Thinking

From '66 WT: (Just to throw something else into the mix as to the original post)
"Questions From Readers
● At times there are changes in viewpoint on Biblical subjects discussed in the Watch Tower Society’s publications. We speak of what we believe as “the truth.” But does “truth” change?—W. P., U.S.A.
Really it is the Bible that speaks of beliefs that are in harmony with the Scriptures as “the truth.” At 2 Peter 2:2 the worship based on such beliefs is termed “the way of the truth.” Yet concerning that “way of the truth” we read at Proverbs 4:18: “The path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established.” So we do not know all there is to know. In fact, even when the post-Armageddon system of things is ushered in we will not know everything. Throughout all eternity there will always be more to learn. This is indicated by what the apostle Paul wrote in Romans 11:33: “O the depth of God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How unsearchable his judgments are and past tracing out his ways are!”
It is to be expected, then, that at times there may be changes in viewpoint. Our basic belief may be sound Scriptural truth, but there may be some details that we did not fully understand in the past. In time, with the aid of Jehovah’s spirit, we get those matters cleared up.
For example, a few years ago we had a fine series of articles in The Watchtower on the “superior authorities.” (Issues of November 1–December 1, 1962) Before those articles were published, we knew and taught that Jehovah is the Most High, and that Jesus Christ is the second to Him in power and authority. We knew that we should be law-abiding persons, but that, when there was a conflict between man’s law and that of God, we would obey God as ruler rather than men. Those basic truths are the same today as they were before; they have not changed. However, by careful scrutiny of the Scriptures we have come to appreciate that certain Bible texts ought to be applied in a different way. For example, we realized that the “superior authorities” mentioned in Romans 13:1 are, not Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, but the political rulers. That is also true of Titus 3:1 and; 1 Peter 2:13, 14. Yet the basic truth is unchanged. Our viewpoint toward God and toward the State is the same as before.
Similarly with our study of the resurrection. We believed in the resurrection of the dead before our recent series of Watchtower articles (issues of January 15–March 15, 1965) on the subject and we believe in it now. We also believed that 144,000 would be raised to heavenly life with Christ. We believed that many more would be resurrected as humans; that some of them would be persons who had faithfully served God in the past, and that others would be those who had lived ‘unrighteously.’ We also believed that a great educational work would take place when they would be raised. Those truths have not changed. But now we see that, according to the Scriptures, more are to return than we expected. So, rather than setting aside the truth of the resurrection, it has been magnified, and our appreciation of Jehovah’s love and mercy in providing for the resurrection has been enhanced.
This is in direct contrast to what occurred among certain men of whom the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, as recorded at 2 Timothy 2:18: “These very men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some.” Those men no longer had any hope in the resurrection; they believed that what was in the past was all there was to it. But they were setting aside the truth that Jesus had taught. Likewise in Christendom there have been changes in viewpoint; but they are rejecting the Bible as myth and setting aside its moral code as out-of-date.
What a tremendous difference between what is taking place among them and what Jehovah is doing for his people in order to bring our thinking even more closely in line with his inspired Word of truth!"
As stated above: "Our basic belief may be sound Scriptural truth, but there may be some details that we did not fully understand in the past. In time, with the aid of Jehovah’s spirit, we get those matters cleared up."
I'm hoping we get more away from claiming some human ideas/dates (that go beyond the things written), as divine revelations/new light from God. I believe we are getting there, which is a far cry from what established Christendom  accepts: i.e.. thinking in war God blesses one side over the other of nations in Satan's system; that God has people tortured for all eternity in a fiery hell; there is no real need of a resurrection since all humans have an immortal soul that automatically goes to heaven of Hell when they die; Trinity...and on it goes. Nor do JW's claim infallibility as hundreds of millions believe of the Pope and similar views (although not official) to protestant leaders as well. Yes, I do believe we have a lot to work on, but I don't see any other religions offered on this site by the "nay-sayers" as a better alternative. And even if they don't believe other religions have the truth either, having their own viewpoints, they might as well be a religion unto themselves - an army of one - since even among themselves they don't see eye-to-eye on everything either. That doesn't mean I believe that means we need to believe we are correct on everything we currently believe. As stated in the article quoted above, we should accept there will be clarifications and changes in understanding - in some ways our understanding is fluid and that's a good thing, (despite how some people view it.) That is a huge difference from believing blatantly unscriptural doctrines from apostate Christianity - some of which we at one time accepted ourselves organizationally. I know some people would be highly agitated if some "sacred cow" date/idea turned out not to be so sacred. But remember, we didn't dedicate ourselves to a date and while we respect the imperfect, uninspired "channel" we accept guidance from today, we don't and shouldn't worship an organization any more than the Israelites were to worship Moses and Aaron. We worship the creator, not the creation. 
 

"We "MUST" obey God as ruler rather than man." To me, Jesus' words here sound like more than just a general "standpoint" (or point of view by definition) that can change depending on the opinion/situation of the observer. I don't want to get into an endless semantic debate of what "standpoint" means to you or to me, since I may be misunderstanding your line of reasoning here. (I am assuming English is not your first language and so while you may have what you are thinking clear in your mind, it may be that articulating those thoughts may lose something in translation. It also may be that I am too slow to pick up on what your are trying to say at times - sorry )  I think of Jesus' statement here similarly to his statement at Matthew 22:21: "Pay back, therefore, Caesar's things to caesar, but God's things to God." To me that was a clear command/directive that was to be in place at all times - more so, especially as long as Satan's systems is in place, along with the proviso of "relative" obedience as quoted above of "obeying God as Ruler rather than man." If, you prefer to think of both of these statements in terms of a principle, I would agree with you there as well.  
 
Fair enough if you prefer to view it that way. But this, as well as other examples, show that what has sometimes been viewed as "new light" has not proven true at all. I can't speak for anyone else, but I do not feel mindless unquestioning obedience or acceptance of ongoing teachings is a mark of loyalty to God. It is a mark of loyalty to an imperfect uninspired organization. Still, I haven't come across any organization (religious or otherwise) that has MORE going for it. I believe there are many strong positives that set us apart - not perfect and lots of room for improvement, but I expect that will come - if gradually. After all, it has taken thousands of years to shed the blatantly false and God-dishounoring doctrines of nominal Christianity. If you feel your religion is better, let's hear about it and then we can scrutinize your beliefs as well - (instead of constantly sniping at us from the safety of a remote computer terminal with nothing positive to say.) 

People take their self-righteousness so seriously!  ....or is it virtue signalling. ... showing off their purity.  
I have had people half-naked open the door on me... women and men.  I just give them a brochure (i always gave one ready  in my hand) ; try to focus on the face and not the dangling bits or underwear;  and move on. 
I got a very good return visit once by keeping my cool on a Palestinian woman who opened a door in her bra and panty.  She was a big woman.  That was really unexpected because they usually make sure they have on a hijab before opening a door!   
I do take it seriously though when someone threatens my life!  That is serious stuff.  Offensive appearance... I keep my cool and do not feel offended too quickly. Values differ.
In Sweden individuals will get totally naked and jump in water or the sea.  Their clothing is exceptionally tight and revealing. 
What will you poor people do if they put you in prison and take all your clothes off to shame you?  It is a possibility you know!  Hitler, from a most cultured civilization, did that to his prisoners. It is a well-known KGB etc. tactic to break people's morale and dignity. 
I come from Africa.  I have seen dangling bits in public since a child, even murder.  So when westerners,  who live cushioned lives and live in a world of unreality (because they have never really seen shocking poverty or absolute lawlessness)  get all superfine-apostle on me ....  I shrug it off.  Who will have the bigger shock when Armageddon arrives and there is no law and order..... I wonder.... 

That's why when I go to our weekend meetings at the Kingdom Hall, I get there early to anonymously offer my entire paycheck, converted to cash, to the "Worldwide Work".
I toss it up in the air, and all that God needs, he takes.  What falls back to the parking lot, I use for MY local needs.

The reason the "beard issue " always comes up, and has been for the past 60 years, is that it is THE CLASSIC EXAMPLE of "going beyond the things that are written', as the Pharisees did with their unscriptural and arbitrary rules.
Of the 17 times I have been in the "little back room", "room 101", 13 have been to try and convince me to shave off my beard. 
Because it was wrong to even ask me, I never did, for them.
Eventually I shaved it off because my dying Father asked me to.  HE had the right to ask me to do that.
I strongly suspect that if the GB and Elders could vote ... they would ALL vote Democrat.

Yes, @Anna, it's possible but the compatibility issues  usually affect the platform, the software, not the data, in this case the publications. If a matter of compatibility affects, let's say, the Watchtowers of the Library, ALL of them should be updated, not just a specific Watchtower.
Well, it is not a matter of life or death. I guess they are often minor problems
 
Frankly, I have not seen too much the problem of pride in the pionering. The vast majority of pioners do it (we have done it) as a show of devotion and a sort of help to give one hundred percent. So far so good.

BUT ... remember that although we have incorporated the example of the Nazarites as a "type" of the pioners , in the Christian era we did not find any example that there was anything similar: commit to preach x monthly hours.

And, the real problem that I have seen is something surreptitious, unconscious and unwavering that has happened to many pioners: that we do not balance our own spirituality, our family, the congregation, rest and other important matters for an obligation, NOT BEFORE JEHOVAH , but before a commitment to the organization. The only commitment to Jehovah has always been and will be to serve him to the fullest.

Then, when one begins to realize that something is not going well, or to increase his stress, it turns out that many feelings of guilt arise from abandoning that service, or the wiser decission is postponed . Anyway, it's what I see
 
oh dear Anna, YES there is regulation:
Of course, there are many countries where this will be different. I have only preached in the Dominican R., New York (Spanish territory) and in Spain. But in all these places the congregation has (logically) assigned a territory. As you know, this is divided the parts that give us in the meetings. And we are encouraged to COVER ALL BUILDINGS in that territory. If territories remain uncovered when you visit CO, we already have a problem.
Regarding Bethel externalization. Yes, slower than I would like
 
Yes, but there is no world policy, based on the Scriptures, that impels us to extend this service everywhere. Here in Spain I know lifelong servants who at the time of old age  the non-believing family have take the control, preventing them from going to any meetings, or the Memorial. Others have their own means and defend themselves, but we would have to worry as an Organization and not leave the matter in the hands of the local congregation.
Anna, I very much appreciate your weighted opinions
 

Thank you for your expressions. I wanted to respond a little sooner than this but I ran out of time. Here are my thoughts on some of the things you mention. Just my two cents 😀.
I used to think the same way, but just because it says update, doesn't mean the actual content is changed (like different wording of a scripture for example) but it is more to do with technical updates to make things compatible with constant changes and updates in the way  various operating systems work, similar to windows system, Firefox etc.  It is normal for any websites to do that. If there are any doctrinal or organizational changes, then we are usually made aware of them in a WT study.
That would be a cool thing for those who like to dig deep.I noticed sometimes there are references to further reading, but not often.
I don't know, but perhaps because everything is being simplified, sort of like we've already researched all the subjects, so no need to keep bringing it up, time to move on kind of thing.  The publications with all those references are still available for anyone to read and research though.
I understand some of the things you are saying regarding this subject. I especially agree with your last two points. I suppose striving for hours is an incentive some people need. It would be great if the friends would put in pioneer hours without actually pioneering. But we mustn't forget that if a publisher signs up to be a pioneer, then they know what they are doing, they know they are committing themselves to a certain promise. The problem is why are they doing it. Is it because they need an incentive,  or is it because they like the title?
If I am not mistaken, there is no specific regulation which says you can't do those things you have described. For example when going door to door in a remote village in one Easter European country, the brothers do not wear a tie because the locals would get confused and suspicious, and not be open to discussions.  It is always a good idea to adapt our preaching according to local circumstances. We should never be stuck on just one way. With the counting...I read somewhere that JWs keep the best and most reliable records. If there is any kind of worldly survey carried out, for example with regard to the numbers (members) of a particular religion, they always seem to trust the JW numbers the most.
Haha, that would be funny. I don't think that will ever happen because it's too judgmental. But I understand your point!
 
I think it's obvious that the reaction to a new Bible would be very positive. Therefor I don't think this was so much a request for information, but a confirmation of a "work well done". However the questions you propose, are on a different level and would require an awful lot of work sifting through the submissions. But I agree. I think JW Insider mentioned something about a "suggestion box" option on our website. Or even a "ask questions" box. I think both would be a very good idea. At the moment as you say, it is left up to the CO's to give some kind of report. But the thing is, many friends do not like to bring an issue up which they think might be viewed controversial or even rebellious. I know I don't. But if these comments could be made anonymously on the website, then I am sure the organization would get a much better idea of the state of the congregations and friends. The problem is some kind of mechanism would have to be put into effect that prevented just ANYONE from commenting. That way people who were merely trouble makers (opposers etc.) wouldn't clog up the whole site, or give the wrong impression that the friends were having these problems, whereas it would really be ex- witnesses.
To be honest we don't have that problem in my congregation. There are many excellent auxiliary answers given. I suppose it depends on the congregation. Although we are all united, each congregation has its unique style/character. That's why you get some people "shopping" for a congregation they like, if they are not happy in the one they are at. 
I agree completely! I always go to sleep when they do that. I don't see the point.
I think that this is already going on to a certain point isn't it?
Also I know that things have been simplified where there are no longer room cleaners, each person must clean their own room for example.
I think something like that exists in the USA.  https://jjha.community/about/
But I don't think it is organized by the society.
Yes. Don't you just love it when an older single brother with no children tries to give you counsel about yours?
Oh yes, the notorious beard issue! 🐵 A few weeks ago, in my mum's congregation, a young ministerial servant decided to grow a beard. My mum told me that the elders told him that if he wants to keep on carrying the mikes he will have to shave the beard off.  This is in a country where beards are socially acceptable, and in some congregations there are elders with beards. Not many, but I know one personally. I told my mum that usually it is up to the body of elders to decide because they should know the territory well and know whether it would offend an outsider or not.  She then told me that 1. my dad (an elder) wasn't told about it, and 2. there is absolutely no aversion to beards by the public as many people wear one. I asked her if this young brother was a "rebellious" type. She said not at all. Logically, he must have been qualified in order to become a min. servant. So as you can see, there is already a problem because certain elders have taken it upon themselves to decide on the matter without consulting the whole body. Who knows, these elders may not like beards, so it becomes personal, rather than theocratic. They have the Co's visit right now, so she told me she would let me know what happens. The other thing is, which I find odd, is that apparently if he shaves it off, they won't address the issue (!) I feel like telling the brother, don't shave it off, because this issue needs to be handled properly first. And once it's handled properly, and they still ask him to shave it off, then that is a different matter.
As regards the photos, yes, I agree, on the one hand we are told in the WT that beards are ok in some cultures, but then on the other hand shaving a beard off is used as an example of spiritual progress. It confuses people.
(P.S. Quite a large number of elders I know grow a beard while on vacation, and don't mind posting pictures on Instagram or FB, so they are not hiding it, but then once they go back to the meeting they shave it off).
I will comment on the doctrinal part  next time. (when I have more time).

As we're approaching to our Annual meeting, here it goes my list of wishes! Perhaps there is a chance some of them could be announced:
KNOW THE REASON FOR UPDATES IN PUBLICATIONS
When a new update is available in JW Library, I download it without knowing the reasons for it: we do not know if it is a small editing error, a significant improvement in translation, a more serious adjustment ... Anyway, I would love be informed of the reasons, especially when sometimes the Bible itself is updated. Perhaps I have used outdated information inadvertently and it would be nice to know that there has been an improvement!
WATCHTOWER WITH APPENDIX
Our study articles are nice, no doubt. However, in order not to make them excessively extensive for their study in the congregation, they lacked extension in some ideas. Perhaps in the form of an appendix that can be read by anyone who wishes delve into some subject
LITERATURE WITH REFERENCES
Years ago it was common to find in our publications references to McClintock, Vine, Barclay and others. Now this has almost completely disappeared. Why? So we don't waste time reading them? Not to be confused by reading different approaches? If it has been useful for decades, I don't see why we don't have those references again.
DISCONTINUE THE PIONERING(AUXILIARY-REGULAR)
I know, it sounds blasphemy. But given the advantages that someone could exhibit, I have seen in others and in myself these "collateral damage", nothing insignificant:
Preach not for love of God or neighbor, but for hours Feeling bad conscience about having to leave the pioner service to attend family, health or the congregation Feelings of superiority  And then, who would attend pioner meetings with C.O.? everybody who wishes! DO NOT REPORT THE PREDICATION
I mean in the current format "so many hours, books, etc." Was it reported that way in the first century? Don't we intend to imitate the primitive congregation to the fullest?
Reporting involves the following:
The elders falsely believe we know the "flock" for knowing the card The actual effort of the low quatitu of hours  is not included in the card, but you have to sacrifice a lot to do it There are brothers who feel ashamed for informing / preaching little and have to report it There are elders who only call publishers to ask for the monthly report The C.O. gets an idea of the state of a congregation by looking at some forms, that can be equivocal REFORM THE PREACHING FROM HOME TO HOME
In many countries (especially Europeans) the challenge of entering residential buildings to preach is enormous. People (myself) do not want strangers to enter buildings, not for religious indifference, but for safety and comfort. When someone manages to "sneak in", whether they sell gas, electricity, insurance ... or religion, the reaction is very negative about the product they intend to sell, for not respecting the privacy and security of the building. Solution? Nothing easy, but go through, in my opinion:
Abandon the idea of preaching entering buildings in many locations That must be determined locally: in the same city or congregation there are buildings where that would not be a problem, but in others yes Stop counting how many times a territory is made as a way to find out the intensity of the preaching of the congregation Stop preaching with a tie and suit (TJ uniform) but sit in the parks, or visit the malls, or a thousand different ways, and then take advantage to make conversations arise REPORT ON THE QUALITY OF THE SPEAKERS
Many are invited on the basis of their friendship with whom they invite, or because they appear on the list of speakers. If each congregation had a simple way to survey the speaker:  did you like Sunday's talk YES / NO? the people in charge of inviting would see that some better not to come much, and vice versa
INFORM ABOUT C.O.'s
Many of these brothers are a gift. Others are simply a test for everyone. I have personally met destructive travelers. It is very difficult to help, change or remove them from that job. Many years ago, in the annual report that each congregation sent to the headquartes, one question was, more or less, "Were the c.o.' visits upbuilding?" Of course, if a congregation says that it is very bad but 19 very good, it is known that they are prejudiced in that congregation. But if in 19 congregations the report is unfavorable and only one speaks well ... something should be done.
MECHANISM OF COMPLAINTS
Do I have a way to express my complaint about something that works badly, as the widows in first century? Yes, I will be told: you tell the elders, then the traveler. Of course, but if they tell me that I have to wait, that nothing else can be done, could I not write to the headquartes, even to NY? Well, I've already done it, and the answers that have come to me have been stereotyped.

It is very difficult for negative situations to escalate. There is a protection mechanism. If I express myself openly, it is interpreted as a lack of appreciation, of faith, of collaborative spirit. I know that is so. However, when you want to know the opinion - POSITIVE - of something mechanisms are established, for example:

On the occasion of the recent presentation of the Bible in Spanish, the c.o. sent us a request for reactions from the brothers to the presentation, yes, all positive: that we say what the brothers thought of the new translation, how they received it at the assembly , and so on.
Well, I would like you to ask me things like:
Do you think it is good that the branch of Spain spends a lot of money in reforming some huge buildings for the real use that will be given to them? Have you felt encouraged by this or that article? Why yes, why not? Etc THE QUALITY OF THE ANSWERS AT THE MEETINGS
In my area it is frowned upon to make a public declaration of faith, to express personal feelings. It breaks the scheme of the meeting, in fact, there is no time. The brothers are used to underline and respond. When the watchtower's question is personal: "What do you think about ...?" nobody raises their hand, or we respond by reading
WATCHTOWER WITH PREAMBLE AND CONCLUSION
99% of the Watchtower overseers I have seen in my life waste their time in introductory paragraphs during meetings. Then you have to go fast in the key paragraphs. Why not place an introduction that is not read, and a conclusion that is not read? 
SOME ROTATING POSITIONS
I understand that if there are 10 elders in a congregation, not everyone is qualified to be a coordinator, for example. But maybe 3 or 4 yes. I would like those 3 or 4 to rotate the position annually, to avoid "love of the chair"
REFORMULATE THE ANNUAL ASSEMBLIES
Many of us remember the assemblies of years ago. They were long, very long. Extensive speeches Many times in full sun, and we were expected to take notes as not to be distracted. Now however there has been an impressive improvement. However, I sincerely believe that many would benefit more if a national assembly was broadcasted by streaming to the entire country, and that most brothers saw it in the Kingdom and assembly halls. What would be achieved?
Savings for siblings who go through hardships to get to the city of assembly and pay for accommodation Central Savings Avoid the sacrifice of early wake ups, fix the children, travel from the hotel to the place of assembly Improvement in concentration. With a few hours of sleep you can't concentrate And the joy of crowded crowds? That is why there would be a few assemblies nationwide, in rotating cities, upon invitation.
EXTERNALIZE BETEL
That they print commercial companies, that the size of Bethel be reduced to the minimum expression. Let the bulk of the work be done by commuters, whenever possible
RESIDENCES OF ELDERLY
Many brothers who have spent their entire lives for the work, as adults, find themselves dependent on the goodwill of friends or a congregation that wants to support them. Bethel is not the place for elderly people. Places could be set up to care for these brothers with dignity and without having to beg for help
SUPERVISION OF THE WORK BY "NORMAL" PEOPLE
Well, I explain myself. What effect does it have on someone who lives, eats, sleeps, works in a secluded place? That he doesn't need to work secularly, or fight to support the family, who are never denied permission to go to meetings, or go to the assembly ... and surrounded by people with the same situation.
What I have seen is that there is a perverse effect. These excellent brothers year after year, decade after decade of living a different life to the rest of humanity and brotherhood have a distorted view of things and brothers. Not always, of course, but many times yes.

I would like that especially the brothers who have to supervise the spiritual activity of others, have secular work, like any other brother. And in the afternoon, instead of the pionering, they could take care of the spiritual needs of others.
By the way, didn't Paul do that, work secularly?
THE BEARD
Yes, wearing a beard. In our publications only men who are not witnesses wear beards. When they are baptized they have always shaved it. Who decides these photos, how do you think they give freedom of choice worldwide? In theory you can wear a beard, but in reality it is badly seen in many places especially for videos and photographs in our publications. Let photos of JW's with beards come out, now!
DOCTRINAL
1914, PARUSIA
@JW Insider has explained it masterfully on so many occasions. Our 1914 doctrine simply does not hold. The parusia of Christ is his return, it is comparable to his coming. It has not yet occurred
PROXIMITY OF THE END
Of course we are near the end! Not since 1914, but since 33 CE. Since Christ left and said he would come unexpectedly, like a thief. That exactly teaches the Bible
DISFELLOWSHIPPING
Others, and myself, have bitterly written that our position is the strictest and most pharisaic interpretation of all possible approaches to expulsion. Especially when it has to do with relatives.
PHARISEISM
With sadness I perceive that, at the organizational level, we're becoming Christian Pharisees. We have been told that we should avoid that attitude, but the importance given to the dress, the beard, the belief that we are better than others, the ambition of the top positions... How I would like these attitudes to be eradicated at the root
SEXUAL RELATIONS
Clearly state that what the marriage decides to do in their room is only for both of them
HUMILITY
How much I would like that instead of exposing new approaches as the last truth, it will be explained that it is the most plausible, but not infallible, explanation. And that with time and study, a different one may look better.
 
There are more, but I better leave it here
 
 
 

So the world is exploding in protest right now...
We now have concurrently....
Barcelona 2019 Protests
Lebanon 2019 Protests
Ecuador
France - firefighters vs. Police?
Hong Kong
 
Have I missed anything?
It seems like technology though is helping the Carrie Lam's of the world stay in power and control the populist uprisings.
Oops.... and Jane Fonda had to get in on the action:
 

Ya never heard of spare rib???

I agree, that both men and women have the same  number of ribs .... what I was TRYING to explain that the Bible says Jehovah took A RIB (not a portion of a rib) from Adam.   That left him short, one rib.
His children would STILL be born with the usual number of ribs.
There is NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE about "a portion of a rib ...", or that " his rib grew back".
NONE WHATSOEVER.

Circuit Overseer told a joke about how Eve would count Adam's ribs while he was sleeping to see if he had another woman.

As much as I am amazed, entertained, and chagrined by TPT's (Tight Pants Tony's) thinking processes, sometimes I think of it a "Creepygate", I think "Bottlegate" is a tempest in a teapot ... that is to say .. much ado about NOTHING !
Absolutely NOTHING!
WDS (Watchtower Derangement Syndrome) is a phenomenon that cuts BOTH ways ... from the inside, looking out ... and from the outside, looking in ... and in this case, the AGENDA DRIVEN THINKING from the outside looking in has severely clouded the thinking and reasoning abilities of the complainers.
Agenda driven thinking is ALWAYS faulty.
HOWEVER, that being said ... the video above is well worth watching.
 
 

Yes, I agree,  that's how it should be, but as you mentioned, Lawyers want to go where the money is, and abusers probably don't have the kind of money they want. JW child abuse cases are attractive to them because of jw.org. Also, I didn't realise but many lawyers go hunting for cases. For instance someone I know is being sued by a credit card company and as soon as the lawsuit was filed with the court she has been receiving numerous letters from different lawyers who want to represent her. Apparently they go down to the courthouse to find cases. Similarly, child abuse lawyers go hunting for survivors so they can represent them in court. This was one reason I believe Zalkin wanted the names of all the alleged abusers held by the org. so he could sift through them and find anything that he could use for himself. And once they find a "suitable" survivor, they no doubt persuade her/him to the effect that they shouldn't feel bad about suing, since they will be suing the organization, and the organization has plenty of money. Then they (the lawyers) go about finding ways to incriminate the org. It's all about making money, but often the survivor comes off worse, especially when there is a settlement. I believe the lawyers take the biggest lump, and since with a settlement there is also a gag order, the survivor can't even complain about how little they got. It's all a big scam and all about lining the lawyers pockets. There is no justice really. The only justice will be with Jehovah. So when someone says "wait on Jehovah" when it is apparent that nothing that can be done for the moment, then that makes perfect sense. Of course it goes without saying that that should never be used as an excuse not to do anything.

Lies and cover-ups ALWAYS lead to MORE lies and MORE coverups ... and there are no exceptions.
We should be proud of EVERYTHING we do, and where we screw up ... fess up, take a beating, and keep on keeping on.
That's how it works with men of integrity, which in the GB, seems to be in short supply....
...if it involves money.
 
 

I do not know if the ARC did or didn't submit these findings to their legal brief. What I do know is that those letters had a very limited audience. Regular publishers had no idea about these letters, they had no idea how elders were supposed to handle these situations. They were completely in the dark. As a consequence, regular publishers were at the "mercy" of the Elders. The ARC changed that. Now everyone knows the procedure and can be on the same page. It's a pity this transparency didn't happen sooner.

I don’t admire him. I use him. And I think he is okay with that.
I also have sought to understand him.
If anything, I admire you & and a few other very similar personas, for the tenacity to defend the current governing arrangement, which I also defend. But admiring or not admiring has little to do with anything. If my goal is to admire and not admire and to demonstrate my loyalty or lack thereof, then I hang out exclusively with the real flesh and blood people of my circuit, who all like me, barring perhaps a few who think me a windbag. (but how can they be faulted for that?)
He spills a lot of dirt. I would never spill the dirt that he does. And lest John B start frothing over this, it must be pointed out that everyone everywhere in every field of activity has some dirt that they could spill. It will always be a question of whether they choose to do it or not.)
But the fact is that he is not going away. So how do I come to grips with that? Should I simply repeat ‘Liar! liar!’ when the tone of his writing does not suggest lying? Notice what I said (and you quoted):
I didn’t say that his information was accurate. I said that HE deems it accurate. I didn’t say that John was right. I said that there were times when HE thought he was right.
There is much I like about JWI, but also much I don’t like. I think he is too swayed by the pretentions of journalism that the cockroaches disappear when you shine the bright light of journalism upon them. I think they just go somewhere else, leaving the illusion that something has been solved, which presently enough generally turns out to be but an illusion.
I hate to say it. I really really really really hate to say it, but I think someone I might truly like in person is @James Thomas Rook Jr.if you could only muzzle him, which seems unlikely at present. He is unpretentious, and that is a quality I am drawn to.
The Internet is not the congregation. You cannot make it behave as though it is. Brothers look like fools when they insist upon it. In a sense of strict organizational loyalty, none of us should be here, you no more (or less) than JWI. (or me)
I hope that the brothers enjoy what I write, but rarely are they my main intended audience. Nor, when I address villains, are they my intended audience. It is the unaligned & often misinformed people that I seek to address, and the relative success or futility of this will probably never be known.) To that end, I sometimes distance myself from certain loyal ones who declare their loyalty (often with heat) but otherwise bring little to the table. (and I don’t think of you as one of them- you bring plenty to the table) In real life, I would hang out with them. But the Internet is not real life.

Just noticed this post John. Yes, I acknowledge the org. has made mistakes, and I am sure no Witness on here would deny that the org. has made mistakes, why, even the org. itself acknowledges it has made mistakes. But you on the other hand are saying that the org. is tantamount to Satan's spawn. I don't think that.
 
 

Obviously it's aimed at everyone, otherwise the elders would receive this information in the form of a letter to the body of elders. So I don't know what point you are trying to make...?

I had you in mind when I wrote the above, John, and I honestly feel sorry for you.
Though apparently wrapped in a newfound ‘personal relationship with Jesus,’ you have acknowledged that your conduct has worsened since leaving Jehovah’s Witnesses.
You should strive to get your act together on this, and salvage what remains. In time, you can once again make progess in actually applying Christianity.

In Jehovah’s Witness congregations, victims, parents, or anyone else, have always been free to report allegations of child sexual abuse to the police. The troubling reality is that many chose not to do it. They alerted congregation elders and went no further. Why? Because they thought that by so doing, they might be bringing reproach on God’s name and the Christian congregation.
That situation has been resolved. The May 2019 study edition of the Watchtower, reviewed via Q & A participation at all congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses—it will escape nobody—addressed it specifically: 
“But what if the report is about someone who is a part of the congregation and the matter then becomes known in the community? Should the Christian who reported it feel that he has brought reproach on God’s name? No. The abuser is the one who brings reproach on God’s name,” states the magazine.
The problem is solved. Can one bring reproach on God or the Christian congregation by reporting child sexual abuse to police? No. The abuser has already brought the reproach. There will be many who had long ago come to that conclusion, but now, unambiguously, in writing, for elders and members alike, here it is spelled out.
From the beginning, child sexual abuse controversies as related to Jehovah’s Witnesses have been markedly different from those of nearly anywhere else. Incidents have mostly been within the ranks of the general membership, come to light because the Witness organization takes seriously passages as Romans 2:21-22, and investigates wrongdoing within its midst so as to “keep the congregation clean” in God’s eyes, something that they think He demands:
“Do you, however, the one teaching someone else, not teach yourself? You, the one preaching “Do not steal,” do you steal?  You, the one saying “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery?” (Romans 2:21-22)
Elsewhere it is the leaders being looked at exclusively. Usually, no mechanism at all exists that the wrongdoing of religious members comes to light. When the police nab John Q. Parishioner, it is as much news to the church minister as it is to the public. When was the last time you read of an abuser identified by religious affiliation unless it was a person in position of leadership?
As I write this, it now appears that the time has come for Southern Baptists to take their turn in the hot seat. Just eight days prior to this writing, a Houston Chronicle headline (February 10, 2019) announces: “Abuse of Faith - 20 years, 700 victims: Southern Baptist sexual abuse spreads as leaders resist reforms.”
Who are the victims? Entirely those who were abused by leaders. The latter “were pastors. ministers. youth pastors. Sunday school teachers. deacons. And church volunteers.” Were any of them just regular church members abused by other regular church members? No. There is no apparatus for that to ever come to light. The church preaches to them on Sunday but otherwise takes no interest in whether they actually apply the faith or not. Doubtless they hope for the best, but it is no more than hope. Only a handful of faiths make any effort to ensure that members live up to what they profess.
It has always been apples vs oranges. That is what has long frustrated Jehovah’s Witnesses. With most groups, if you want to find a bumper crop of pedophile abusers, you need look no farther than the leaders. With Jehovah’s Witnesses, if you “hope” for the same catch, you must broaden your nets to include, not just leaders, but everybody. It is rare for a Witness leader to be an abuser, the rotter in San Diego being a notable exception. It is the rule elsewhere. The most recent Witness legal case, involving a lawsuit in Montana, involves abuse entirely within a member’s step-family that did not reach the ears of the police, which the court decided was through leadership culpability.
To account for this marked difference in leadership personal conduct, this writer submits a reason. Those who lead among Jehovah’s Witnesses are selected from rank and file members on the basis of moral qualifications highlighted in the Bible itself, for example, at Titus 1:6-9.  In short, they are those who have distinguished themselves in living their religion. Leaders of most denominations have distinguished themselves in knowing their religion, having graduated from divinity schools of higher education. They may live the religion—ideally, they do, but this is by no means assured—the emphasis is on academic knowledge.
Add to the mix that Jehovah’s Witness elders preside without pay, and thus their true motive is revealed. Most religious leaders do it for pay, and thus present conflicting motives. One could even call them “mercenary ministers.” Are they untainted in their desire to do the Lord’s work or not? One hopes for the best but can never be sure.
Confounding irreligious humanists who would frame the child sexual abuse issue as one of religious institutions, two days after the Southern Baptist exposé, there appeared one of the United Nations. On February 12, the Sun (thesun.co.uk) reported that “thousands more ‘predatory’ sex abusers specifically target aid charity jobs to get close to vulnerable women and children.”
“There are tens of thousands of aid workers around the world with paedophile tendencies, but if you wear a UNICEF T-shirt nobody will ask what you’re up to. You have the impunity to do whatever you want,” Andrew Macleod, a former UN high official stated, adding that “there has been an ‘endemic’ cover-up of the sickening crimes for two decades, with those who attempt to blow the whistle just getting fired.” Sharing his data with The Sun, Mr. Macleod “warned that the spiralling abuse scandal was on the same scale as the Catholic Church’s.”
All things must be put into perspective. Child sexual abuse is not an issue of any single religion, much less a tiny one where otherwise blameless leaders are perceived to have bungled reporting to police. It occurs in any setting in which people interact with one another. The legal system being what it is, one can prosecute child sexual abuse wherever it is encountered. The tort system being what it is, one prosecutes primarily where there are deep pockets. Arguably, the child sexual abuse issues of the Southern Baptists have taken so long coming to light is because that denomination is decentralized in organization, presenting no deep pockets.
With the May 2019 Watchtower mentioned above, finally the reporting issues of Jehovah’s Witnesses are fixed. Anyone who knows of abuse allegations may bring those to the attention of the police, and regardless of how “insular” or “no part of the world” Witnesses may be, they need not have the slightest misgivings about bringing reproach on the congregation. Both goals can proceed—that of societal justice and that of congregation justice—and neither interferes with the other.
Witness opposers were not at all gracious about this change, that I could see. Many continued to harp on the “two witness” rule of verifying abuse, for example. It becomes entirely irrelevant now. Were it a “40-witness” or a “half-witness” rule, it wouldn’t matter. It is a standard that guides congregation judicial proceedings and has absolutely no bearing on secular justice.
“Well, it only took a landslide of legal threats around the world to force their hand on this,” opposers grumbled, as they went on to claim credit. Why not give them the credit? Likely it is true. Everything in life is action/reaction and it would be foolish to deny the substance of this. Once ones leave the faith, people within lose track of them. It is easy to say: “Out of sight, out of mind,” and opponents did not allow this to happen. They should seriously congratulate themselves. Many have publicly stated that their opposition is only so that Jehovah’s Witnesses will fix their “broken policies.” Now that they have been fixed, one wonders if their opposition will stop.
Members have been given the clearest possible direction that there should be no obstacle or objection to their reporting whatever allegations or realities they feel should be reported. Few journalists will hold out for elders marching them down to the police station at gunpoint to make sure that they do, even if their most determined opposers will settle for no less.  There are some experiences that seem to preclude one’s ever looking at life rationally again, and perhaps child sexual abuse is one of them. The only people not knowing that the situation is fixed are those who are convinced that Jehovah’s Witnesses are evil incarnate whose charter purpose is to abuse children, and they will not be convinced until there is a cop in every Witness home.
With a major “reform” making clear that there is absolutely no reproach in reporting vile things to the authorities, some of the most virulent of Witness critics lose something huge to them, and the question some of them must face is a little like that of Tom Brady—what on earth is he ever going to do with himself after he retires? A few face withering away like old Roger Chillingsworth of the Scarlet Letter, who, when Arthur Dimmesdale finally changed his policy, “knelt down beside him, with a blank, dull countenance, out of which life seemed to have departed. ‘Thou hast escaped me!’ he repeated more than once. ‘Thou has escaped me!’
This will not be the journalists, of course. Nor will it be the legal people. Nor will it even be Witness critics in the main. But for some of the latter, former members who are vested in tearing down what they once embraced, it will not be an easy transition. They almost have no choice but to find some far-fetched scenario involving “rogue elders” that could conceivably allow something bad to yet happen and harp on that till the cows come home. There are always going to be ‘What ifs.’ At some point one must have some confidence in the power of parents to be concerned for their children, and for community to handle occasional lapses, particularly since governmental solutions have hardly proven immune to abuse and miscarriages of justice themselves. It is not easy to get between a mama bear and her cub.
All told, it would appear that even if the leaders of Jehovah’s Witnesses practiced child sexual abuse themselves, their “contribution” would be the tiniest part of an overall endemic. But since they do not—since their alleged sins are failing to report on what some members have done, the efforts of their apostates to paint them as a prime source of the degradation is but vengeful. They deliberately construct a damning and inaccurate picture of the faith that others in lands less enamored with human rights act upon. 
 

I believe you have asked me this before, and I wonder why you ask again.   
I would pray for the power to open all eyes of those who revere the organization. Rev 13:4  I would pray for the power to open all hearts to love and serve only the Father and the Son, not men who rule with an iron fist in a velvet glove; that people like yourself would desire to see through the WT glittery veneer and heed Rev 18:4-8, before its too late. Jer 51:6; Matt 22:36-40; (Rev 11:3)
 No human would be given the power to change prophesy, yet the WT leaders are trying very hard to do so.  Dan 7:25; 2 Thess 2:1-4; 1 Thess 5:3  I would never ask for such a thing.  Rev 1:3; 22:18,19
 
Of course, the power to read hearts is the Father's.  The power to save righteous-hearted ones, is Christ.  
My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”  John 10:27-29
 

Tom, people like Loyd Evans will take anything, and everything JW's have ever done, said, and written for the last 100+ years and insinuate either bad motives, sheer ignorance, or evilness.
The stunning thing is that nothing, absolutely nothing we have ever done, said, and written has ever been good in their eyes. I think Hitler would fair better. The thing is, LE is an obsessed activist, that's all he does with his life. (I am not sure he even works...) but you already know that. The sad thing there is absolutely no reasoning with him, I think you already know that too. As regards the Rutherford letter, I will have to dig up an apologist explanation for Rutherford's seeming sympathizing sentiments. It was written by a non JW, you may have seen it, I will dig it up and post a link to it here. 

That is an EXTREMELY good example .... that fact rock solid hard evidence, not agenda based fluffery and fuzzy thinking!
I am as critical of all the crap going on as anybody here is ... and probably know as much or more than most well educated people about such things .... but I have learned through interactions with MANY kinds of "organizations", not to expect too much from people in groups.
The example I most often recall to mind is this:
If you understand the Mission of the United States Marines, and their necessity in the real world to defend what is honorable, true and righteous ( ... in a very limited absolute sense ...), then for some, that mission was what you were born to do .... be a "Sheepdog", with fangs and claws ... to be the "point of the spear", to protect your fellow sheep ... who are many times scared of you.
It entails willingness to die, or live the rest of your life mangled and broken.  That's what the job IS.
But as the "Peter Principle", a VERY famous business principle states (paraphrased) "Everyone rises in rank to their own level of incompetency".
You could be a very good Marine Sargent, and rise to be an incompetent Marine Lieutenant, etc., ad infinitum. 
A committee is a peculiar life form with at least six legs, and no brain.
This is ESPECIALLY true in fuzzy subjects such as Theology, where everyone is jousting for favor and position with God, and gets used to great piles of free money .... considering it their due.
The Governing Body is NOT the exception, and they have 16 legs.
This is ESPECIALLY true with anyone claiming to speak for God, whether it is kissing the Pope's ring, or admiring the Governing Body's Rolex watches and gold pinkie rings.
When you begin to live like Kings, that vow of poverty becomes irrelevant.
That  bears repeating, over and over ... as there is a VERY important core principle embedded in that innocuous  rock solid and true observation.
I personally fully understand that, and though I sigh and cry over all the unnecessary burdens and smelly crap we have to carry ... that I personally have been expected to carry over the years ... and silly irrelevant drivel we are expected to swallow, hook-line-and-sinker ... I still want to be a "Marine" .... just not an Officer.
The biggest problem we have ... is HAVING to recruit from deeply flawed but presumably well intentioned humans.
.... sigh.
... so does the United States Marines ... and THEY have rifles.

When more of these things get out, it is going to spark rage and tension from those who had people suffer in those prisons and had to endure such vile treatment. As of late, Russian torture claims with evidence  by form of media from months/years ago have been surfacing up recently by those who took ear to this situation regarding JWs.