ASF-37

Correct. I was not implying the Awake! Articles were submitted as a defense for or against legal standings. I submitted them as a realization into certain implications and dangers attached to the action of child abuse.
The term “grooming” was added as a substance to the broader types of child abuse in 2009 by the U.S. federal mandate.
The comparison of the two was to illustrate that the Watchtower was well aware of certain conditions existing in society, before the term grooming became part of a legal remedy. Certain concerns were raised here, that made my submission; relevant to that concern.
Child Pornography and Sexual Grooming 2009
 Sexual Grooming
Grooming behaviour can share a relationship with the wider phenomenon of child sexual abuse; research has shown that an opportunity to sexually abuse a child is more likely to emerge following an act of grooming. 30 Grooming can be conceived as a predatory act committed in order to facilitate sexual abuse and, thus, the issue of context – particularly the motivation behind the behaviour – is highly relevant. P.32
 ‘Grooming’ and the Sexual Abuse of Children 2012
The Extent of Grooming
The covert nature of sexual grooming makes it difficult to pinpoint yet alone quantify such behaviour. While the scale and extent of grooming locally, nationally, and internationally is ultimately unknown (Kosaraju, 2008), a range of both quantitative and qualitative sources collectively provide some representation of the nature and extent of sexual grooming. These have included studies of the disclosure process in children who have been abused (eg Hunter, Goodwin, and Wilson, 1992; Watkins and Bentovim, 1992; Berliner and Conte, 1990, 1995; Sas and Cunningham, 1995), of offenders in treatment programmes (eg Budin and Johnson, 1989; Conte, Wolf, and Smith, 1989; Christiansen and Blake, 1990; Elliott, Browne, and Kilcoyne, 1995; Smallbone and Wortley, 2000; Beckett et al 2004; Hudson, 2005) and of both taken together (Phelan, 1995). P.32
 Those articles come to show the Watchtower made a concerted effort to address a danger before it had become an official mandate by law. When parents become the first line of defense for their children, it is important for witnesses to properly do their own research starting with Watchtower publications. This measure of diligence should be part of any caretaker's daily routine.

Someone else, maybe @Witness  (forgive me if I'm wrong) mentioned that the GB were putting themselves in the place of Jesus Christ. I think the idea was dismissed. 
However @AlanF comment here :- claiming to exercise the rights and prerogatives of Christ as his empowered representatives. >> 
This is fantastic. It proves the point beyond doubt.  
I don't link on to anyone, just individual comments. And that comment makes a lot of sense to me. 

JW Insider said:
Good!
Correct. Remember that "messiah" and "christ" mean "anointed one", meaning "anointed by God". The term does not apply just to Jesus Christ, or even to someone claiming to be Jesus Christ returned, but to anyone claiming to be anointed by God.
        
You're confusing two separate ideas. There is nothing scripturally wrong with expecting and hoping for "the end" to come soon. But predicting a specific time period for "the end" is a different kettle of fish. I need not repeat the many warnings given in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 against trying to predict "the end"; they're clear enough on their own.
Therefore predicting a specific date or narrow window of time is grossly unscriptural. Otherwise, what do the scriptural warnings mean?
Well, there is a lot that can be said about Revelation. What did John mean by "near"? If we say, "within a couple of decades", then Revelation can be dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic. If we say, "we don't know but we believe John was inspired", then it must mean "several thousand years". But that is extremely problematic since several thousand years is not "near" in any meaningful sense. One is then forced to interpret "near" in the virtually meaningless sense of "an unknown time in the future". And the meaning of "near" in Luke 21 is obviously not that.
The Society itself explained the "I am he" one and only one time, in the Nov. 1, 1964 Watchtower (p. 645). After some commentary it said:
<< The combined testimony of these faithful witnesses pointed to danger from within the ranks of professed Christians. The peril would be not so much from the openly avowed opponents of Christ as from those who would rise up claiming to be Christ or claiming to exercise the rights and prerogatives of Christ as his empowered representatives. >>
Now, who today among Jehovah's Witnesses claims "the rights and prerogatives of Christ as his empowered representatives"? The Governing Body. Therefore, by the Society's own argumentation, the GB is saying "I am he". Case closed.
 
Posted 8 minutes ago
That meaning is consistent with the Society's argument in the 1964 Watchtower: "Christ's empowered representatives".
Which is exactly why Russell and his successors must be among the ones that Luke 21:8 says not to follow.
Further titles were "The Kingdom Is At Hand", "The Approaching Peace of a Thousand Years", "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached", etc.
All of this is so obvious that Albert Schroeder immediately realized its import, and almost panicked. This caused him to deny that the Bible applies to Jehovah's Witnesses. Otherwise he would have had to admit that the JW organization is fundamentally at odds with Jesus' teaching.

I believe you.
I worked for the man and know that he wasn't one to respond quickly to questions unless he was sure of the answer already given in the publications. He was a Gilead teacher and my father's KM school instructor, and was known to always look for the official answer. (If there was not an official answer, he saw this as an opportunity to come up with a solution. The research assignments I got from him were for areas where he was trying to develop a topic he could write a "new" article about. But he always wanted to be sure it was really "new" and that he could review anything previously "on the books" for any topic. His 1957 generation was a good case in point. He also wanted to develop a medical-based article tying together the Bible's use of "the heart." )
FWIW, I would have answered like this:
The verse says not to go after persons who say "I am he" AND who say "the due time is near."  On the first point, we could say that we do not say "I am he" in the CONTEXT of Jesus' answer in Luke. "I am he" is most likely referring to "false messiahs." The problem with this is that the idea of "false messiah" in context sets a kind of trap that you point out, in that anyone who tries to predict the closeness of the destructive judgment is making himself a kind of prophet or Messiah, saying that they are speaking for Christ. On the second point: "the due time is near," this would be much easier. Revelation has John stating that the due time is near. (Revelation 1:1-3) . . .A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. . . . 3 Happy is the one who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy and who observe the things written in it, for the appointed time is near. (Revelation 22:20) . . .“The one who bears witness of these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming quickly.’” “Amen! Come, Lord Jesus.”
If we can extricate ourselves from the "I am he" then Revelation 1 & 22 give us the basis on which to say "the due time has approached."

In the thread Eight Governing Body etc on page 21, Anna asked me to post the following on a new thread. So here we go.
Governing Body Member Albert Schroeder Denies the Bible Applies to Jehovah's Witnesses
Consider the Bible passage at Luke 21:5-8:
<< 5 Later, when some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with fine stones and dedicated things, 6 he said: “As for these things that you now see, the days will come when not a stone will be left upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 7 Then they questioned him, saying: “Teacher, when will these things actually be, and what will be the sign when these things are to occur?” 8 He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them. >>
The important part here is verse 8. According to most Bible commentaries, and the Society itself, the phrase 'I am he' means "I am someone important, someone to be listened to, someone with authority from Jesus and God to represent them". That obviously includes JW leaders since they directly claim to be Jehovah's representatives. The next part of the verse mentions such people as saying ‘The due time is near’ which obviously refers back to the time when "these things are to occur". Jesus, then, was warning his listeners that if they hear such persons claiming to represent God, and claiming that the due time for 'the end' is near, they should not go after them. Since this perfectly describes what JW leaders have done throughout their history and continue to do, it is obvious that Jesus himself said not to follow them.
In 1994 I had a phone conversation with GB member Albert Schroeder about his failure to follow up on some things he had promised to do. After he said he was reneging on his promise, I decided to challenge him with a question about Luke 21:5-8. I asked him, What do you think that passage means? He got out his NWT and read it out loud. After finishing verse 8, he was unable to speak. After a minute or so, I said, "Well? What does this mean with respect to applying it to JW teaching about the end?" After another two minutes or so of dead silence, he said, "It can't apply to us, because we're God's people!" Of course, you can imagine my reaction.
In 2009 I found myself living temporarily in Utah, in Mormon country. One Saturday morning a lone JW, a man of about 70, came to our door. After some pleasantries where we identified ourselves as ex-JWs, I challenged him with Luke 21:5-8 and asked him the same thing I did with Schroeder. He was silent for a bit, and then said that he understood what the passage meant, so I asked him if he intended to remain a JW, given that his Lord Jesus Christ specifically said "do not follow them". He said that he had been a JW all his life and was too old to change. Perfectly understandable, of course, but also perfectly unchristian.

TrueTomHarley said:
     
Such an infantile rejoinder! You continue confirming that you're a real dummie. But since you suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect you don't know it.
LOL! This ridiculous bit of special pleading starts off, in its very first sentence, with this bit of nonsense:
<< It is revealing to me that those who taunt JWs endlessly over just how “inspired” are the ones at the helm today seem to take for granted that there should be ones who are that way. >>
It only gets worse from this simple-minded straw man.
The fact is that no critics of the JWs expect that there ought to be inspired people at the helm. Quite the contrary. Many critics, like Raymond Franz, clearly argued that no one can be inspired today, and that is one reason JW leaders should not make that claim, or make the claim that they have been appointed by holy spirit as Jehovah's representatives.
It is JW leaders themselves who claim or have claimed direct inspiration, or 'guidance' that is indistinguishable from plenary inspiration. J. F. Rutherford claimed that angels magically 'downloaded' information into his head. And on and on.
The fact that JW leaders disfellowship for 'apostasy' anyone who contradicts their teaching or denies that they are God's representatives proves that they really do claim inspiration.
The rest of your 'argumentation' is too childish to comment on.

Anna said:
     
So you don't think that God appoints any GB members. Good for you! If God did not appoint Greenlees, then he and the rest of them were appointed by fallible men -- a position considered apostate by the Governing Body and its minions.
 
But that all depends on whether the men applying the scriptures do so perfectly. If they do not, then holy spirit could not have appointed the man.
It does not. All your rationalizations are mere special pleading.
     
Then God had nothing to do with Greenlees' appointment to the GB or anything else. By extension, neither does he have anything to do with appointing any other JW elders -- contrary to the Society's claims.
     
Not as such, but they would certainly have been inclined to ignore Greenlees' behavior if they knew about it. And things like obvious homosexuality are not things easily ignored.
And of course, according to Watchtower doctrine, anyone not fully qualified to be a proper elder would not be appointed, because holy spirit would see to it.
     
Of course. And to appropriate lawyers.
     
Ok, here's a good one.
Consider the Bible passage at Luke 21:5-8:
<< 5 Later, when some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with fine stones and dedicated things, 6 he said: “As for these things that you now see, the days will come when not a stone will be left upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 7 Then they questioned him, saying: “Teacher, when will these things actually be, and what will be the sign when these things are to occur?” 8 He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them. >>
The important part here is verse 8. According to most Bible commentaries, and the Society itself, the phrase 'I am he' means "I am someone important, someone to be listened to, someone with authority from Jesus and God to represent them". That obviously includes JW leaders since they directly claim to be Jehovah's representatives. The next part of the verse mentions such people as saying ‘The due time is near’ which obviously refers back to the time when "these things are to occur". Jesus, then, was warning his listeners that if they hear such persons claiming to represent God, and claiming that the due time for 'the end' is near, they should not go after them. Since this perfectly describes what JW leaders have done throughout their history and continue to do, it is obvious that Jesus himself said not to follow them.
In 1994 I had a phone conversation with GB member Albert Schroeder about his failure to follow up on some things he had promised to do. After he said he was reneging on his promise, I decided to challenge him with a question about Luke 21:5-8. I asked him, "What do you think that passage means?" He got out his NWT and read it out loud. After finishing verse 8, he was unable to speak. After a minute or so, I said, "Well? What does this mean with respect to applying it to JW teaching about the end?" After another two minutes or so of dead silence, he said, "It can't apply to us, because we're God's people!" Of course, you can imagine my reaction.
In 2009 I found myself living temporarily in Utah, in Mormon country. One Saturday morning a lone JW, a man of about 70, came to our door. After some pleasantries where we identified ourselves as ex-JWs, I challenged him with Luke 21:5-8 and asked him the same thing I did with Schroeder. He was silent for a bit, and then said that he understood what the passage meant, so I asked him if he intended to remain a JW, given that his Lord Jesus Christ specifically said "do not follow them". He said that he had been a JW all his life and was too old to change. Perfectly understandable, of course, but also perfectly unchristian.
Obviously there is no point in his latter years where he had "been made clean".
     
Shows like those are not intended to be scholarly documentaries but to motivate people to act. And that's what they did.
Yes, and the people who helped spark all that were partly motivated by those TV presentations.
 
Your point? Complexity is irrelevant to the criminal coverups.
     
I perfectly well understand the process. God and holy spirit have nothing to do with it. JWs merely pretend they do.
But the Society makes no claims about such things.
What do you think JW leaders mean when they say that Jehovah has appointed them as his anointed representatives? Merely that their predecessors read the Bible and decided to appoint them? I could appoint myself by that process, but would it be a valid appointment? Of course not, and by the same token JW leaders appointing other JW leaders is NOT in any sense "appointment by holy spirit".

Vic Vomidog said:
     
He/she seems to be in-between. I really can't tell, and these days it's impolite to ask. You'll have to decide for yourself.
Well, I think that an in-between would be pretty thick skinned.
It's never too late to fix all that.

Arauna said:
    
Ah, so God's spirit-directed organization should be judged by such 'worldly' standards. Such self-serving hypocrisy!
     
Nope. That moron first wrongly criticized my grammar and twice refused to be corrected. Or can't you read? Or is your age impeding your understanding?
I've said that several times in this thread. Did you not comprehend? Or do you think you're making a point?
Wrong. I expect that others will not be gross hypocrites, and will not stupidly try to remove a non-existent splinter from my eye when they have a rafter in theirs.
Sure, and I envy them for that. But they shouldn't challenge a competent native English speaker unless they have all their ducks in a row.
     
Arauna said:
     
LOL! You, who gets most of her knowledge of the world via Watchtower publications, have the gall to say that!
The Watchtower Society has been making claims like that since its beginning. Not one claim has come true. It taught that 1914 would bring "the end". It taught that 1918, 1920 and 1925 would bring Armageddon. It taught that Armageddon would come shortly after 1942. Then 1975 was really going to be "IT". Then 2000. After that, virtually every year after 2000.
No, Arauna, just like so many now-dead JWs, just before you die you're going to realize how badly your leaders have hoodwinked you.
Arauna said:
     
As I predicted, no reasonable answer here.
You have no actual reason that "nature red in tooth and claw" has existed for half a billion years. You believe that God created all life, so he must be the author of such a thing.
How could God not be the source of a "nature red in tooth and claw"?
My argument comes not from Dawkins but from a careful consideration of the Bible and scientific facts.
Do you have any actual arguments?
Arauna said:
     
No, it comes from thinking about the situation. This is not rocket science.
  
Except that I've demonstrated that you and most of your fellow JWs really do refuse to see. The few that do see prove my point.
     
But your posts indicate that you believe the Governing Body can do no wrong because you refuse to acknowledge any of their wrongdoing. You obviously view them as infallible, and you view them as they want to be viewed -- as God's anointed spokemen.
Prove me wrong if you disagree.
Not a hater, but a realistic viewer. You seem to have absorbed the post-modernist view that criticism is hatred.
Nonsense. You cannot cite examples.

JW Insider said:
Perhaps, perhaps not. In my experience with online forums and simply talking with ex-JWs generally, I've seen a great seething anger on the part of many because of the Society's policy of disfellowshipping for expressing disagreement with any JW doctrine. Such authoritarianism is bound to create resentment on the part of those who can actually think. Of course, a large fraction of JWs are content to have an authority tell them what to think, and even where to put their feet on each step.
Remember the large drop in JW membership after the 1975 fiasco.
The only reason that many JWs remain in the cult, at least nominally, is to avoid disfellowshipping or informal shunning. I know many, including my own family members, who are in that boat.
The point I'm making is not so much about disfellowshipping per se, but the attitude engendered in most JWs by the policy of disfellowshipping for 'apostasy', i.e., expressing disagreement with Watchtower tradition or policy.
Most JWs are well aware that if they found themselves before a judicial committee for expressing doubt about some JW teaching, the most important question the elders would ask is: "Do you believe that Jehovah is using the Governing Body?" A 'No' answer results in immediate disfellowshipping, as many stories posted by ex-JWs prove. This creates fear in the JWs who think this through.
I think the number of people who would even want to come back is small, so great is the resentment caused by the authoritarian policies.
You're right in principle, but not, I think, in practice. If there were less of a violent reaction by Watchtower officials against disagreement, there would be less pushback by those who are punished for disagreeing. It simply wouldn't be worth their time.
About 20 years ago I managed to get an audience with a Watchtower official about such things. He was interested in hearing the viewpoint of an outspoken online critic. I told him that if the Society cleaned up its act on three issues, most opposition would dry up: blood, child molestation and disfellowshipping. He agreed.
Of necessity, sure.
Of course, because for decades the Society has condemned deviations as rebellion against God. The JW community could be rehabilitated fairly easily.
I think the fact that most JWs DO think of their leaders as governors of their faith belies all that.
That's because there IS no acceptable replacement. Why? Because it is the entire end-times scenario created by Russell and perpetuated by his successors that is wrong.
Much like slowly boiling a frog in a big pot keeps him comfortable.
Such "appreciation" ignores the fact that most of the time, JW leaders must be dragged kicking and screaming away from their traditional teachings. The experience of many JWs who tried to offer constructive criticism but were punished for their efforts proves it. Think of Carl Olof Jonsson and Jay Hess.
If these men were truly humble, they would not claim that their own words are equal to God's.
Considered by who?
Sure, if it involved an extremely clear violation of biblical norms, such as sleeping with one's stepmother. But a far better practice would be to organizationally ignore most bad forms of conduct, since individual JWs are supposed to be trained to have consciences tuned well enough to figure these things out on their own. But a century of authoritarian indoctrination has severely damaged the conscience and thinking ability of far too many JWs. "What does the Society say?" rather than "What does the Bible say?" is the operational phrase for most elders. That's understandable since the Governing Body has put itself in the place of God in the minds of JWs. Watchtower policy almost always trumps an individual JW's understanding of the Bible.

@JW Insider Thank you for this comical comment above. 
A few quotes "Witnesses are generally very comfortable with their leadership."
Exactly how many people have you asked. Were they just elders that you asked ? 
Quote "Also, among JWs, there is a great appreciation for the good that comes out of association with others of like faith in the brotherhood. "
Yes it is a social club. Well here in UK it definitely is a social club. Hence when a person is disfellowshipped they lose EVERYONE they would normally spend time with.  Also hence, that is what keeps many JW's 'physically in', because of the fear of being totally alone if they left. Shunning keeps people in the JW Org, that is the way the GB / Org rules people's lives. So, no, many JW's are not 'very comfortable with their leadership', but they just don't have a good way out, without being totally 'cut off'.
And judging by feedback I'm getting from within the Org, fornication and divorce is increasing here in the UK. But I will not enlarge on that due to where I get my information. 
The word Apostasy can be argued here for hours, and in fact often is. 
And the GB seem frighten to announce reasons from the platform for why a person is 'No longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses'. 
So no one knows if a person left of their own accord, or was d'fed. 
As for this 'because no one has offered a consistent acceptable replacement yet.'  It is laughable. Just because you don't know exactly what is right, does that mean you don't know what isn't right ?  And doesn't it tell you to wait on God through Christ, instead of burbling on with untrue information ?  
Quote " Of course, the Bible already gives us a guide that shows there are also very serious kinds of apostasy, "
Give us examples please. 
And might your own GB be guilty of some of these ? 

Another person that speaks twaddle ? lots of words that mean nothing / more smoke screen.  @TrueTomHarley
With all that I've been reading about 'those in power' in the Org from 1970 ish onward, it goes to prove without doubt that they were not inspired, nor were they even guided by Holy Spirit. 
Why do you people always have to relate everything to worldly things ? 
If I compared my house to a third world tin slum, then my home is almost perfect.  But if i compare my home to one of those houses the JW Org is selling in London for over one million pounds, then my home isn't so cool. 
That is why you people love to compare your GB and it's Org to the world, so that your GB and it's Org always looks better. If you were brave enough to compare your GB and it's Org to GOD'S HIGH STANDARDS, then you see the many dangerous faults. 
And as for your scripture misquote “To whom else shall we go?   I don't remember reading in God's word, that the answer was, Go to the JW Org. You see how you twist scripture to suit your own means ? 
Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life,
The scripture is concerning JESUS CHRIST, NOT JW ORG. 
Quote "In this case, the “no Santa Claus” is learning that the GB is made up of men who can make mistakes."
I think the Watchtower words were ' make mistakes and err'
So in your eyes does that mean make mistakes and make mistakes  (which makes no sense) 
Or, does it mean make mistakes and deliberately do wrong ?  
Please don't have the wrong kind of 'love' for your GB, that it becomes worship. Because if you do you will be too forgiving, and in so doing you will not 'search all things to see if they are true'.  
On this forum, we have seen this critique a few times. It was clearly claimed by @JOHN BUTLER, who sadly was "DF'd" from the forum. 
I just have to pick up on this point. Firstly it's good to know what happened to him.  So the question is why ?
And secondly @Anna and others, that @JW Insider directly says disfellowshipped, even if he uses the 'safe mode' of inverted commas. 
This, in my opinion, upholds my belief that this forum is run by Elders. 
 

For you that are debating bylaws and secular law? This might shed some light on several points raised as a concern for the term grooming.
*** g04 12/8 p. 20 The Internet—How to Avoid the Dangers ***
Children are even more vulnerable to exploitation and harm by “computer-sex offenders.” Using “crookedness of speech” and “deviousness of lips,” pedophiles target inexperienced children. (Proverbs 4:24; 7:7) Engaging in a practice known as grooming, they shower the child with attention, affection, and kindness to make the youngster feel special. They seem to know everything a child is interested in
 
*** g 10/07 p. 6 How to Protect Your Children ***
  In time, the molester will begin grooming the child for abuse. He gradually becomes more physical with the child through innocent-looking displays of affection, playful wrestling, and tickling. He may give generous gifts and begin to separate the child from friends, siblings, and parents, in order to spend time alone with the child.
 
Officially, that term “grooming” has been attached to several circumstances. To that extent it was used in combination for the term “child abuse” as part of a legal argument that wasn’t used in the U.S. until 2009.

The consideration is with timeline. The Watchtower, without being obligated or forced by reform, mentions in earlier articles addressing the problem of “grooming” in 2004-2007 that became the extent of the law in 2009.
Any former member would then need to answer this fundamental question when this defense is offered, why wasn’t the child’s parents or close family member, didn't take precautions by reviewing prior Watchtower articles addressing such a danger?
 

For you that are debating bylaws and secular law? This might shed some light on several points raised as a concern for the term grooming.
*** g04 12/8 p. 20 The Internet—How to Avoid the Dangers ***
Children are even more vulnerable to exploitation and harm by “computer-sex offenders.” Using “crookedness of speech” and “deviousness of lips,” pedophiles target inexperienced children. (Proverbs 4:24; 7:7) Engaging in a practice known as grooming, they shower the child with attention, affection, and kindness to make the youngster feel special. They seem to know everything a child is interested in
 
*** g 10/07 p. 6 How to Protect Your Children ***
  In time, the molester will begin grooming the child for abuse. He gradually becomes more physical with the child through innocent-looking displays of affection, playful wrestling, and tickling. He may give generous gifts and begin to separate the child from friends, siblings, and parents, in order to spend time alone with the child.
 
Officially, that term “grooming” has been attached to several circumstances. To that extent it was used in combination for the term “child abuse” as part of a legal argument that wasn’t used in the U.S. until 2009.

The consideration is with timeline. The Watchtower, without being obligated or forced by reform, mentions in earlier articles addressing the problem of “grooming” in 2004-2007 that became the extent of the law in 2009.
Any former member would then need to answer this fundamental question when this defense is offered, why wasn’t the child’s parents or close family member, didn't take precautions by reviewing prior Watchtower articles addressing such a danger?
 

@Anna Now that you mentioned it I remember that too. So far no information I had seen in the UK regarding the mental ill person who committed the act. For the past few months I was focused on not just my ministry, but grave things concerning csa in several parts of the world.
@Arauna The UK is far worse when it comes to child abuse. So much as so, some even commit the idea that the gov't let's certain folks go, while some who they do not recognize are the ones to be sent away; locked up.

From the email I received. " In June 2015 it issued a retention order covering documents of interest to the Inquiry to the leaders of 18 prominent religious organisations, including the Jehovah's Witnesses. " 
18 different religions, apart from all the government departments and other institutions. So give them a chance.
It doesn't say that the JW Org is not worth investigating does it ? It's just not top priority. 
It is sad for the victims of JW Org sexual abuse here in the UK to have to wait longer, but I think the investigation will happen in time.
As for me despising any religion well those are your words Tom not mine.  

This must be extremely stressful to you, since the link you supplied points to 13 specific areas of inquiry, all but the first thought to be possible hotbeds of CSA, and the religion you despise is not among them.

I was having a discussion on here somewhere with someone, concerning the IICSA investigation into JW Org in the UK. 
I've just received this email from them so thought I'd put it up on here for people to look at. 
It doesn't copy and paste exactly as it looks on my email, but here it is anyway :- 
Our reference: IICSA-0013979

 
Dear Mr Butler
Thank you for contacting the Inquiry on 3 February.
As you may be aware, the Inquiry is investigating institutional failure to protect children from sexual abuse in the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches. In June 2015 it issued a retention order covering documents of interest to the Inquiry to the leaders of 18 prominent religious organisations, including the Jehovah's Witnesses.  
The Inquiry has received correspondence from a considerable number of individuals raising concerns about child sexual abuse within Jehovah's Witnesses organisations. At present the Inquiry is committed to delivering its existing programme and is not currently launching any new investigations. However, as our work progresses, we will consider calls for a Jehovah's Witnesses specific investigation carefully.
Any updates on our investigations, including scope and hearings can be found on our website at www.iicsa.org.uk/investigations
Investigations The Inquiry has launched 13 investigations into a broad range of institutions identified on the basis of the Panel’s criteria for selection of investigations. The investigations will give a voice to victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, enable the Inquiry to understand how institutions have failed to protect children from sexual abuse and make practical recommendations to ensure better institutional protection for children in the future. www.iicsa.org.uk  
I am sorry for the delay in responding to you and I hope that you have found this information useful. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this email, please do not hesitate to contact the Inquiry again.
Yours sincerely

Jodie Yarborough
Head of Correspondence & Engagement Team
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse
 

No you are wrong. The dogma / rules don't need to be looked for, they are forced on JW's, and constantly mentioned on here. 
But i don't see any replies to my original questions yet. 
 BUT what important beliefs have we gained since 1960 ? What IMPORTANT SCRIPTURAL input have those at the top made since 1960 ? 
And I say the Org is stagnant. Hence it make up rubbish, such as the overlapping generations, as it goes bumbling along.  
Quote @Arauna  " you are looking for the answers that can suit your agenda."  Yes, as my Agenda is searching for TRUTH. 
 

I think that if there were a lot of new things, many folks would just complain that it represents things we had wrong and had to change. The basic foundational beliefs have been around for quite a while, and we wouldn't expect any big changes in any of these. But we've gained a simpler message even though most of the "deeper" ideas are not discarded.
I think that we can be a bit humbler now because we aren't so often trying to compare our level of scholarship with others. We are not into the scholarship that proves the Trinity wrong, or Christmas wrong, even though we understand that our position on these things is much better than Christendom's.
I think we are wrong on a couple of less important doctrines that should be revisited in a scholarly manner. But if the WTS decided to never revisit some of these things, and could help us completely replace our concern instead with showing love to our fellow believers, and then showing love to our neighbor, and helping us learn patience, humility, peace, joy, love, kindness, moral cleanness, I would not care at all about a couple of mistaken doctrines.

César Chávez said:
          
LOL! You're again reduced to posting gobble-de-goop, because you have no rational response.
Ah, well, that explains it. Here is one dictionary entry:
Merriam-Webster
<< a collection of 24 or sometimes 25 sheets of paper of the same size and quality : one twentieth of a ream >>
Doesn't fit your usage.
<< quire: archaic spelling of choir >>
Most dictionaries don't even refer to the archaic spelling. All of which proves what I said: Most English speakers don't know the word. It's not in the vocabularies of most UK or American English speakers.
     
Not an intelligible sentence. I really do recommend Grammarly.
     
You keep getting yourself deeper and deeper in lies.
Here's what I said that you claimed was grammatically wrong:
<< The self-righteous JW apologists on this forum are pitiful. >>
There is nothing grammatically wrong with that sentence. Check it with Grammarly.
You somehow copied and pasted the sentence improperly, leaving the "s" off the end of "apologists":
<< The self-righteous JW apologist on this forum are pitiful. >>
Even though I pointed out your error two times, you continue to double down on it. Your first mistake is excusable. Your doubling down even after being twice corrected proves that you're a pathological liar.
JW Insider said:
Hmm. I see "WTF" on national news channels regularly.
It's still completely archaic and not used in normal conversation by normal English speakers. That specialized, archaic works like the Anglican prayer-book have it is like arguing that "sod pottage" is proper modern English because it appears in the original King James Bible.
My comments apply to him, too, since he has demonstrated himself to be a pathological liar.
His ad hominem attacks and lies can in no way be considered civil. And I will continue to deal with him as an uncivil pathological liar as long as he keeps it up.
Except that I have initiated no ad hominem attacks nor told lies. Remember that criticism of Mommy Watchtower is not an attack on any poster here.
     
No one would dare. I had the same thought.
Funny story: my old boss was from the south, and he once counseled me on my pronunciation of "gigahertz". "Not with the 'j' sound; we could be liable for racism." I just laughed.

César Chávez said:
 
 
How can you prove they're baseless? Do you have complete knowledge of all these things?
You only call the accusations baseless based on your virtual worship of the Governing Body, namely, putting them in place of God.
And of course, as I implied, your rationalization makes you a coward: you're afraid that a Watchtower official will confirm what I said.
I already told you several times: there is no proof, but lots of evidence collected over 25 years from many sources.
Gobble-de-goop.
More gobble-de-goop. Once again, try using Grammarly.
LOL! You are trying to instruct me in proper English usage?
We note that you made two grammar errors in the above sentence: (1) You should have used "its" not "it's"; (2) you should have used "definitions" not "definition" since there is more than one word in the English language.
Rather, let me instruct you: English words, like Spanish words, often have subtly different meanings. "Apologist" is one. The definition you posted is one, but there are others. The one you posted is not the most common usage. The most common usage is:
<< One who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an institution. >>
That's the sense in which I used it.
Related meanings are:
<< one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something
a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc.
a person who writes or speaks in defense or justification of a doctrine, faith, action, etc.
A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.
a person who supports a particular belief or political system, especially an unpopular one, and speaks or writes in defence of it >>
Note that the "something" does not have to be controversial or unpopular.
People like you, who offer defenses of the JW religion, are apologists.
People like me, who offer criticisms of the JW religion, are critics, not apologists.
You're still confusing "apologist" with "critic". Perhaps looking up the equivalents in Spanish will let you get your head on straight.
And of course, you're so dishonest that you still refuse to admit that you messed up when you copy/pasted "apologists" wrongly, thus causing you to double down on a ridiculously stupid argument.

In the past university professors were hoodwinked. Social services placed children back in the homes with pedophile fathers. 
Arrogance! I bet you only speak English well but expect others to write your "style".   Many here speak several languages of which English is not their first language.
Another arrogant  individual who  by his language shows what really is going on  in his upper storey.

Lol seriously.... Love her clueless responses.
Gossip, few cases of pedophilia.. 🤣🤣🤣 

Sure Aruna, whatever U say, U r so smart, I have no clue at all but U do.
Still find amazing ur clueless responses 🤣🤣🤣