Patiently waiting for Truth

Jesus: "The kingdom of heaven  ...." ??!!

.... to protect financial assets, if  i may say.
Because there is no more need to protect Organization in sense of dignity and "to not drag God's name through the mud". CSA problem is strong in so many Institutions, religious and non-religious.
In that,  from secular point of view, JW organization is like every other organization. And they (world) have no need to pay more attention to WTJWorg than to every other religion or institution of any sort.
What problem is : JW members and Management are worried about how worldly/secular people will look at them and what they will think about them - and that is, in JW' minds as: Only True Religion and God's Earthly Organization.
In this aspect , from JW point of view,  JW leaders found it very important to "protect organization" as the most holy in the world. Image of Organization have to be without spot, mainly in the view of members, who have to bring themselves into thinking how World have to see WTJWorg as only true and clean organization, in one hand, and because of that, this same World have to want to destroy and persecute WTJWorg, in second hand.
One part of JW mind need some sort of "recognition"  made by satan' World, and other part of JW mind in the same time wish to be "persecuted" in some form, as proof that they are and belong to only true religion. 
It comes to the point where self-realization (individual and as organization) about the correctness of one's own path is not enough. A dose of martyrdom is required. But again, not so high a dose as to cause harm in the financial stability of the Corporation. The best option, for Corporation, would be some sort of problems and persecution toward members, without reaching too much for money of  organization, without doing financial harm to the corporation. 

You should speak with some of the Watchtower attorneys. I don't think you will ever again claim that they would like to give the victim compensation.

THE ZALKIN LAW FIRM, P.C.  (facebook)
We have received inquiries and concerns about a Montana Supreme Court's decision to reverse a $35 Million judgment against the Jehovah's Witnesses. What people should know is that this opinion is limited to the facts of that case and to that court's interpretation of the law of Montana and does not establish precedent in other jurisdictions. We know the lawyers who represent the victim in that case and in our opinion they did a fine job. Unfortunately, based on our reading of the Montana Supreme Court's opinion, the Court was mislead by testimony offered by the JWs in house expert in their child abuse policies and practices. The case hinged on whether the way in which the JWs handle reports of child sexual abuse falls within an exception to Montana's clergy mandated reporting law. Relying heavily on the testimony of Dave Chappel from the Service Department, the Montana Supreme Court concluded that the policies and practices of the JWs is to keep such information confidential, even if it is shared between elders of the congregation and elders of the Service Department, and even if elders are free to disclose that information to law enforcement should they decide to do so, thereby entitling the JWs to the confidentiality exception to the obligation of clergy to report suspicions of child sexual abuse. In essence, the Court's conclusion is that where a religious organization says it is required to keep such information confidential as a tenant of its religion, despite evidence to the contrary, the court is going to accept what it says as controlling.
The JWs also argue that civil courts should not second guess how they deal with reports of child sexual abuse because doing so violates the JWs 1st Amendment right to the free exercise of its religion. That argument has failed in dozens of cases. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that civil courts can enforce neutral laws that are intended to apply to everyone equally. Laws that protect children from child abusers are neutral and not targeted to any one religion.
Over the course of the past decade of litigating cases against the JWs we have obtained numerous court opinions that have found the opposite of what the Montana Supreme Court determined to be the case.
We feel very badly for the victim in this case. What this case shows very clearly, is that the JWs continue to place secrecy and protection of known child molesters above the safety of children. Shame on them.

Yes, I saw that too. (I just wanted to highlight the bit about what seems to be the two "types" of confidentiality"). 
You know my feelings on this anyway,  that I don't see the purpose of applying clergy privilege to the elders in the first place. I have a feeling though that this will become less of an issue, and hopefully will be just a formality, like "let's see what the law says in our state, but then do what our conscience tell us is the right thing to do to protect our children". 
 

That "third" person appears (to me) to be someone who helped write or translate a letter for the penitent, or who helped translate the person's voice or words from another language (including sign language).
It was interesting that the same site you quote also included:
It’s important to understand the difference between clergy privilege and the duty of confidentiality. Privilege simply means the information cannot be shared in court. The duty of confidentiality applies in all contexts and is an ethical matter every minister must navigate carefully. A minister’s duty of confidentiality is breached when they disclose confidences to anyone, anywhere. However, there may be times when it is appropriate to share confidential information, under extreme circumstances where people may be killed or severely injured. There are only nine cases in the history of this country where a minister was sued for breaching the duty of confidentiality. Of those, only three of the cases found the minister civilly liable for sharing confidences. In the other six cases, the courts concluded there was no duty under the circumstances for the minister to keep the confidentiality. So it can be concluded that ministers who decide to share confidential information should not in most cases be held personally liable from a legal standpoint, but they certainly won’t be held legally liable for not sharing. The exception to this rule is child abuse. In 41 states clergy are mandatory reporters of suspected or known child abuse.
It gives the impression that it's rare that a minister would ever get in trouble for revealing a confidentiality, but that they would never get in trouble for breaching the confidentiality of child abuse by letting the authorities know.
When these laws are invoked to say it was OK for Witness ministers to keep the child abuse secret, it's contrary to the spirit of these current laws about privilege and confidentiality in child abuse cases. They are intended to protect the child, and make sure that the minister does not get in trouble for revealing confidentiality. But we still seem to be asking for these rules to be invoked to protect the organization.

Confidentiality: "There are two views held by state courts regarding confidentiality as it pertains to clergy privilege. In two-thirds of the states, a communication is considered confidential if made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present for the purpose of the communication. In one-third of the states, privileged communication means a communication made in confidence only to the minister, with no third person present".
Taken from: https://www.agfinancial.org/blog/bid103391church-liability-clergy-privilege-confidentiality-and-reporting/
 

I think that is the general idea, and that we have seen the last of any pedophiles or child molesters getting away with their disgusting crime. Also, I think anyone thinking about doing anything disgusting to children will think twice about it. (However, there is the problem of new people coming in, they may not be aware of this strict child policy. But I do know that brothers who are being considered for appointment as elders are asked if there is anything in the past that would disqualify them from taking up this position).  I do not expect to see any more new cases in the coming years. I think if any cases come to light now, it will be from the past.
A few months ago I researched the Montana case quite extensively (I read the 400 or so page court transcript) and posted some of my "observations" in the Private JW Club. This was another classic instance of  "a dirty old step dad/grandad molests step children and then years later a step grandchild". (If memory serves right, I think this happened about 10 years ago). The step daughter with the grandchild knew that her step dad had molested her sister, and despite that, she brought her child (the grandchild) to his house for baby sitting because of convenience sake. I don't think this sat too well with the Jury, since it was evident she had knowingly put her child in harms way. Most of the members of that family were not very strong in the truth, and one of the victim's claim was thrown out of court as unreliable (basically she made some stuff up).
I have not followed up on the results of the lawsuit, so thanks for posting that. Anyway, what I remember from reading the transcript is that it all seemed to hang on clergy privilege law in Montana. You might already know this, but each state in USA has their own state laws. Some states have no clergy confidentiality, and others do. Then there is the issue of "what exactly is meant by "confidential". Does this mean no one but the one whom the confidential issue was disclosed to knows? If I remember right, what had to be established by the court was: whose definition of confidentiality was going to be used. Was it going to be the "Catholic" version, where only the priest knows, or was it going to be the particular religions version, in other words what that particular religion viewed as confidential. In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, confidentiality is not the same as the Catholic version of confidentiality. As we know, when a JW judicial matter is said to be confidential, it means that more than just one elder gets to know the matter and in the case of CSA, advice is sought from the branch office as to reporting laws, i.e. what does the law for that particular state say about reporting? So here we already have perhaps more than 4 people who know about the matter. However, in this version of confidentiality, only those persons who are involved in handling the matter know. No one outside of that circle is privy to this information*. Also, another criteria for the Catholic version of confidentiality is that the penitent must approach the cleric, the confessional.  However, with the Witnesses, this is not always the case. The perpetrator is approached by the elders, as it was in this case. So, although I haven't read the report yet, it appears that the state of Montana recognizes a religion's interpretation of confidentiality, therefor they deemed the JW version as confidential information. So it wasn't because the elders were lying about confidentiality in order to deceive the court. The transcript clearly showed that the elders said how they proceeded, so the court was well aware the that more than one person knew, and that the elders on the judicial committee also called the branch for consultation. There was no deceit on the part of the elders.
* It just occurred to me that if no one outside the confidential circle was to know, then parents of other children were not to find out either. However, this is not the case now. When it is established that there may be concern over the behavior of someone in the congregation, then the parents of any children in that congregation are notified. So really, now there is no confidentiality for the sake of protecting the children. So, I wonder how we can even claim clergy penitence now, because of that. It seems this would be a moot issue with any new cases. It makes me see how in contrast, the other version of clergy penitence is a danger to children, because the priest must not tell anyone else. This is why I think it's stupid for any state or country to have this outdated religious law written in their secular law. Some states are trying to abolish this, but religious tradition is so closely intertwined with politics that it may never happen. Especially not in predominantly Catholic countries....

Not everything in life is dependent upon “access to files.” Sometimes looking at what is right in front of your nose is enough.
Montana is typical of other CSA Witness cases—no involvement whatsoever of elders other than their role of persons who did not report. Other organizations you do not hear of CSA unless it is one of the leaders arrested for it. Other than a rotter in San Diego, are there any such cases with JWs?
As it turns out, I have it on excellent authority that each and every person you have interacted with over the past year is a disgusting pervert. How do I know that? Easy. It is in the files that are hidden from me!

@TrueTomHarley  I read half of it Tom, but you do tend to go over the top. 
One thing i find quite funny is the FACT that the GB / JW Org change the use of their conscience when it affects their bank account.
In many countries JW Preaching is AGAINST THE LAW.  But as the apostles said 'We must obey God as ruler rather than men'. So in many countries Witnesses deliberately break the law to preach. 
BUT, the GB / JW Org won't 'break the law' to protect young children from being Sexually Abused. 
Even if it it not a legal requirement' to report, SURELY it IS a requirement from GOD through CHRIST to report all forms of Abuse, Child or Adult, to those authorities which GOD HAD PUT IN PLACE.  
Berean Study Bible  James 1 v 27 
Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
New International Version Romans 13 v 1
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Christian Standard Bible
Let everyone submit to the governing authorities, since there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are instituted by God.
Your GB and its Org have no excuse. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Church stands by its decision
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints said it considers protecting victims a top priority, and has a 24-hour help line to report abuse. "   It seems that they have more of a conscience and better morality than the GB and JW org. They may have broken man's law but they obeyed God's law.  And no I do not want to be a Mormon.  But I think there is a scripture somewhere that says something like, 'when those without law do the things of the law' And of course it is talking about God's law not man's.

Quote @TrueTomHarley "..  because the pattern elsewhere is that the leaders of organizations, religious or otherwise, are the abusers themselves, something rarely true with the Witness organization, .. "
Tom you would not know. Because the GB and their lawyers are withholding over 20 years worth of Child Sexual Abuse details in America. How can you possibly know who names are in there ? 
For you to state that it is rare amongst the JW Org for its 'leaders' to be involved, you would need to have access to those files. 
Some on here have even said that GB members were homosexuals. And it was also said that a GB member had been accused of sexually abusing someone in Bethel.  I think this information came from JWI. My apologies to JWI if I'm wrong.
Oh and I read the rest of your comment which I knew would be a total waste of my time, and it was. You go of on a tangent talking about world affairs and then you go 'gay-bashing' but pretend not to be. Then you do your normal JW thing by blaming those that tell the truth about your GB and JW Org.  You try to turn the tables on those people that have found true faults in your Org. You use that stupid old pretence that all people that find fault must be d/fed JWs. Sorry Tom that idea died long ago. Although you don't admit it, there are REAL VICTIMS of CSA  that have PROVEN that Elders and others have misused their 'authority' in the Org and hidden the truth and/or lied about CSA in the JW Org. 
But keep up your story telling Tom, some naive ones might believe you. 

Your observation was, and I quote:
If you can't see how you just insulted everyone here, then I don't think there would ever be enough evidence in the world to convince you. And, by the way, I have never banned anyone, nor have I asked for anyone to be banned. If you already know this, then you are being dishonest. If you don't already know this, then I don't think there would ever be enough evidence in the world to convince you of this either.

Here is the way to look at events in Montana: I wrote it up this morning and posted on my blog. Reproduced here:
After the multi-million dollar verdict against Jehovah’s Witnesses in Montana was reversed, I visited the Witness-bashing website to see how they were taking it. They were not happy. However, the ones who knew law were analytical.
“This isn’t the fault of the courts,” one said. “It’s the fault of the Montana law as written. Courts must follow law or risk reversal on appeal. This case was never going to be ultimately won. The law was way too clear on the matter.”
Another: “Montana followed the law. It’s that simple and of course Watchtower followed the law...”
Yet another: “The case never should have been started, as the law clearly backed JW’s actions. It never had a chance of surviving appeal.”
They sure didn’t talk that way after the first trial. Some of their cohorts wanted to rub my nose—line by line—through that first transcript. ‘The court found your people guilty, TrueTom! Why would they do that unless they had broke the law—they who say they adhere to the law!’ I didn’t respond because I am not a lawyer that would try to unravel their affairs. Moreover, courts, while they may represent the best human justice available, are clearly not above bias from pre-existing philosophical leanings—if they were confirming a Supreme Court Justice would take ten minutes. ‘Wait until the fat lady sings,’ was my attitude. When she did, it was to throw out the judgement of the skinny lady.
Not all were so retrospective after that reversal. “F**k the Montana Supreme Court!” was the outraged complaint woven throughout the thread, with some accusing those seven justices (the reversal was 7-0) of being enablers themselves! Child sexual abuse is the most white-hot topic of all and calm heads rarely prevail. One of them muttered at how they must be “celebrating this victory” at Watchtower HQ. But they showed no sign of it. The Witness attorney summed up events: “There are no winners in a case involving child abuse. ‘No child should ever be subjected to such a debased crime....Tragically, it happens, and when it does Jehovah's Witnesses follow the law. This is what the Montana Supreme Court has established.’” Obviously if one is on the hook for several million dollars and then no longer is, they will not mourn over it. But the focus was kept on the victim, as it should have been. Ideally, she gets full justice from the perpetrator directly responsible.
The gold standard in matters of child sexual abuse is to “go beyond the law.” It is a crazy expectation and I can think of no parallels to it. The expectation is found in a remark already presented, but in truncated form. The full remark was: “Montana followed the law. It’s that simple and of course Watchtower followed the law, rather than just simply reporting child abuse like a good Christian organization.”
If the gold standard regarding child abuse is to “go beyond the law” then MAKE that the law! That’s what law is for! Three times before the ARC Geoffrey Jackson pleaded for such a change—it would make his job “so much easier.” ‘Going beyond the law’ is surely to trigger the wrath of those who, not unreasonably, expect you to abide by the law! Change the law and everyone is happy.
As though on cue, a report surfaced regarding another faith. An Oregon woman has filed a lawsuit for $9 million against the Mormon church because they DID report a confidentially disclosed sexual abuse of a minor. “Clergy are not required to report known or suspected child abuse if the knowledge results from a congregation member's confidential communication or confession and if the person making the statement does not consent to disclosure," Justice Beth Baker wrote in the Montana Supreme Court opinion. It is a statement that will clearly help the Oregon woman, but would not if it were not the law. Change the law if you are really serious about nabbing pedophiles.
The way everything unfolded in Montana pretty well accords with my initial assessment. So great is the world”s frustration at not being able to make a dent in the child sexual abuse pandemic that the first court chose to ignore law in pursuit of that end. It might well be combined with some religious bias, but I would not hang my hat on the latter—outrage over child sexual abuse is sufficient in itself. The Witness organization did follow law, as the Supreme Count validated, but the first court reinterpreted law and made it retroactive to make it seem that they did not. I wrote about it here:
Change the law! Why cannot that be done? If Watchtower wants to change a policy, they can do it overnight and have it implemented worldwide within the week. It is the basket-case eternally squabbling, turf-guarding, plethora of competing jurisdictions that cause many Witnesses to become Witnesses in the first place—they see how hopeless it is with human governments.
Ones who want to bring the Watchtower down on the pretext of child sexual abuse, such as those who predominate at the Witness bashing site, are hardly out of bullets, but they are continually frustrated. Their efforts to put Witness stories above all others gains little traction because the pattern elsewhere is that the leaders of organizations, religious or otherwise, are the abusers themselves, something rarely true with the Witness organization, and also that child sexual abuse appears to be the primary export of the planet, crowding out stories of “lesser” significance. With Watchtower (as in Montana) the situation is typically that of abuse within a family or step-family and Witness leaders come under the gun for evoking law and not reporting it, leaving that up to the persons involved—sometimes they do but often they don’t. History may well judge that harshly, but it does not hold a candle to leaders actually committing the abuse themselves. The class action suit in Quebec that I wrote about was similarly dismissed. Moreover, that contributing perception—that it is a disgrace to call attention to child sexual abuse—has been firmly put to rest among Witnesses.
The Epstein joke making the rounds is: “If you were surprised at Jeff Epstein committing suicide, just think how surprised he must have been!” Of course. With prison security protocol breaking down “at every level” and with 60 Minutes concluding that his injuries far suggest homicide over suicide, the conclusion that he was put to sleep by powerful interests to protect other pedophiles will never be squashed. People are naive, but not that naive. 
A DisneyLand executive was recently sentenced for pedophile offenses, and Erin Elizabeth of HealthNutNews, who has lived in the area, says it happens all the time. The point is, there is no place where child sexual abuse is not, but participants on the anti-JW site see it in only one place—a place where its intensity pales next to places where leaders are the abusers, not just ones trying to stem it who may have done so clumsily.
Thirty years into all-out war against child sexual abuse and barely a dent has been made! For my money, the JW organization is the most proactive of all, gathering every single member on earth to consider detailed scenarios in which child abuse might happen—if there are sleepovers, if there are tickling sessions, if there are unsupervised trips to the rest room, if someone, even a relative, shows unusual interest in your child, and so forth—so that parents, the obvious first line of defense, can be on the alert. This was done at the 2017 Regional Conventions, which were held globally.
It is the common and accepted legal practice to go as high up on the food chain as possible with regard to any lawsuit—everyone knows this and judges it an unremarkable fact of life. “Knew or should have known” is the legal expression that carries the day and effectively amounts to a tax on the common person. Governments raise taxes. Businesses raise prices. When I hear that my neighbor’s lawyer secured him millions of dollars for his auto accident, I rejoice with him—then I open my insurance premium bill.
As people become ever more debased, just where does this end? Women on airlines are reporting sexual abuse. Even rape has been reported, and with passengers being packed in like sardines, attendants expected to monitor this are caught dumbfounded. Do they “know or should have known?” In an increasingly depraved world, your guess is as good as mine.
As to sentiment on the Witness-bashing website? Look, whenever one discards a scenario in which there is discipline for one in which there is not, it will be like releasing a compressed spring—it rebounds wildly, delirious with its newfound freedom, caring not where it goes. This will be true when one leaves behind the school, the military, or the job. It will especially be true if one quit or was expelled from that institution—and that is the case of most on the anti-JW site. Many of them have come out as gay. Witnesses may not gay-bash as do some evangelicals, some of whom froth on the subject and tirelessly prod legislators to make it hot for gays in general society—Witnesses don’t do that—still, there is no place for gay relations within the Witness organization—and that hardly endears them to former members who have gone that way. There is a plain backdrop of ‘settling the score’ to be detected in many posts. It is anything but easy to hold the line on Bible morality in a quickly changing world.

If Montana have such law than that is obviously lawful how Supreme Court of Montana found elements that released elders and WT and Congregation from responsibility of such report. I am not expert to read documents in such a way and to see what is what into details.
What is interesting, again, from several cases and Court documents known to public, is very strong interest of WT Society and JW elders to be considered in front, before secular authorities, as clergy, priesthood with all legal rights as Catholic clergy. In fact WT lawyers using Catholic clergy as example, how they want to be treated in the exactly same way.  
WT Society, elders and regular members have history of preaching against all religions and theirs priesthood who are instruments of satan, and how these churches and their priesthood lies to people and teach falsehoods. But now WT Society asking, in fact demands to be treated exactly in the same way, to be in same level of "spiritual position, authority" that have Catholic clergy. That is something disgusting, for observers. When taking such position, JW elders drinking "same wine of adultery" with their Catholic "colleagues".      
JW church has not "confession" doctrine  as Catholic church has. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989217 Why? Because, JW church had not clergy ....until now :))) 

Not to be unkind, 4Jah, but you do burn out rather quickly. It would be nice if you did more than just search for bullet points for you ammo case.

You might have no idea, but I do. All you have to do is ask. There should be no reason to merely throw around insults but then not be willing to answer questions. That's just an old "Allen Smith" tactic. If you had asked why I believed the Bible verses that @4Jah2me referenced, it was because you asked a simple question requoted here.
I think last person to see Jesus in spirit form might well have been Paul, but Paul implies that at least a portion of this encounter with Jesus in spirit form may have been in a vision, or he may have been temporarily blinded, or perhaps even in a subsequent vision, whether in the body or out of the body he wasn't sure. There were others with Paul on the road to Damascus for which it is also unclear just what was seen.
So I think it's reasonable to assume that persons who saw Jesus while he was in spirit form would have seen Jesus while he had materialized a body of flesh and bone. This included most of the apostles and several of the disciples and, according to Paul, upwards of 500 or more. (Assumed to be after his resurrection but prior to his ascension.)
So I up-voted the 1 Cor 15:6 reference. I up-voted it because it's the same scripture I would have responded with.
 

I think there is a scripture that says Jesus was seen by up to 500 people. 
1 Corinthians 15 v 6. 
New International Version
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
New King James Version
After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.
We know that Jesus 'took on human form' when he was resurrected, so as to 'prove' his resurrection. We have the account of Thomas too. But we know that Jesus was resurrected as a spirit and merely 'used' human form to show himself to humans. 

@TrueTomHarley  I read half of it Tom, but you do tend to go over the top. 
One thing i find quite funny is the FACT that the GB / JW Org change the use of their conscience when it affects their bank account.
In many countries JW Preaching is AGAINST THE LAW.  But as the apostles said 'We must obey God as ruler rather than men'. So in many countries Witnesses deliberately break the law to preach. 
BUT, the GB / JW Org won't 'break the law' to protect young children from being Sexually Abused. 
Even if it it not a legal requirement' to report, SURELY it IS a requirement from GOD through CHRIST to report all forms of Abuse, Child or Adult, to those authorities which GOD HAD PUT IN PLACE.  
Berean Study Bible  James 1 v 27 
Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
New International Version Romans 13 v 1
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Christian Standard Bible
Let everyone submit to the governing authorities, since there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are instituted by God.
Your GB and its Org have no excuse. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Church stands by its decision
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints said it considers protecting victims a top priority, and has a 24-hour help line to report abuse. "   It seems that they have more of a conscience and better morality than the GB and JW org. They may have broken man's law but they obeyed God's law.  And no I do not want to be a Mormon.  But I think there is a scripture somewhere that says something like, 'when those without law do the things of the law' And of course it is talking about God's law not man's.

I think there is a scripture that says Jesus was seen by up to 500 people. 
1 Corinthians 15 v 6. 
New International Version
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
New King James Version
After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.
We know that Jesus 'took on human form' when he was resurrected, so as to 'prove' his resurrection. We have the account of Thomas too. But we know that Jesus was resurrected as a spirit and merely 'used' human form to show himself to humans. 

JW elders are clergy and WT Lawyers have said so! The JWorg website for the public has "erroneous" information about this subject. :))
When will this "new light" about the WT Society Management structure come out titled, 
"What exactly are the elders in fact?", and will this be announced and presented during meetings to members, as a "clarification"?

Did Jehovah’s Witnesses Lie to the Montana Court About Confidentiality?
by Alexandra James As many activists know, the Montana Supreme Court reversed a $35 million judgment against Jehovah's Witnesses recently, in a case involving the religion's failure to report child sex abuse to the authorities. (See this news story.)
Confidentiality Trumps Mandatory Reporting Laws
The court noted when religious authorities are exempt from the state's mandatory reporting laws; from page 14 of their ruling:
In other words, if someone communicates something to their clergy and expects that information to remain confidential, that clergy member is not required to report that information to authorities or anyone else.
Jehovah's Witnesses Promise Confidentiality to Congregants
The decision by the state justices referred to statements made by Dave Chappel,¹ "a Jehovah’s Witnesses Service Department elder designated by the Watchtower and CCJW [The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses] boards of directors to serve as their representative in this litigation":

In short, Chappel argued that congregants in the religion are promised that things discussed with elders remain strictly confidential. Chappel used this promise of confidentiality as a legal argument against requirements of reporting child sex abuse to the authorities.
The Deception Over "Confidentiality"
There is a problem with this so-called promise of confidentiality, however. The 2010 edition of "Shepherd the Flock of God," the handbook used by Jehovah's Witness elders, chapter 7, paragraph 15, says:

These instructions are repeated in the 2019 versions of the "Shepherd" book, in chapter 15, paragraph 15.
In other words, these so-called promises of keeping things confidential are rubbish. Elders are outright instructed to share things said during judicial committee cases with other elders, the circuit overseer, and the branch office as they see fit, without informing the "wrongdoer."
I'm not a lawyer so I have no input as to how this information affects any legal case, if at all. However, set that aside; from a moral point of view Jehovah's Witnesses were, at the very least, downright deceitful in their arguments. They don't ensure confidentiality during the judicial committee process, even instructing elders to use someone's name in certain discussions and to not tell that person that they'll be sharing their supposed confidential information.
Whatever anyone's legal arguments and outcome of any court case, there is no doubt in my mind that Jehovah's Witnesses continuously fail child sex abuse victims in their religion. They keep the secrets of molesters, fail to warn parents, fail to notify authorities, fight victims in court, and say whatever they can to protect their assets over their children.
I'm heartbroken over how the court's decision must make those victims feel, and knowing that the case was reversed based on a dishonesty obviously doesn't make things any easier to accept.
*** ***
¹It's my understanding that the person's name was Douglas, not Dave.
*** ***
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This came through to me today, so I thought I'd share it. 
Whilst I don't fully agree with massive payouts to victims (or lawyers), I do agree with a payout of a reasonable amount accompanied with an apology from the Org. It never puts the wrong, right. It never can. But it would give the Victim a closure and a sort of 'contentment' of actually being believed. 
Yes i know that lawyers and solicitors rub their hands greedily for their financial gain, but that must be on both sides i would think. Or do the GB's lawyers do it out of love ? 
One thing this article does point out for sure, is that there is no confidentiality within JW Org, they just share the secrets amongst themselves. Hopefully more brothers and sisters will gain a better conscience and report any wrongdoings to Police and Authorities as it still seems that Elders are exempt from doing so. 

Quote @Anna " I wonder what would cause someone to actually say “this is not what I have signed up for”. Maybe you have a few ideas? "
Child Sexual Abuse / Paedophilia hidden within the JW Org. 
Victims of CSA having been disfellowshipped for complaining to Elders. 
Victims of CSA being shunned for going outside the Org for help.
Immoral, dishonest lawyers being used by the GB to tell lies in court cases. 
The GB exalting themselves above the other Anointed. As it seems the complete remnant was the F&DS but now it's only those 8 Men. 
The GB suggesting that the rest of the Anointed 'keep quiet and do as they are told' by the GB / Elders of congregations.
The failed 'prophecies' of the JW Org. (1975 being one) 
The misuse of scriptures. Superior Authorities being one. 
The hypocrisy of the GB / Org advising people to read their own Bible, BUT not to have their own thoughts on scriptures.
The statement by one of the GB that 'God and Jesus Christ trusts us' whilst admitting finally that they are NOT inspired and do get things wrong. 
The list could be endless of course, as the GB are so puffed up with themselves, and make so many stupid videos and make up new rules as they go along. One such, that if a man and a woman spend a night in the same house they will be accused of fornication.... Strange in this day and age but if two men or two women spend a night in the same house I doubt they will be accused of homosexuality.  
And then it seems they are begging kids to give their ice cream money to the Org, whilst the Org is running big business project under different names. IBSA Properties London is one of them. 
Enough for now Anna ? 
 

Physical appearance of angels (in various cases that Bible described) was supernatural, or?

@b4ucuhear 
You quoted 1John 5:3 "For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments;+ and yet his commandments are not burdensome,"
 
I remember when I for the first time learned about this scripture. I thought, oh that is easy, you don't need to have any special feeling (love), just do it! Preach, go to meetings, avoid serious sins, and try to do all the things WT org suggests. By that I thought I had fulfilled the most important commandment in the Bible to "love Jehovah your God from all your heart, soul and strength". That was what I tried to do more than 15 year from my baptism. I was pioneer for 5 years, ministerial servant, and I had a lot of assignments in the congregation. My faith was based on performing and performance. Now thinking back to that, I realize that I was very active but it was very superficial. Instead of feeling love for God my worship was in fact based on trying to be righteous. I had mistaken that to be love for God in its entirety. Sadly during those years my prayers were very short, and often I could not come with many things to pray about. And I was so busy with keeping up with all what was imposed by the WT organization that I had not time to seriously read the Bible. It was like a choice between reading the Bible or reading the literature and preparing for meetings and for talks. 
So I think there are many JWs out there like me who have misunderstood 1John 5:3. But later when I begun diligently prayerfully to read the Bible with the aim of making further spiritual progress I remarked countless scriptures about love for Jehovah and Jesus and fellow humans and even enemies. And I remarked scriptures that showed what love is. Finally I understood that love is a feeling and when it is accompanied by accurate knowledge it motivates to do fine works that please God and rejoice people.
True you can like a machine do fine works, and be quite righteous. But it will be like forced. Probably people will remark in that case that there is not love behind all those works. Such a person might well appear stressed even irritable doing all those works for God and surrounding people. 
Apostle Paul had understood that there is a problem when good works are done without the right feeling, the feeling of love. He writes:
1 Corinthians 13:1 "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a clanging gong or a clashing cymbal. 2  And if I have the gift of prophecy and understand all the sacred secrets and all knowledge,+ and if I have all the faith so as to move* mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.*+ 3  And if I give all my belongings to feed others,+ and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love,+ I do not benefit at all.
4  Love+ is patient*+ and kind.+ Love is not jealous.+ It does not brag, does not get puffed up,+ 5  does not behave indecently,*+ does not look for its own interests,+ does not become provoked.+ It does not keep account of the injury.*+ 6  It does not rejoice over unrighteousness,+ but rejoices with the truth. 7 It bears all things,+ believes all things,+ hopes all things,+ endures all things.+
8  Love never fails."
To make it even easier to understand we could replace Paul's wording 'love is' by when 'you feel love'.
Then it would read:
When you feel love you are patient and kind. When you feel love you are not jealous. When you feel love you don't feel for bragging, and you not get puffed up,+ 5  and when you feel love you don't behave indecently,*and when you love you don't not look for your own interests, and you don't become provoked. When you love you don't bother to keep account of the injury.* 6  when you have the feeling of love you can't rejoice over unrighteousness, but you will rejoice with the truth. 7 When you love you bear all things, believe all things, hope all things, endure all things.
And here is an other scripture showing that love really is a feeling.
1Peter 4:8 "Above all things, have intense love for one another,  because love covers a multitude of sins."
Is it not evident that as soon as you feel love to somebody you don't bother to remember of a fellow person's sins. 
It has been said that it is thanks to love we will be able to endure and remain faithful to God. In this case specifically the feeling of love is the vital force that enables endurance.
So as conclusion to this we need to cultivate the feeling of love so that it would abound in us and have accurate knowledge so we could project that feeling in a right way.
Philippians 1:8 "For God is my witness of how I am longing for all of you with such tender affection as Christ Jesus has. 9  And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10  that you may make sure of the more important things, so that you may be flawless and not stumbling others up to the day of Christ; 11  and that you may be filled with righteous fruit, which is through Jesus Christ, to God’s glory and praise."
 
 

I also agree with this reality. 
But I also think it is then necessary to separate the idea that WT promotes. Again we need to ask ourselves: How does "true knowledge of God" multiply?
Through "progressive knowledge"? In other words, this may mean that errors and accuracy occur through attempts. And so the results change.
If one can describe the "progressive knowledge" of the Organization in this way, then it has nothing to do with their claim that the "holy spirit leads" GB and Organization with the same method, "progressive knowledge."
If the holy spirit uses the "progressive knowledge" method, what is it different from the human "progressive knowledge" method? 
Human using "progressive knowledge" from the beginning. Somehow we can tell it is "invention" made by God when he created human brain.  In Eden, Adam and Eve and their children accumulate their knowledge with years and experience. And in similar way WT Society done about Bible. I found interesting quote:
 “We tend to think human knowledge as progressive; because we know more and more, our parents and grandparents are back numbers. But a contrary theory is possible - that we simply recognize different things at different times and in different ways.”
No matter what is the case, I am not sure how we should involve "holy spirit" in our mathematics. WT Society and GB claims how they are "guided by spirit", is just moving ordinary human try to understand something with various methods of thinking ("progressive knowledge") on "higher level" to put impression on members, who want to believe how exactly that what WT publications bring them, is/are "God's truth". 
Change of methods how to gain "progressive knowledge" is visible in "changed approached about type and antitype". Your article say:  In times past, it was more common for our literature to take what might be called a type-antitype approach to Scriptural accounts. The Bible narrative was considered the type, and any prophetic fulfillment of the story was the antitype.... Additionally, it has been found that some of the older explanations about types and antitypes are unduly difficult for many to grasp. The details of such teachings—who pictures whom and why—can be hard to keep straight, to remember, and to apply. Of even greater concern, though, is that the moral and practical lessons of the Bible accounts under examination may be obscured or lost in all the scrutiny of possible antitypical fulfillments. ....Should we conclude that Bible narratives have only a practical application and no other meaning? No. Today our publications are more likely to teach that one thing reminds us of or serves to illustrate another. They are less likely to present many Bible accounts in a rigid framework of prophetic types and antitypes. For example, we can rightly say that Naboth’s integrity in the face of persecution and death reminds us of the integrity of Christ and his anointed. However, we can also be reminded of the faithful stand of many of the Lord’s “other sheep.” Such a clear and simple comparison has the hallmark of divine teaching.* - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2015202
..hallmark of divine teaching..  What is "divine teaching"? When WT Society had "divine teachings"? Before or after "changed approach"? Who caused "progress"? God, or human need to change what is old and making problem for WT GB theology?