Patiently waiting for Truth

If a JW votes in a national election ... will there be congregational sanctions against him?
The last thing I heard was in 1999 in the Watchtower that it had changed that we were now allowed to follow our consciences, in voting quoted here:
" Questions From Readers
How do Jehovah’s Witnesses view voting?
There are clear principles set out in the Bible that enable servants of God to take a proper view of this matter. However, there appears to be no principle against the practice of voting itself. For example, there is no reason why a board of directors should not take a vote in order to arrive at decisions affecting their corporation. Congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses often make decisions about meeting times and the use of congregation funds by voting with a show of hands.
What, though, of voting in political elections? Of course, in some democratic lands, as many as 50 percent of the population do not turn out to vote on election day. As for Jehovah’s Witnesses, they do not interfere with the right of others to vote; neither do they in any way campaign against political elections. They respect and cooperate with the authorities who are duly elected in such elections. (Romans 13:1-7) As to whether they will personally vote for someone running in an election, each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses makes a decision based on his Bible-trained conscience and an understanding of his responsibility to God and to the State. (Matthew 22:21; 1 Peter 3:16) In making this personal decision, the Witnesses consider a number of factors.
First, Jesus Christ said of his followers: “They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.” (John 17:14) Jehovah’s Witnesses take this principle seriously. Being “no part of the world,” they are neutral in the political affairs of the world.—John 18:36.
Second, the apostle Paul referred to himself as an “ambassador” representing Christ to the people of his day. (Ephesians 6:20; 2 Corinthians 5:20) Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Christ Jesus is now the enthroned King of God’s heavenly Kingdom, and they, like ambassadors, must announce this to the nations. (Matthew 24:14; Revelation 11:15) Ambassadors are expected to be neutral and not to interfere in the internal affairs of the countries to which they are sent. As representatives of God’s heavenly Kingdom, Jehovah’s Witnesses feel a similar obligation not to interfere in the politics of the countries where they reside.
A third factor to consider is that those who have a part in voting a person into office may become responsible for what he does. (Compare 1 Timothy 5:22, The New English Bible.) Christians have to consider carefully whether they want to shoulder that responsibility.
Fourth, Jehovah’s Witnesses greatly value their Christian unity. (Colossians 3:14) When religions get involved in politics, the result is often division among their members. In imitation of Jesus Christ, Jehovah’s Witnesses avoid becoming involved in politics and thus maintain their Christian unity.—Matthew 12:25; John 6:15; 18:36, 37.
Fifth and finally, their keeping out of politics gives Jehovah’s Witnesses freeness of speech to approach people of all political persuasions with the important message of the Kingdom.—Hebrews 10:35.
In view of the Scriptural principles outlined above, in many lands Jehovah’s Witnesses make a personal decision not to vote in political elections, and their freedom to make that decision is supported by the law of the land. What, though, if the law requires citizens to vote? In such a case, each Witness is responsible to make a conscientious, Bible-based decision about how to handle the situation. If someone decides to go to the polling booth, that is his decision. What he does in the polling booth is between him and his Creator.
The November 15, 1950, issue of The Watchtower, on pages 445 and 446, said: “Where Caesar makes it compulsory for citizens to vote . . . [Witnesses] can go to the polls and enter the voting booths. It is here that they are called upon to mark the ballot or write in what they stand for. The voters do what they will with their ballots. So here in the presence of God is where his witnesses must act in harmony with his commandments and in accordance with their faith. It is not our responsibility to instruct them what to do with the ballot.”
What if a Christian woman’s unbelieving husband insists that she present herself to vote? Well, she is subject to her husband, just as Christians are subject to the superior authorities. (Ephesians 5:22; 1 Peter 2:13-17) If she obeys her husband and goes to the polling booth, that is her personal decision. No one should criticize her.—Compare Romans 14:4.
What of a country where voting is not mandated by law but feelings run high against those who do not go to the voting booth—perhaps they are exposed to physical danger? Or what if individuals, while not legally obliged to vote, are severely penalized in some way if they do not go to the polling booth? In these and similar situations, a Christian has to make his own decision. “Each one will carry his own load.”—Galatians 6:5.
There may be people who are stumbled when they observe that during an election in their country, some Witnesses of Jehovah go to the polling booth and others do not. They may say, ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses are not consistent.’ People should recognize, though, that in matters of individual conscience such as this, each Christian has to make his own decision before Jehovah God.—Romans 14:12.
Whatever personal decisions Jehovah’s Witnesses make in the face of different situations, they take care to preserve their Christian neutrality and freeness of speech. In all things, they rely on Jehovah God to strengthen them, give them wisdom, and help them avoid compromising their faith in any way. Thus they show confidence in the words of the psalmist: “You are my crag and my stronghold; and for the sake of your name you will lead me and conduct me.”—Psalm 31:3."
Now, all this is well and good .... but if a Brother's conscience will allow him to vote in national elections ... will he be chastised, sanctioned, or punished for the free exercise OF his conscience, by the CCJW ?
 

I suppose these three young "Christians" jumping in front of a symbol, are not teaching fine works either.  

 
 

Wow! Trying to revive a 2016 topic.
Try understanding the ARC transcript. Yes! The righteous and unrighteous will be resurrected, Judgement day will have a separation between the sheep and goats. So, NO! Non-JW’s ( not God’s People) as it stands now cannot be considered the (righteous)
Non-JW’s as it stands now will be considered the (Goats). There is no justification and excuse on someone’s personal action and behavior. You either serve G-d the right way or you don’t. Jesus spoke of unity.
Who is your church or do you consider like “witness” the church is the open air? Therefore, no need to seek those with the same faith.
Will there be others following the example of the Watchtower and proclaim the good news as directed by Jesus in scripture, with everything else involved by keeping the congregation clean? Then, you would think they would be Witness like serving in the same capacity as the Watchtower.
I have NOT seen another organization doing that yet!

Nothing about this on  JW TV. 

The Watchtower is getting PROsecuted no PERsecuted all over the World. 

In case this hasn't been posted yet:
In September 2019, the Branch of Jehovah’s Witnesses and a number of kingdom halls in São Paulo Brazil were raided by the Police, in search of documentary evidence of criminal activities relating to child sexual abuse. The Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the raid was unlawful. Below is a translation of the Court of Justice determination. They lost their appeal. The investigation into Jehovah’s Witnesses handling of child abuse at a branch level is ongoing.
https://avoidjw.org/en/news/csa/brazil-watch-tower-raid-unlawful/

Did the 1st Century Christians cry out for Human Rights and Compensation ? 
https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-persecution.html

I hope somebody will survive Armageddon who knows how to make glass window panes, and cell phones.

When asked during the Aust Royal Commission, if the members of the Governing Body consider themselves to be God's spokesperson on earth, Geoff Jackson said, "That would be presumptuous of us"
Indicating that perhaps Jehovah's Witnesses are not necessarily the only ones who recognize the TRUTH written in the bible.
There are obviously many not yet contacted through witnessing and more born every minute, whose heart only Jehovah can read.

It helps a LOT ... when the wicked people that God wants exterminated, have a LOT of valuable Real Estate.

If memory serves, the predominate language inAzerbaijani is Russian. I am guessing that this is the first crack in the ice that has frozen JWs out of the Russian Federation, and as I have mentioned about four times earlier, the ice will thaw and JWs will be "reinstated" by Vladimir Putin before the end of 2020. 
If that doesn't happen it's no big deal, as we (JWs) have never been right about ANY prediction, so I would have a really good excuse.

So, is the individual killings by a soldier, that trespasses on another persons land to take possession of it, murder ?
Surely it is premeditated killing. 
In Bible times the Israelites were told to give the enemy a chance to surrender before going in for the kill. 
But if an army of soldiers go straight in for the kill, just to take the land belonging to others, surely that is murder. Those soldiers know that they will be deliberately killing people. That is premeditated.
And, it is also racist. For an army of soldiers to deliberately steal land from another nation, that army of soldiers must think they have more right to own that land. Therefore it shows that the army of soldiers are of a mind that their race is superior and has more rights than the other nation. That has to be racism. 
James there has to be a reason you are pushing your point of view on this so much. 
It brings forth the question, are you American or are you a Christian ? 

You are right, it involves the “saints”/anointed today.
The “constant feature” which has been removed, is otherwise called the “daily sacrifice”. (See NKJV for an example)  The early priests were in charge of offering sacrifices on behalf of the nation of Israel, and as teachers, it was their responsibility to teach them God’s laws.  Mal 2:7
Today’s priests are to offer spiritual sacrifices of truth, and carry the laws of God on their heart.  Heb 8:10
1 Pet 2:5,9 “you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”
But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light"
Heb 13:15 – “Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name. 
 The anointed are the “temple”, as well as its members:
"Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?  If anyone defiles (destroys) the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are." 1 Cor 3:16,17
 "Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”  2 Thess 2:3,4
You can see that the “disgusting thing standing in the holy place” is the “man of sin”, or “lawlessness”.  The word, “sits” refers to a form of rule:
to set, appoint, to confer a kingdom on one
The “disgusting thing”/man of lawlessness rules over the “holy place”/temple/anointed ones.  It’s presence in God’s Temple profanes the sanctuary/dwelling place of God:
“He began to speak blasphemies against God: to blaspheme His name and His dwelling (tabernacle, moveable temple/”living stones”)—those who dwell in heaven. 7 And he was permitted to wage war against the saints and to conquer them. He was also given authority over every tribe, people, language, and nation.”  Rev 13:6,7
The scriptures use the symbolic “times”, it doesn't mean literal years. 
“Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever, that it shall be for a time, times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.”  Dan 12:7
The power of the saints is shattered by the removal of their “daily sacrifice”, their responsibilities as priests are taken away. 
“Say to the rebellious people, the house of Israel: This is what the Lord God says: I have had enough of all your detestable practices, house of Israel. 7 When you brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in both heart and flesh, to occupy My sanctuary, you defiled My temple while you offered My food—the fat and the blood. You broke My covenant by all your detestable practices. 8 You have not kept charge of My holy things but have appointed others to keep charge of My sanctuary for you.”  “This is what the Lord God says: No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, may enter My sanctuary, not even a foreigner who is among the Israelites.    Ezek 44:6-9
Num.16:3-11,18,20,21,35,40     
This appointment would be the “man of lawlessness” sitting/ruling over the Temple of God. 
“Have you not cast out the priests of the Lord, the sons of Aaron, and the Levites, and made for yourselves priests, like the peoples of other lands, so that whoever comes to consecrate himself with a young bull and seven rams may be a priest of things that are not gods?”  2 Chron 13:9
So, the “disgusting thing” is an “abomination”, a “detestable practice” committed within the Temple.  Foreigners or “Gentiles” occupy the sanctuary as PRIESTS taking charge of the spiritual duties that only God's priests are to permitted to do.
“But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be” (let the one who reads understand), “then those in Judea must flee to the mountains!”  Mark 13:14
No one is to perform the priestly duties of “daily sacrifices” except God’s priests.  How does this happen today?
w02 8/1 p. 13-14 “Representing the royal priesthood are appointed ELDERS, who serve in positions of responsibility in congregations of Jehovah’s people around the earth. These men deserve our respect and wholehearted support, whether they are of the anointed or not.   Rather than challenge their authority, we truly appreciate our hardworking elders! “
     "Have you not cast out the priests of the Lord, the sons of Aaron, and the Levites,       and made for yourselves priests, like the peoples of other lands"  2 Chron 13:9
     You have not kept charge of My holy things but have appointed others to keep       charge of My sanctuary for you.”  Eze 44:8
     “….And he was permitted to wage war against the saints and to conquer them.         Rev 13:7
Can you see how the power of the holy ones has been ‘dashed to pieces’ or as some translations say, “brought to nothing" within your very own organization, where the anointed/"kings of the earth" are gathered? Rev 1:5; 5:9,10; Rev 16:13,14; 20:7-10
 
 
https://pearl-disgustingthing.blogspot.com/
 
 
 
 
 

Any ideas why Aus info' went back 50 years but American database only goes back 23 years ?
 

In view of this it’s hard to deny that “the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken about by Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place” is something directed against or directly affects God’s “holy people” in the manner described by Daniel's prophecy.  (Mt 24:15)
Well then it would appear to be the GB and JW Org, as they are acting against the true Anointed ones of the remnant. They have put the Elder body in place of the Anointed and have 'advised' the Anointed not to contact each other and not to have Bible studies together. 
The GB are a false prophet. All the things they have prophesied have not happened. They continue to change the interpretation of scripture and admit to not being inspired of God. They are indeed a 'disgusting thing.. standing in a holy place'. 

It seems unlikely to me too. But although I don't expect any brothers to be underhanded, I have already seen evidence of underhandedness in this area. And it is always in the direction of making sure the WTS doesn't look as bad as it would have looked, had the spirit of the law been followed. This probably helped the WTS reputation during the years when nearly everyone else (colleges, NDA's, Vatican) was doing the same. Today, however, there are still cases even from relatively recently where the WTS goal appears to have been as follows:
Don't allow a case to go public unless absolutely legally necessary, and if it seems like invoking clergy privilege can help avoid allowing a case to go public, then argue that, too. Before revealing something to authorities yourself, always find out if you legally are required to, first.
The current Watchtower view and process is excellent because it recognizes that in the current state of affairs, this would be seen as a very shortsighted goal. "The end would be worse than the beginning" if any concealing from public scrutiny might be seen as a cover-up.
To my mind, and I could be wrong, Australian cases already showed signs of being managed in an "underhanded" way, when it appeared that this data matched the claims and the sense I was getting from cases that were referenced and discussed, and the admissions of the elders who were questioned. I would agree with CC that it's not likely all of these cases represented actual crimes, but even accounting for that, not one of the actual crimes was ever reported to proper authorities.
But I'm also trying to understand some additional informatin I was made aware of through a personal contact, now at Warwick. It was that the former Branch Overseer of Australia, who would have been questioned by the ARC, had fled the country/continent. I was even told what country he went to. Later I heard online reports (likely from ex-JWs) matching this "gossip" from an elder at Warwick, plus an additional online report (no additional confirmation) of a second Branch "official" who also fled the country.

Yes, of course I am using the word “prove” loosely. This is apparent by looking at the other two factors offered as “proof”—that concerning the Drudge item and that concerning the application of torture in Russia. Of course it is evidence, not proof.
Nitpicking. “Persons given authority” I might have said. Average, ‘sit on your rear end’ parishioners—in other words, the vast majority—how many of them have been reported? That is what must be known if we are to suppose that the comparison with JWs is apples to apples.
It seems unlikely to me because if the brothers are as underhanded as you suggest, why not clean all of them up? Of the first 5 elders and MS on the list, one was convicted—of which there will be a public record. Why not “clean the others up?”
In fact, nothing will be proven for anything until we shake down those carrying authority of every organization on earth, squeezing all their documents out of them, and assuming that if they have none, it is because they are covering up! Enough!
What IS proven is that the Boy Scout of America took me camping, taught me how to tie knots, did their best to help me grow up, and in recent days declared bankruptcy because, while they may have striven to get a handle on those who would abuse children, they were not perfect In this regard, some slipped through.. At the time I first wrote of a huge settlement against them, at the time the largest cash verdict for CSA involving a single individual, the Boy Scouts were reported as having a strong anti-CSA policy—which was used against them!
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2011/01/pedophiles-and-smear-campaigns.html
Look, just make it illegal for children and adults to be in proximity of each other! Outlaw it! Just think of how many children will be protected that way!

Justice we get ONLY from God.
All else is contaminated by DNA.
 

This remained me on common fact. World is full of "legalism" and courts making "legal" trials and decisions. Even JWorg has "legal system". But many times they all making wrongs and injustices.

This could easily be true. It's also possible that a JW in good standing at the Australian Branch leaked it. It's also possible that it was cleaned up to make it look like many fewer Elders and MS were involved. Some things seem very unlikely to us because we all have preconceived ideas about what such data would look like.
I responded when I saw this because the word "proof" and "proves" were being used. This is evidence, not proof. I think that JTR recognized this when he said we needed "hard data." None of us collected the evidence. None of us produced the spreadsheet. I'm confident that this is good evidence, but that doesn't make it proof.
For example, we don't know but that perhaps all Elders and MS were supposed to have been mostly removed from that sheet before it was handed over. This seems unlikely, but things like this have happened. Statistics are often manipulated. On a much more minor topic I gave my own experience where I was "in the room where it happened" as one particular statistic was changed so that the WTS appeared to have a better report than it actually got when the statistic was announced. 
Also, TTH, the abusers reported were not 100% clergy in all the other reports given over to the ARC. In fact, some of the commentary about other entities run by churches, but not by clergy were part of the investigation.
Outside of the ARC, I have only followed a few cases haphazardly, but I saw several reports where I could tell they were not just including "clergy." The Southern Baptist cases, for example, included many church volunteers along with clergy. Wikipedia says:
On February 10, 2019, the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News published an investigative report into widespread sexual abuse within member churches of the Southern Baptist Convention. The report found since 1998, roughly 380 clergy, lay leaders and volunteers had faced allegations of sexual misconduct, leaving behind over 700 victims.[1]

Of course, it is understandable. I made just comment on that in  this way to soften arguing about what sort, class of people made more bad deeds of CSA inside some institution, are they those individuals with more or less important position inside some structure.
At the end, it is of less important in whole this issue (do we have higher numbers of elders or ordinary members who made crime). Main question is how management  and members respond on such crime. What they doing when that happened?
Both group can "hide" this problem. But, as it is obviously clear, "those in position of leadership and who need to be role model" for other people inside institution bear greater responsibility and have to be "charged" more for doing and/or not doing.

Hmmmmmmm.... that brings up an interesting question ... for those angelic forces that war against God ... are there any mortal casualties on either side ... or is it just a big shoving match?
If two angels fight ... does one get killed and the other perhaps only seriously wounded?
It seems to me that the term "war" would result in massive casualties ( ... that means DEAD, for those in Rio Linda ...) on at least one side, and possibly BOTH sides ... otherwise it would not be a war at all.
Here is where I might insert a joke about them ripping each others' feathers out .... but I will refrain.

We are getting tied up in semantics here. There is always going to be someone "put in charge" of a group who have some assignment to do. Did you never get put in groups at school, perhaps a sports team, with a "captain" ? There is nothing sinister about that, just makes practical sense. Also, in the JW arrangement, someone taking the lead is to lead mainly by example. JW 'leadership" roles are modeled on the first century Christian "leadership" roles. The apostle Paul designated brothers to take the lead in various assignments.....and of course the elder arrangement is Biblical also. 
Hebrews 13:7, Acts 6:3, Acts 14:12, Romans 12:8...etc..
 

Without HARD DATA ..... there is no way we will EVER know.

I believe this is true, although I'm not sure what it proves. It seems that only just over 10 percent of the abusers in that list were Elders or MS. (Taken only from two samplings of 200 near the front and 200 near the end.) With Witnesses, even parishioners have a "title" or "role" in the congregation.
In the majority of reports from other religious organizations it is usually those in leadership positions or persons with "titles" of some kind, teachers in religious schools, etc. But this has not always been true. Some other religious organizations have given reports that included parishioners in their lists of abusers.
Also, a review of newspaper articles about individual criminals associated with JWs more often go for the story where an elder or MS is the abuser.
But there are still a couple of potential problems with the lists. One is that the question is often about whether the abuser was in the role of Elder or MS at the time of the first abuse. I noticed a case on the very first page where the answer was only a Parishioner, yet that same person was also removed from their position as Elder or MS. (Also there are cases where the person was an Elder and not removed.) When cases take a long time to process or be reported, or there were multiple cases of abuse, the abuser might very well continue to progress to MS or Elder until the abuse is reported or made known.
Also, I hope this one is much less likely, but when the abuse is first "reported" it is not yet (or sometimes ever) technically considered an actual case of abuse, only an accusation. This leaves time to remove the elder or MS from his position, as he should be 'free from accusation.' This removal can even happen without a committee, just based on the suggestion to the accused 'until things are cleared up.' So when an accusation is finally taken seriously enough to treat as a real case of abuse, this might be based on the fact that a previous accusation was not taken seriously and now it must be.
Therefore the "first" case of abuse can be timed to the "second" accusation, after the precaution was taken of removing the elder or MS from his position. I know of a physical abuse case that was handled this way. And in another case (not abuse) I know my father was involved as one of two elders rushing to get a generally inactive Witness disfellowshipped to reduce any embarrassment on the congregation before the incident hit the papers.