p. 53).  

Well, a partial answer can be found by considering:
Zephaniah 2:3: "Seek Jehovah, all you meek ones of the earth, who observe his righteous decrees. Seek righteousness, seek meekness. Probably you will be concealed on the day of Jehovah’s anger."
Micah 6:8: "He has told you, O man, what is good. And what is Jehovah requiring of you? Only to exercise justice, to cherish loyalty, and to walk in modesty with your God"
Jeremiah 29:10: "“‘For I well know the thoughts that I am thinking toward you,’ declares Jehovah, ‘thoughts of peace, and not of calamity, to give you a future and a hope"
2Pet.2:8-9: "However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones............he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance."

GA asks, "Isn't this an exceptional case? Apart from obvious censuring of [apostates] within the Christian congregation at that time, am I overlooking another similar example in Scripture?"

Well, if so, then it's quite an “exception,” don't you think? If we want to look at "Scripture" in an overall sense, we have the prophets openly chastising the Israelite and Judean kings repeatedly, even a faithful one like David, right? Elihu castigating the “righteous man” Job, eh? Then there are those letters in Rev. 2-3. Only two congs there come up looking well, and again the accounts are public condemnations since they were written in Revelation and circulated widely.

But I think the book of Acts itself may be the greatest example. Before entering into that matter, a bit of background is necessary. I partake of biblical scholarship in the wide meaning of the term. By that I mean not just stale 19th-century commentaries that predate critical scholarship but real, current biblical scholarship, not foolishly accepting whatever such ones say (impossible to do anyway since such scholars are in frequent disagreement) but finding what is useful and true, separating the wheat from the chaff—all from the perspective of a faithful believer but also a genuinely critical thinker.

That said, there is much truth to the common contention among critical NT scholars about the book of Acts having a candy-coated bias that glosses over the tension between Paul and the Jerusalem heavies who preceded him in Christianity. In fact, for a faithful person this view has huge implications for why Jehovah did not have Jesus in contact with Paul while Jesus walked the earth—but then that is a separate matter.

Do you find it odd that nowhere in Acts is the Antioch incident ever mentioned? Or even Peter’s trip to Antioch? And then further “reinforcements” from James arriving there? Do you find it odd that Luke has a record at Acts 21:25 of James and the older men in Jerusalem telling Paul: “As for the believers among the nations, we have sent out, rendering our decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication” when according to Acts Paul not only knew all this but was an active participant in forming such a decision? Wouldn’t that be like Fred Franz telling JFR in 1939 that not all had the heavenly hope but that there was a great crowd who would live on earth? (Sorry the parallel is not exact but it’s off the cuff.) My point here is that the book of Acts is quite odd in multiple ways, and one of them is that the work really is an attempt to gloss over the heavy disagreements that existed within early Christianity among its leaders. Luke was a peacemaker who reduced the real tensions that existed to a spat between Paul and Barnabas over Mark—though even here we see the Jerusalem group (Barnabas and Mark) vs. Paul—and presented the early Christian leadership in an idealized manner. In reality it was regularly contentious, like BOE meetings frequently are today and like Ray Franz reports GB meetings often were in his day.

That’s all I have time for, but hopefully there are some things for you to think about here in response to your query.

New here and I'm still learning the ropes, reading various one's posts and so on. I guess I should try my hand at a "Controversial Post" that might rile some readers. That's not really my motive. Rather it is to stimulate some thought. It is certainly not to damage anyone's faith.

On the OP by JWI here (https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/56691-i-am-the-christ/?tab=comments#comment-95352) Space Merchant brought up the matter of JWs being Restorationists. There is much truth to that, whether the org has always wanted to admit it or not. The question to deal with in such a case is how far any group is willing to go in that regard. For example, if a group today really wanted to go full bore in imitating the first Christians, would not those already in authority literally lay their hands upon newly appointed men? That’s what the earliest Christians did.

That's a relatively minor issue, but a larger one is my focus. Let's grant that the brothers today pretty much do try and imitate the first Christians. They have a history, however, of not always wanting to do so. For example, in Ray Franz's first book he relates that when he was working on the Aid book and went to his uncle about what he was discovering regarding how the first Christians governed themselves, he got a response that basically showed Fred Franz knew all along that the way the org had governed itself up to that point was not the way the earliest Christians did. His uncle stated that changes from the way the first Christians did things were acceptable, specifically, "since Christ had taken Kingdom power in 1914, there could rightly be changes in the way things were administered on earth" (CofC pp. 24-5, 1st ed.; p. 28, 4th ed.). This was over the institution of the bodies of elders arrangement, something that, to the org's credit they adopted so as to become more in harmony with the biblical view. It is worthy of note, however, that FF knew the earlier cong. servant system was unbiblical, for years felt that was okay, and only agreed to change it when others put pressure on him to do so.

So what about today? In spite of many criticisms by outsiders and grumpy people who leave for whatever reasons (and a few are surely legit, though most are probably not), the basic structure of a governing committee/board/body is in imitation of the Jerusalem group of original living apostles and other leading figures there. But is everything today like it was in the first century? Did that early GB never openly criticize each other before the flock as today's GB is so careful to avoid doing? The incident at Antioch shows otherwise (Gal. 2:11-14). Here we have one member of the GB, Paul, calling on the carpet quite openly, "before them all," Peter and other GB men from James. Not only did he do this publicly in Antioch but he then sent out a letter to the congregations in Galatia declaring what he did. Furthermore, he did this knowing that copies of that letter would be made and circulated elsewhere.

Just how does the GB's practice of governing God's people today imitate that model? Could you imagine today’s GB imitating the first Christians in this regard? If one tries to make an exception here and say that in this area, it's OK to depart from the biblical model, then is it not hypocritical to criticize other professed Christians for not following the earliest Christians' practice and celebrating holidays like Christmas and Easter, or failing to preach the Kingdom of God as a real government?

That should be something to think about that will qualify as a controversial topic! Remember, please, this is not posted to harm anyone's faith but to cause individuals to think.

I'm glad you found it thought provoking. That was the intent. What I like about a forum such as this is that a person can share the types of things that that have provoked one's own thoughts and then hear whether others have thought about the same, or if others agree or disagree with the thoughts. In the congregational setting, not all thought-provoking thoughts can be shared, or else they must be shared with great care, especially when one considers the counsel of Jesus to avoid stumbling others.
However, in a discussion forum such as this, a sincere person can ask any question, even one that might not have been asked in a congregational setting for fear of stumbling others.
There is nothing new in this topic, of course. Although it's something that's little known among most Witnesses.  The primary source is Watchtower publications, in this case.
So back to the idea of the content and style (or should we say "the object and manner") of the religious movement under Russell's leadership. Yes, one of the points is that Russell would most assuredly have stumbled many persons who tried to follow his leadership if they took him as seriously as he took himself. But, as you say, it also shows, as we often say, that the work he was doing was blessed sometimes in spite of his efforts, rather than just because of his efforts. It's an expression you will still hear among the brothers in modern times, too, referring to how things still often work out for the best in spite of us apparently getting in the way of ourselves. 
The idea that this religious movement could therefore be expected to "falter" and yet greatly succeeded is quite true. Of course, we realistically should also learn from the fact that it really did falter many times, with many great times of stumbling, sifting, false prophetic predictions, even teaching twisted private interpretations as doctrines, etc. Looking at the likely proportion of gains and losses among the brothers is infomative. Barbour and Russell knew that there could easily be as many as 50,000 Second Adventists who could be receptive to Barbour's eschatology. Barbour apparently was building up to a readership aiming at such a number when when his own 1874 "Disappointment" knocked his expectation from near 30,000 back to a readership of less than 5,000. Russell went straight for the 50,000 again when he initially teamed with Barbour in 1877, but another 1878 "Disappointment" put his expectation for his own paper (Zion's Watch Tower) at less than 8,000 when it started in late 1879. Membership built up again slowly, but specific doctrinal challenges evidently produced schisms linked to those doctrines.
For comparison, Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists both came out of the same time period and built from the same "Burnt Over District" milieu as a foundation, and steadily gained converts on par with the Bible Students, and even passing them. Today, there are more active JWs than Mormons. (Mormons count 14.5 million, but only about 30% actively attend meetings.) SDA has grown to at least 25 million, 3 times the size of the Watchtower/Bible_Student/JW movement, perhaps even with a larger number actively attending meetings and joining in church activities. Yet JWs are successful in promoting an even greater level of weekly and monthly congregational and ministerial activity, even with only one-third the members.
Again, I mention all this unnecessary background because I wouldn't start counting the "success" back in Russell's time. The Watchtower often points to 1919 as a truer beginning of our current movement (after Russell died). I would put it just 15 years later, in 1934/5. Since then, the progress has been steady, and the doctrinal changes have been overwhelmingly positive. The movement since about 1934 has very few points of recognizable comparison to the movement under Russell. 
That said, I was not saying that Russell's "I am the Christ" claim, which he would share with others of the "high calling" was even Biblically incorrect. I don't fault it as a crazy doctrine. His basis was rational. It would have been easier for a more hesitant person to be concerned with what others might think of them for making such a claim, but he chose this interpretation over any fear of backlash because he must have thought it was right.
This reminds me of another idea Russell had that we might think is crazy now, but it showed a real faith in the outworking of God's "divine plan." Russell thought that he might be a ghost. That's how outsiders might interpret his idea that it was possible that he might wake up some morning in or after 1881, and actually be a spirit in the way that Jesus showed himself to the disciples after his resurrection, able to eat and drink and even show his old scars.  Russell apparently mused that he might not even know exactly when the "change" from flesh to a spirit creature had happened, if the anointed of the high calling were changed, but did not immediately ascend to heaven. It was a very odd view of how the rapture might work, athough a more traditional view of the rapture had been held in 1878 and 1881, and this expectation was finally put off until 1914 and then 1915.
Others can look at all these and just focus on the apparent "craziness" of it all. But we can also look at it with the idea that Russell must have had a solid, strong faith in the expectation surrounding the "fact" that Jesus really was present in 1874 and ready to act on behalf of the faithful. If he was some kind of charlatan building a religion to gain followers he would not have stuck his neck out. He would have been more concerned with consequences of being wrong. The same could be said for Rutherford's biggest mistake in predicting 1925. He must have had a real and strong faith in this particular interpretation of prophecy.

It is about the IDEA of human governments being placed in their relative positions by God.
Not specific governments.
The alternative is total anarchy, where every man and woman are a law unto themselves ... which is worse than the WORST human governments.
It's free-for-all non stop carnage.
You have to mentally visualize how really terrible anarchy would be on a day to day basis to understand that.

I have downloaded several that I never read. His papers on specific Bible-related chronology issues are interesting but I haven't completed them, and he keeps more papers coming.
A quick word on my own personal bias here. As I told the author: "I am very much aligned with your work on the topic. Naturally there are a few specific things I question, even if I end up with an overall conclusion that is generally like yours."
I think that when I bring up questions, just as I have on several issues coming from the WTS or GB, there are always a few persons who believe this is highly disrespectful, and they make it clear that to question the GB is tantamount to questioning God. Of course, I not only consider it our Christian obligation to question, it also serves the purpose of refining. Even the questioning by various sects helped refine Christian truth according to Paul.
(1 Corinthians 11:19) For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. This fits the idea in Greek that testing is the same as refining.
(1 Peter 1:7) 7 in order that the tested quality of your faith, of much greater value than gold that perishes despite its being tested by fire,. . . The NWT in the footnote here says that "tested" could be translated as "refined."
So I propose we should put any argument through the fire. It's not a sign of disrespect for the author. (Abraham didn't think it was such a bad thing to question God!) It can mean just the opposite, that we are treating someone's words the way we would treat nuggets of newly found gold . . . to refine them and make sure that what holds up is pure. Mostly, however, I think we should question and test and put all ideas through the fire so that we can have a better understanding ourselves, and thus be better prepared to defend what we believe. (1 Peter 3:15)

It just isn't possible to understand the Bible's code of conduct unless you accept it as of divine origin and obligatory. With that as a basis, then personal difficulties with it's requirements remain in that context, as a problem for the individual to resolve, not a problem with the requirement.
It just isn't possible to compromise the Bible's view on specific LBGT behavioural issues, despite the attempts of various religionists. So there will always be conflict between those who reject the Bible standard for sexual behaviour and those who adhere to and promote it. This conflict extends into the legal arena as the conflict has been blended with a human rights issue which basically excludes a consideration of God's will on the matter.
The Bible does not always give the reasons for why a course of conduct is right or wrong in God's eyes. That determination is left to the individual and may either be deduced by logic or by observation, over time. (Why circumcision on the 8th day? Also, see the book "None of These Diseases").
The basic, ubiquitous reason given for keeping God's requirements is the rather generally stated: "That it may go well for you" but this is just not enough of a reason for many. In fact, no reason is sufficient for those who just do not want to live by the Bible's code of conduct. What is most puzzling however is the fact that those who "do not" seek to impose by force an acceptance of that preference on those who "do". This takes the conflict into the thorny area of state control v freedom of religious expression.
Nevertheless, this conflict will continue. The fact remains that Jehovah's Witnesses do not discriminate against those who describe themselves in the terms of the LBGT movement. However they do discriminate, vigorously, against the sexual practices that identify such ones, and that will never change.
There's nothing new about rejection of the standards of the God of the Bible, and there's nothing new about the attempts on one group or another to introduce a reversal of those standards, even to the point of asserting that the practice once abhorred is now promoted by God. It follows the pattern of behaviour prevalent at the time of the prophet Isaiah and expressed at Isaiah 5:20:
"Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!"

Look at the picture in the March 2017 Watchtower (Study Edition). I've attached it below, but the whole article is also here:
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-march-2017/give-honor-to-whom-it-is-due/
Since 1995, all WT references to the "24 elders" have also included an explanation that they represent the full anticipated number of the 144,000 in their heavenly, resurrected to heaven. (Sometimes this is stated as if it means, only the current number of already resurrected members of the 144,000 at any given time, even during the time when a significant portion of them are still on earth.) Although the exact meaning is a bit hard to pin down, sometimes, the WT has even drawn chronological conclusions about the 24 elders as of 1935, for example. But we can get to that later, if anyone is interested. 
For the first time in 20 years, the Watchtower has mentioned the "24 elders" and never specifically said in the article that they represent the 144,000. The article not only mentions them in the text, but shows a picture of them, asks the reader to look at the picture, and also merely combines them with other heavenly creatures (myriads of angels and the 4 living creatures) in a second, less direct reference. It's an unusual amount of attention drawn to the "24 elders" without any reference to their meaning.
This might not mean anything, of course, but this latest WT reference would nearly mark a decade since the Watchtower specifically mentioned the "24 elders" at all! (And the last two mentions about a decade ago were really brought up only because of a convoluted bit of circular reasoning to try to show that the first resurrection most probably started before 1935 because one of these elders in Revelation asked John who the "great crowd" was. This supposedly showed that one of these spirit creatures must have been communicating from beyond the veil with Brother Rutherford, or persons close to him, before 1935.)
*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 11 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
What, then, can we deduce from the fact that one of the 24 elders identifies the great crowd to John? It seems that resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the communicating of divine truths today. Why is that important? Because the correct identity of the great crowd was revealed to God’s anointed servants on earth in 1935. If one of the 24 elders was used to convey that important truth, he would have had to be resurrected to heaven by 1935 at the latest. That would indicate that the first resurrection began sometime between 1914 and 1935.
The idea that Rutherford was communicating with the spirit of someone who had died might feel a bit uncomfortable, and perhaps that is even a factor in a potential change -- if there is a potential change, that is. 
One could also argue from these most recent WT references that there is no change, because the wording is precise enough to allow for the current doctrine to remain. However, it might also have been true in the past that certain doctrines changed because someone asked (or tested out) whether there was a level of concern, or if there had been a lot of questions about it -- especially the questions that come in to the Service Department from Circuit Overseers and elders with reference to disfellowshipping. We have seen, for example, changes to doctrines about blood products in vaccines, organ transplants, [un]acceptable blood fractions, private sexual practices within the confines of marriage, working for a company associated with false religion or a branch of the military, certain types of voting, etc. Many doctrines related to such subjects were stated one way, then dropped from discussion for several years and then sometimes restated in an ambiguous way. The idea might have been to test whether the ambiguous statements resulted in any questions or concerns. If there were no concerns, then the doctrine could be dealt with later. Not all of these were about serious disfellowshipping matters.
I saw this happen with a brother I worked for at Bethel who wanted to "float a trial balloon" about a doctrine he had once championed claiming that the heart was the actual, physical seat of emotion and desire. He said he could try out a talk in Europe where he had served as a Branch Overseer and see if it raised questions over there, and if the concerns seemed important enough to deal with, or if they could be safely ignored. He had an idea about the meaning of "this generation" that he tested out this way on European audiences, too. Brother F.W.Franz was also known for being able to give talks about several subjects in a very ambiguous manner which evidently helped test out their usefulness for a doctrinal article. He did this in talks on "1975," "the Governing Body," and even one in 1978 on the figurative meaning of "fat" and the "liver" when mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures.
So that's the background to this particular conjecture -- and that's all it is, conjecture.
The wording that refers to the "24 elders" strikes me as an interesting, if ambiguous, replacement of the usual description and explanation. Note how the term "exalted creatures" replaces the term "24 elders" below. (I have also attached the scripture reference that wasn't spelled out in the article, although you can click on the link.)
Exalted creatures in the heavenly realm lift their voices in praise to Jehovah, “the One who lives forever and ever.” They declare: “You are worthy, Jehovah our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because  of your will they came into existence and were created.”—Rev. 4:9-11.
(Revelation 4:9-11) 9 Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanksgiving to the One seated on the throne, the One who lives forever and ever, 10 the 24 elders fall down before the One seated on the throne and worship the One who lives forever and ever, and they cast their crowns before the throne, saying: 11 “You are worthy, Jehovah our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they came into existence and were created.”
Do you not feel moved to join with myriads of heavenly creatures in proclaiming: “The Lamb who was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.”—Rev. 5:12.
(Revelation 5:11, 12) 11 And I saw, and I heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, 12 and they were saying with a loud voice: “The Lamb who was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.”
Think of congregation elders, circuit overseers, Branch Committee members, and the members of the Governing Body. Our brothers and sisters in the first century had high regard for those appointed to take the lead, and we feel similarly today. We do not idolize well-known representatives of the Christian congregation or react in their presence as if angels were standing nearby.
---- end of quotes ---
That highlighted phrase about angels might seem very out of place because nothing explains it in the context. It might refer to a paragraph that was edited out of this issue. I'm guessing that it was probably a reference to a point that made it into the previous February 2017 Study edition. The connection is vague because this point is not expanded upon very much in either issue.
 And Jehovah told him: “Lead the people to the place about which I have spoken to you. Look! My angel will go ahead of you.” (Ex. 32:34) The Bible does not report that the Israelites saw a materialized angel perform those duties. However, the way Moses instructed and guided the people made it clear that he had superhuman help. . . .  Nevertheless, despite the imperfections of these men, the Israelites were expected to follow their lead. Jehovah was supporting those men with his superhuman agents. Yes, Jehovah was leading his people.
However, the rejection of the idea that something like "angels" are standing nearby could also come from an idea that has been stated out loud by people who see the GB in person. It's a common phrase heard by visiting tours at Bethel who appreciate the value of the work and say something like "you can just tell that the angels are standing nearby." Even a couple of the JW Broadcasting broadcasts have come very close to presenting phrases like this when a building project, or Bible-printing project is spoken of and the speaker adds, in effect, 'you could just see the hand of Jehovah in all this.' [2015 JWB] Or, 'you just know the angels were looking on in delight.' [2014 convention experience].
It was also a joke about my grandmother's driving. She once made a left turn onto the railroad tracks, and her survival was attributed to the fact that "an angel must be riding alongside her." Another elder answered, "No angel would dare ride along with her, Brother ..."
But there is a slight chance, too, that the omission is purposeful, and is tied to the removal of angelic beings from the picture. The idea that any of the 24 elders were in direct contact with Rutherford, or persons around him in the past, might now be seen as a dangerous teaching. This could be a first step toward removing that picture from our teachings.
 

I am not too comfortable with this idea either, only because of the simple fact that Jehovah gave the Bible to everyone, and he gives holy spirit to anyone asking, so that they can understand the Bible.  From experience I have known spiritually mature brothers and sisters express some ideas which were not at the time "officially" taught, but did become so later on. It seems like they had divine insight? Or was it just that they were very good Bible students and reasoned on things logically? Even ones who had not known what Jehovah's Witnesses taught,  like @Gone Away were able to work some things out that were contrary to popular belief in Christendom. I believe it is the capacity of every good Bible student, whether of the anointed or not, to have insight. The important thing is though to have the wisdom to wait if we have reasoned out something which is not an "official" teaching. Are we going to get upset about the 1% or more that we think is not right, and forget about the bigger percentage that has benefited our lives as one of Jehovah's Witnesses? I have know people who had previously been involved in all kinds of religions who upon reading one of JW publications have declared "this is the Truth". One studious lady (a staunch Catholic) who became a very good friend of mine, even flung the "Truth Book" across the room because she could see that what she read made perfect sense and that what she had previously believed was wrong, and that upset her so much. My own mother in-law, who had always been God fearing, after reading the "Truth Book" , said all those unanswered questions she had were answered, and all the pieces of the puzzle came together. There are many, many more examples I could cite, and I am sure you have read the many experiences of people who have benefited from learning from a small group of anointed Christians who collected their perception of what the Bible "really" teaches into publications, which helped them understand the Bible's message more clearly. I think when we start doubting  the "exclusive group" it is good to focus on the positive things we have gained from our "associating" with them.

This reasoning just hurts to read. Are we supposed to just take their word for it that they have the "correct identity" of the great crowd? Isn't it odd that only an exclusive group have access to this divine insight? Where's the proof?

How many suppositions are made in the WT quote? The org states that they 1. have special anointed ones with access to exclusive info from heaven 2. this info is specifically being imparted by heavenly anointed ones 3. this connection has led to correctly identifying the great crowd.
We're just supposed to "take it at their word" in 3 different ways. That's a lot of faith with no evidence to back it up. How can we know their info is correct? 

1.)  God cannot die.
2.) If Jesus did not actually and really die, his sacrifice was NOT a sacrifice .... merely a REALLY bad weekend.
3.) Therefore, to rational  people ... Jesus CANNOT be God ... or .... if Jesus was God, who CANNOT die .... he did not redeem anybody from anything, as he DID NOT REALLY DIE, then no REAL sacrifice of his life was ever made.
Pick ONE.
You cannot have it BOTH ways.
 
Period.

Yes, I thought something similar. May God help us!!

JWI, you always sorprise me!  I appreciate your wishes to share useful information.
Could not we have something similar? How hard would it be?

I, as a Witness, feel relatively proud of my Bible knowledge. I also appreciate a lot of excellent articles, emotive videos and many other educational materials our people receive from the brothers on charge. The steward class. Also, when I observe some brothers talking in our TV channel I cannot but feel upbuilding.
Well, one of my complaints is to observe that the average JW know perfectly well different passages related to a lot of themes, and that is good! But I find an enormous lack of knowledge of the Bible books content for themselves.
What I mean:  what Galatians book does talk about?
Common answer:
·        The fight of Paul with Peter ·        The works of the flesh and the fruitage of the spirit ·        If a man takes a false step ·        And yes, many other verses But I appreciate if we could, more or less easily, explain the connections between the different parts in Galatians. The reason why Paul wrote in this way. The meaning in context. Also, if Paul tried similar theme (the Law and the faith) in the Romans letter, what are the differences between these two letters?
But sadly, I’ve discover that not only others, I myself have trouble to answer the questions above. Why  if I’ve spent all my life attending meetings, studying, preaching, directing Bible studies?
In my opinion, perhaps wrong opinion:
·        Our literature (now I will show the exceptions) have focus in Bible themes and its application, not Bible books and its content. ·        The explanation of Bible passages is spread all over decades ·        It is quite rare to find the explanation of the context in any given text used in our publications. Only the use the writer wants to make of it is explained. ·        A lot of passages are without any comment Exceptions
Prophetic Books:
·        Isaiah ·        Daniel ·        Ezekiel ·        Revelation But, all these, full of types-antitypes old-aged stuff.
Poetic books:
·        Some Psalms series ·        Some Proverbs series ·        Ecclesiastes Spread in a lot of years
Historic books:
·        The Gospels ·        Acts Pastoral letters
·        John letters (too short articles in magazines) ·        James (the best one!) ·        Peter letters What I mean with this: I’m missing some kind of Bible Encyclopedia edited by JW. In this way, when I consult other sources,I must continuously discard false teachings trying to find the explanations of the Bible Books contents.
What do you think?
 

I don't think anyone can work on that kind of contextual commentary and continue to believe in the kinds of numerology and non-sense (in my opinion) required to uphold our specific eschatological beliefs. Therefore, anyone who is put on such an assignment is likely going to be fired as soon as they touch the book of Daniel or anything Jesus, Paul or Peter said about the Parousia.
There were hopes that, after Fred Franz died, the "type-antitype" calculus would disappear, and after Franz died, Brother Schroeder stuck his neck out and pushed for its disappearance calling it presumptuous. (He had also been on the very opposite end of this controversy for many years, and was behind the pushing out of all the brothers who worked on the Aid Book.) If you listen to the 2014 Gilead talk by Brother Splane you will notice that he quotes Brother Schroeder as a primary source explaining why and how we no longer rely on type-antitype explanations from parables and Bible narratives that are not already explicitly explained this way in other parts of the Bible. (With the exception that we still need the one making the faithful and discreet slave a "type" representing the Governing Body, and Daniel 4 where Neb is a type representing the Messianic kingdom, of course.). Schroeder had long been dead, when Brother Splane quotes him. Of course, the brothers who worked on the Aid Book had already dropped that kind of presumptuous thinking by the time the Aid Book was published in 1971.
Even in the 1990's and 2000's two brothers with the apparent qualifications to work on such a project were kicked out of Bethel very quickly after they started in Writing. I didn't know these brothers, however, and can't vouch for the Bethel stories surrounding them.

For myself, I have a few litmus tests for the accuracy and honesty of a Bible commentary. These are much like the way most of us will immediately check John 1:1 when we find a new Bible translation.
I have found a commentary that I have only read so far with reference to two short Bible books. It appears to have been written by one or more JWs or ex-JWs. It is referenced as a "site of interest" from a site which is usually critical of JW.org. I am guessing that it was written by one of the brothers (might be an ex-brother) who worked on both the Aid/Insight book and very similar commentary-type material at Bethel and who was working on exactly the kind of Bible commentary for the Society that you speak about.
The site I found it from says it was by "brothers" (plural) but the site itself mentions only one brother on the home page, and elsewhere refers to himself in the singular:
These renderings of Hebrew and Greek and Bible translations in other languages into English serve mainly for comparison purposes. In no way are my efforts intended to slight or detract from the conscientious labors of other translators and writers whose abilities and understanding of the ancient languages are far superior to mine. I know of only two brothers who left Bethel from Writing after completing their work on the Aid Book and Bible commentaries who were kicked out for not believing in 1914, but who were not disfellowshipped. (in other words, not R.Franz or E.Dunlap) Only one of them, I think, had the ability and head-start to have been able to accomplish this kind of commentary. After he was kicked out of Bethel, he was still given a special pioneer stipend and was still asked by Brother Lyman Swingle (definitely) and then Lloyd Barry (possibly) to continue working on research and projects for the Writing Department over the next several years. His best friend at Bethel, who also worked on the Aid book and commentary material had an excellent grasp of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac. They made a great collaboration team at Bethel, but I have no idea if they are both still working together. I think the latter was either disfellowshipped or faded away.
I was in contact with the person who I think wrote this commentary for several years after he left Bethel, but he has either moved to another country or has decided to fade into anonymity. He has left no information about himself or his whereabouts on the Internet or any social media as far as I can see.
The site itself has "awful" navigation. If you go to the Home page: https://wernerbiblecommentary.org/?q= you can't even tell it's a Bible commentary. But if you click on the links to Jeremiah, for example, under What's New, then you will also see links to these 40+ Bible books. So far I can only recommend the ones I have read, but at least the style will be familiar to you, and you won't have to filter out the references to hell, Gehenna, Trinity, soul, spirit, etc., as you read. I think he did an excellent job on the parts of Romans I have read, and I will read Galatians next.
Bible Commentaries
Job Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Solomon Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Commentary on Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi Acts Comments on Romans Comments on 1 and 2 Corinthians Galatians Comments on Ephesians Comments on Philippians Comments on Colossians Comments on the letters to the Thessalonians Comments on the letters to Timothy and Titus Comments on the letter to Philemon Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude

I have a subscription to newspapers.com and just decided to do a quick search on Presbyterian church child sexual abuse. But even without a subscription you can do this search and at least see that the newspapers in their library produce this result:
View all 112,267 matches for Presbyterian Sexual Abuse I did the exact same search on Jehovah's Witnesses Sexual Abuse and got this:
View all 3,787 matches for Jehovah's Witnesses Sexual Abuse Per Google there are now about the same number of Jehovah's Witnesses in the USA as Presbyterians: 1,415,053 active members (2017) -- Presbyterian Church (compared with about 1,200,000 Jehovah's Witnesses).
But I also found this relevant write-up from a Google Search on the same:
https://religionnews.com/2014/06/20/denomination-confronts-child-sexual-abuse-positive-step-forward/
I'm reposting larger than usual excerpts from that article below about a Presbyterian acknowledgment, process and procedure to deal with child sexual abuse, apparently from about 2013 or 2014:
There are some days when I am thrilled to report positive developments within the Protestant world about the slow but steady shift taking place on issues relating to child sexual abuse.  Just a few years ago, there was very little private or public discourse within most Protestant circles about abuse within the Church. Besides the ignored cries of survivors and a few advocates, public acknowledgment and dialogue on this subject was off limits.  As a result, children continued to be at risk in our churches and survivors continued to be silenced through blame and false pity. In the past year, I have encountered more and more folks who are beginning to realize that the Church has been largely silent — and this silence has had excruciatingly dark and grave consequences for countless individuals and for the very soul of the Church.  Through some amazing (and many very painful) set of circumstances, I believe a growing number within the Protestant community are finally beginning to realize that there is an epidemic of child sexual abuse within the Church and that silence and inaction are unacceptable. . . .
This acknowledgment was demonstrated this past week when the entire General Assembly (annual meeting of pastors) of the theologically conservative Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) unanimously and publicly adopted Overture 6 – perhaps the most robust statement on child protection adopted by any Christian denomination.  . . . This statement doesn’t pull any punches.  Not only does it acknowledge that child sexual abuse is an epidemic in our culture, it concludes that the silence of the church renders it complicit before God.  It urges all church leaders to use their influence to protect children, including preaching and teaching against child sexual abuse and exposing those who abuse.  It is also significant that this resolution implores the church to compassionately support survivors. Perhaps the most important and unique aspect of this adopted resolution is its call for action. It directs the various departments of the denomination to review their policies and practices related to the protection of children and the response to abuse disclosures.  They are also directed to develop future plans on how to help educate the denomination on issues related to child sexual abuse.  In order to prevent these denomination transforming tasks from disappearing into oblivion, this resolution requires a full report at next year’s meeting. Don’t get me wrong, we still have a very long way to go in the Christian world when it comes to protecting the vulnerable and embracing the hurting.  I was reminded of this when I read the results of a newly released survey that found 74% of faith leaders underestimate the level of sexual and domestic violence experienced within their congregations.  . . .  This same Christian organization hired a friend of the leader to conduct a “thorough review process” of the abuse allegations and concluded that God still desires to use this individual “for His work in the Kingdom of God.”

This might be partially true, but I have not seen the evidence that there is a direct link between JW investigations and the linking of child abuse with Witnesses. We now have a couple sources of some data that goes back quite a ways and lets us know the number of cases that were investigated each year as a percentage of the population of JWs in a particular place where the data comes from. Even though the data sometimes goes back several decades, I see a very sparse number of cases from the earliest decades, and they often don't show up at all unless it was part of an ongoing series of accusations for a person who shows up as still having accusations from more recent decades.
If the JWs had been investigating child abuse, and had rooted out two or three persons per decade from every congregation in the world, the total numbers would appear astronomical to those who merely want to spin an idea based on embarrassing numbers. (As the number of congregations rose, so would the total numbers rise proportionally in more recent decades.) Yet, the numbers themselves would be easy to explain in these terms. From the perspective of the investigations, the complaint is not the number itself, or even the proportion of accusations as compared with say Catholics (or colleges, or Olympic trainers, or ballet schools, or the Boy Scouts of America, etc.)
The focus of outsiders has almost always included a need to investigate the process of our investigations. Our process produces questions that make outsiders cringe. How was it that in Australia the number of cases of sexual abuse that the Watchtower had admitted were on the order of "thousands" and the number that ended up being reported to the police were on the order of "zero"? How was it that persons in positions of authority had sometimes been given a pass to work with children again, and even had multiple accusations of child sexual abuse on their record? How was it that "the two-witness rule" could sometimes result in children being told that they cannot ever mention the fact that their abuser had abused them without the threat that children themselves could be accused of slander? How was it that in at least one case the accused sexual abuser who would later admit that he had threatened further harm to the child if the child turned him in, was still told that they had to meet face-to-face with such an accuser? And even when they did, the child was told that practically nothing could be done against the abuser, even when the elders on the judicial committee believed the child?
I think you will find that these questions, in their own way, come up in many non-JW cases, too. But we have a "process" that sometimes has "demanded" (in effect) that a JW investigation will turn out this way.
We are definitely not the only ones with the problem of trying to save the reputation of an organization and, because of that, forgetting about fighting for justice with respect to our "orphans." That is a subtext of many of these crimes in many different types of organizations. When it appears to an elder on a committee that we have an opportunity to either protect Jehovah's name or allow it to be sullied if the case were to make it to the police (or press) then this tendency will easily translate into protecting the accused, instead of protecting the victim. We may even have a greater tendency toward making this mistake because we think the stakes are so much higher in protecting Jehovah's name, than those on the outside who are trying to protect, for example, the reputation of a teacher in a school.  

This is an interesting concept and has a bit more to it than it's context.
For the congregation, in the absence of an alternative, there is a 2 witness rule. Now the debate about what does or should constitute the 2 witnesses is being tested elsewhere.
But what is it to accomplish? That one judged as guilty as charged and unrepentant is excluded from the congregation. Pretty pathetic sanction when compared with the gravity of the crime wouldn't you say? Aw, the poor little molester's relatives won't talk to him no more What a shame.....not.
There are probably other crimes that could be similarly characterised. The congregation today only has a spiritual role and the sanctions against crime can only be handled in that context. Isn't that why Romans 13:4 says current secular governments serve as "God's minister", and "it is not without purpose that it bears the sword"?
There is no need for 2 witnesses to report an allegation of child abuse to the secular authorities, although the inconsistencies of requirements and conflicting legislation make it very prudent for legally-inexperienced congregation elders to seek legal advice in carrying out this action where it is not specifically mandated.
The congregation is simply neither authorised nor equipped to carry out the kind of investigation and victim support needed, or to try, and if found guilty, impose sanctions that God's secular minister has within their remit  at this time. And if God's secular minister finds such a perpetrator guilty of a crime of this nature, then we can trust that the finding is sufficient once the appeal process has been exhausted. The perpetrator, if found guilty, has carried out a henious crime and will likely find that the hands of Caesar are a lot rougher in the short term than the hands of Jehovah via the current congregational structure, to which stoning is no longer an option.
So it will always be true that Theocratically, we can trust that Jehovah's current arrangement, which allows for the secular authorities to execute judicial decisions, is always going to be better than our own. And, thankfully, they answer to him, not us, as how they are discharging their responsibility.

I am not sure where Brother Lett is Witnessing..........but, I did notice, no ties...........I like that idea........especially if one is witnessing in temperatures of 350C to 400C+ .............many days in summer, that's what sort of temperatures we have to work in..........WITH ties...........not funny especilly when it is high humidity as well !!!!