Juan Rivera

Ray Franz made it seem that way, too, much to the annoyance of those interviewing him. This is after he had departed from Bethel and had written many bad things about them, but he thought this topic was far overhyped.
Nonetheless, I take your point, and have stated that those brothers wishing to portray it as though CSA could never ever occur within the Christian organization have inadvertently caused that organization much reputational damage, above and beyond anything to do with the crimes themselves.
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/04/lessons-to-be-learned-re-child-sexual-abuse.html
I am told by an elder of about 40, who is a relative, that these days elders strongly urge parents to report cases of abuse (only to find that many are reluctant) I accept this as the way things currently are, since this person was completely unaware of my interest in the subject or of anything I had written. 
 

Wish it were that simple. This is only ONE of the reasons to be insular. Another reason to be insular is to hide the fact that you are just like the world in some areas and still hope that people will think of you as no part of the world. In other words, it's to hide your dirty laundry.
(Romans 13:11-14) . . .. 12 The night is well along; the day has drawn near. Let us therefore throw off the works belonging to darkness and let us put on the weapons of the light. 13 Let us walk decently as in the daytime, not in wild parties and drunkenness, not in immoral intercourse and brazen conduct, not in strife and jealousy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not be planning ahead for the desires of the flesh.
I think it's helpful to always remember that we are talking about crimes: crimes that can be akin to rape and murder and torture and kidnapping and terror. Granted there are some aspects of child sexual abuse that don't appear to sound like crimes. Some persons get caught during the times when they are only "grooming" children for more serious abuse. (Romans 13:14 "planning ahead for the desires of the flesh.") A recent court case includes an elder who was able to convince the other elders that it was "accidental touching" before being caught in several other cases at various stages of abuse. 
I remember when Brother J.R.Brown did an interview and kept focusing on false accusations, accidents, and "lesser" areas of child sexual abuse, such as an 18 year old committing fornication a 16 year old. I didn't see the old 20-20 interview about CSA and still haven't. But I remember listening to J.R.Brown's comments and immediately thinking that he must know that this is a common way to shift attention away from the serious crimes of CSA, which often includes rape/violence. I believe now that the WTS had already paid out millions of dollars even back then, but this is not something that Brother Brown could admit. He made it seem like we didn't really have a problem. I think this kind of hiding, or keeping people in the dark on a matter, could have been very dangerous in that the problem was not dealt with openly. Hinting that matters of "sexual abuse" are associated with apostate lies is another way to keep people in the dark. (Granted that Lett's quote was technically accurate, but it served the same purpose because he was not willing to admit the extent of the problem.)
Brother Jackson at least admitted that these cases of real CSA were not associated with apostate lies. He admitted that it is a real problem in our community, just as it is in the world at large. That was an excellent "change" in the way we began to address the issue. I think it has led to the current shift away from trying to save the reputation of the organization, and make sure that the blame goes to the perpetrator.
Again, I think that even when a person comes to the elders with a case they would like spiritual guidance on, but don't wish to have the case go to the police or other authorities, I think that a desire for privacy should not always be a valid concern. Many types of CSA rise to the level of overriding the legal requirements. Abusers repeatedly are caught repeating the crime with another person. I think there should be times when the elders tell a parent:
"We understand that you want to avoid publicity, embarrassment, and reproach that this would bring on your family and the organization. This family head and 'breadwinner' may even lose his job and no longer be able to easily care for the rest of his family financially. And you may even have the law on your side when it comes to keeping such a terrible thing hidden. But, as for us, we must do all we can to protect the innocent, not the guilty. It is our Christian obligation to protect the innocent, look after orphans and widows in their tribulation, and therefore if necessary, to err on the side of mercy and love for the innocent. If we must make a judgment, we should err on the side of those who are often trampled by the world's justice: the children. It's what we are willing to do for the "least of these" that is deemed as if doing the same for Christ himself.
(Proverbs 11:21) . . .Be assured of this: An evil person will not go unpunished, But the children of the righteous will escape.
(Isaiah 10:1, 2) . . .Woe to those who enact harmful regulations, Who constantly draft oppressive decrees,  2 To deny the legal claim of the poor, To deprive the lowly among my people of justice, Making widows their spoil And fatherless children their plunder!
(Matthew 7:11) 11 Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will your Father who is in the heavens give good things to those asking him!
(Matthew 18:2-5) . . .So calling a young child to him, he stood him in their midst 3 and said: “Truly I say to you, unless you turn around and become as young children, you will by no means enter into the Kingdom of the heavens. 4 Therefore, whoever will humble himself like this young child is the one who is the greatest in the Kingdom of the heavens; 5 and whoever receives one such young child on the basis of my name receives me also.

This speaks to what non-biased journalists have pegged as JWs greatest problem—the religion is “insular”—and almost by definition, “insular” does not spill. 
The trick will be to shed the negative aspects of “insularity” without sacrificing its positive aspects. After all,  being “insular” and being the required “no part of this world” are practically the same. The very purpose of insulation is to separate what is desirable from what is harmful.
The verse I think of is 1 Corinthians 5:9-10:
In my letter I wrote you to quit mixing in company with fornicators,  not [meaning] entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world.”
The latter is impossible. The former is mandated. The trick will be to merge the two. 

Elizabeth Chuck wrote an article about Jehovah’s Witnesses and I would have preferred she write one instead about the PTA meeting in her town. It is a normal reaction, for it was news of a huge-dollar verdict against a religious organization I hold dear. Of course I hate to see it; that’s only natural. When you find yourself on the gallows you do not angle for a selfie with the hangman.
Still, if you must hear bad news, hear it from Ms. Chuck, for her news in this case is straight reporting, not one of the hatchet jobs we often get. The topic is the most white-hot topic of all, child sexual abuse, and temptations to whip it into fever pitch are not resisted by all. She does resist it. That’s not to say I might not write it up differently. With every story, it is a matter of which facts you put where. But she doesn’t make any up or deliberately misrepresent them. Having said that, it is not to suggest that even those who do misrepresent do so on purpose, as I will outline. Well…I guess it is to suggest that, but only to suggest. It is not proof positive. When your own people merely say that they ‘abhor child abuse and strive to protect children’, but otherwise do not comment, what’s a reporter to do?
Here’s what I like about the Elizabeth Chuck story.
First of all, it is not like the Matt Volz AP article, picked up by many sources, that expressed seeming bewilderment that “the Jehovah’s Witness cases haven’t received the same national attention” [as the Roman Catholic Church]. Is not the reason a big ‘Duh’? The Montana case abuse under trial was all within a family and church leaders were accused of botching the handling of it, though blameless themselves. It’s a little different than church leaders actually committing the abuse, something which is very rare with Witnesses.
Ms. Chuck correctly (and atypically) makes clear that a “two-witness rule” used by Witnesses “is only for internal modes of discipline and does not prevent a victim from going to the police.” She correctly points out that “there are very strict internal modes of discipline within Jehovah's Witnesses.” Yes. It is not an anything-goes religion. She correctly observes that being disfellowshipped is often a painful experience and serves as a negative incentive to do what might trigger it. So far so good. It might not be as I would phrase it, but it is certainly acceptable reporting.
She stumbles briefly, though not seriously, when she says: “Jehovah's Witnesses are a misunderstood and very self-enclosed group, despite counting some celebrities among its ranks — including Venus and Serena Williams.” She is right that they are misunderstood. The only footnote I would add is about her seeming acquiescence to the common wisdom that groups are validated by having celebrities in their camp, many of whom are among the most silly people on earth, living radically different lives than anyone else. However, the miscue is minor, and, after all, I make use of poor Serena Williams, too.
Ms. Chuck does her homework. She consults experts on religion, such as “Mark Silk, a professor and the director of the Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn [who says of Witnesses] ‘They don't vote. They don't celebrate birthdays and holidays. They don't say the pledge [of allegiance]. They are not just another Christian denomination.’” It is not her fault if she does not know that the guy (likely) has it in for us, spinning his facts negatively, and the reason is revealed in his very job title: he is a professor at Trinity College. If you do not accept the Trinity teaching, you are toast in the eyes of many of these people. Nonetheless, what the professor about voting and not pledging allegiance is true enough. He does not mention that if nobody pledged allegiance to human institutions maybe the national king could not pit them so easily against each other in times of war, but that is beyond the scope of his information request. At least he doesn’t inaccurately charge that Jehovah’s Witnesses are disrespectful to country, for there are few people as scrupulous about ‘rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s’ (taxes) than they. Reporter Chuck relates the words of another expert: “"Whatever belief they have or mode of internal discipline they have, they have a biblical justification for it.” I’ll take it. It’s true. We don’t apologize for it. I prefer it infinitely over church reporters saying we are not Christian because we do not accept the Trinity. The reason we not accept it is that its scriptural support is based almost entirely upon taking literally certain passages which, if they were seen in any other context, would be instantly dismissed as figure of speech.
She relates dutifully the sparse words of the Watchtower organization that they “abhor child abuse and strive to protect children from such acts,” attributing the sparseness to “a penchant for privacy.” She takes it at face value. She does not imply that they are lying through their teeth, like Mr. Gambacorta did in the Philadelphia Inquirer, dismissing the words as ‘boiler plate,’ and even ending his article with an anecdote of spying artwork at the JW headquarters captioned ‘Jehovah loves children,’ and using it as a pretext to wink at his readers as though to say: ‘Yes, I guess we know just how they love them’ before returning to his Witness-hating base on a Reddit thread, where he is hailed as a hero. He made me so mad that I responded by letter, and when it was ignored I put it online (and I wish it got more play than it actually does, for it is good, not the whole picture perhaps, but what is?  It represents facts not exactly shouted from the rooftops. It offers perspectives not heard anywhere else.)
However, eclipsing her skill at side-stepping all these landmines is that she puts her finger on the real problem in the very first paragraph of her article: Jehovah’s Witnesses are ‘insular.’ She doesn’t even try to spin that into a crime, as do some. Most Witnesses would not agree to the label ‘insular’, but that is primarily because they are unfamiliar with it and unsure just what attachments might come with it. They will instantly, even proudly, acknowledge two closely related phrases: they are ‘separate from the world’ and ‘no part of’ it. It is a scriptural imperative, they will say, because if you want to lend a helping hand, you must be in a place of safety yourself. Not all will agree that life today is constantly-improving. Some will say the overall picture more closely resembles the Titanic floundering. Did I not just read that generalized anxiety has replaced depression as the number one mental health malady? Can that be because there is nothing to worry about in life today? I think not. It is the ramifications of these two views, society is ever-improving vs floundering, that causes most of the ‘misunderstanding’ that opponents of Witnesses speak of. Witnesses are ‘insular,’ biblically mandated, and here is an instance where that insularity has contributed to a significant tragedy. Witness leaders find themselves in a situation parallel to certain vehicles being exempt from normal traffic laws—say, cops and fire emergency vehicles. Yet, in making use of that exemption, a terrible accident results and the public outcry is so great that they are convicted even though following the law. Or, to apply it more accurately, public anger is so great that the law is reinterpreted so it can be established that they did break it.
I am not a lawyer. I can quickly step out of my depth. Yet most persons reading this section of the Montana child abuse reporting laws would, I suspect, agree that the Witness organization followed the letter of the law as stated. They make every effort to do that. The prompt appeal of any Witness judicial committee to their Branch organization is not to see how they can evade child abuse laws, as their opponents often spin it, but how they can be sure their actions are in harmony with them.
On the very bottom of the document ‘Montana Mandatory Reporting Requirements Regarding Children’ is a section labeled "Members of the clergy or priests are not required to report when the following condition is met....a member of the clergy or a priest is not required to make a report if the communication is required to be confidential by cannon law, church doctrine, or established church practice.”
Even “established church practice?” It seems extraordinarily loose, and yet there it is. It is a part of a doctrine called ‘ecclesiastical privilege.’ It has long been encapsulated into law, as has the privileged nature of the doctor-patient relationship and the attorney-client relationship, on the recognition that these relationships cannot function without the expectation of confidentiality.
If such is the law, why is the Witness organization found culpable despite stringent efforts to follow it? Because the war today is against child sexual abuse, deemed the most critical crusade of our time, and they were expected to ‘go beyond the law’ so as to facilitate that end. Thus, the law was reinterpreted so as to allow that they did violate it.
The Witness organization finds itself in a situation similar to that of Joe Paterno, the coach who was universally praised throughout his life as an excellent role model but then was excoriated beyond redemption when he merely obeyed the law regarding an unspecific allegation he heard of child sexual abuse but did not 'go beyond it.'  He followed it. He reported the allegation to his superiors. But he did not ‘go beyond the law,’ reporting it directly to police. When the allegation turned out to be true, his career was over, and even his life, for he died two years later.
If it is so crucial to ‘go beyond the law,’ then make that the law. This is exactly what Geoffrey Jackson of the Witnesses’ Governing Body pleaded for three times before an Australian Royal Commission. Isn’t that the purpose of law – to codify what is right? Make the law clear, unambiguous, and allow for no exceptions. Jehovah’s Witnesses are universally recognized for meticulously following secular law even as they are primarily guided by biblical law. Make universal mandating the law, with no exceptions. Requiring parties to ‘go beyond the law’ only enables Monday-morning quarterbacking to assign motives, invariably bad ones, to unpopular parties failing in this regard.
An article in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle dated November 20th, 2011 observed that: “it's a mistake to think that the failure…to report the abuse is a rarity....Studies over the past two decades nationally have consistently shown that nearly two-thirds of professionals who are required to report all cases of suspected abuse fail to do so....."I think that we fail miserably in mandated reporting," said Monroe County Assistant District Attorney Kristina Karle...” Is it not hopelessly chaotic to excoriate those who did their best to follow the law when two thirds of all professionals, for a variety of reasons, do not? Does anyone charge, as has been done with Jehovah's Witnesses by their opponents, that two thirds of all professionals do not give a hoot about children? Plainly there are other factors at work. Yet when the crusade against child sexual abuse reaches fever pitch only one factor is deemed to have any significance.
(The Democrat and Chronicle article is behind a paywall. Snippets of the above quote exist here and there, but to my knowledge, the only complete package is found in a JoePa follow-up article I wrote at the time. All is not lost. Your employer will pay to get you behind that wall, and probably already has an account. Alas, my employer is me, and he likes to cut costs, seeing no need to return there, as he already have what he needs.)
 
End of Part 1. Part 2 to follow soon.

I’m curious, George. Why do you hide behind a moniker? I can think of several reasons why others do it, including their own admissions, but what is the rationalization for your persona? 🙏 @George88
 
@TrueTomHarley JWI mentioned that he was involved in several other projects and activities. I haven’t been active lately, because there’s just too much content and input worth browsing here.
Many miles sent me a message about a month ago that I had a knee jerk reaction to because I took as condescending, but it was most likely done in good faith. Hope he is doing good and can continue despite his pain and convictions about the blood issues.

But satisfaction brought it back, haven’t you heard? Is a pressing matter because the more I know about you, the more I can determine your credibility, your sincerity, your authenticity. So why do you hide behind a moniker?. Why hide if Jehovah values transparency, honesty and speaking the truth and makes us accountable for it? 
Self-awareness and Experience.  Feedback from Others. It triggers an emotional response. People can change and develop empathy and reflect on their behavior. Understanding the mechanics of condescension. Because they can still interpret tone, body language, and context to identify condescension. 

I loved the solid and generous response to this interaction🙏
😂😂 “The trick is not to sanitize the present—it is to desanitize the past”

It has been typical of AllenSmith, J.R.Ewing, Gnosis Pithos, etc., to rely on a kind of "word salad" or various other types of "plays on words" and twisted and incorrect meaning of words. The problem is that while you probably think that it defends a particular Watchtower tradition, it ends up highlighting the weakness of that same tradition. For example, if the word "people" in the above statement of yours refers to people in the Writing Department at Bethel, then it makes more sense. 
This isn't exactly on topic, but in a way it really is. Consider: 
One of the bad things that can happen to a baptized Witness is that she is reading the Bible, runs across a passage that raises a question, then she studies the Watchtower's answer to that question, and her study reveals one of the contradictions or weaknesses of the traditional explanation or a recent update to that explanation. So she goes to the elders where her question reveals doubts, and because it is a question that the elders are unable to answer, she immediately comes under suspicion of having been influenced by apostates. But because her question is not solidly answered, then the same thing might happen again with a second difficult question, so that a pattern has now emerged and some elders might take this as evidence that she is now most definitely under the influence of apostasy, so they must shift the subject to a question of loyalty and obedience. In her frustration at having the topic changed from answering her question to a question of loyalty, her frustrated demeanor is seen as rebellion and an unwillingness to put herself under the authority of the elders or the Governing Body. She may not be disfellowshipped for this, as she might surely have been between 1979 and 1986, but the perceived haughtiness of the elders' response pushes her away from the congregation and she begins to draw away from close association. Her joy is gone and she now finds it physically and mentally depressing to go to the meetings.
You may not have run across such a case, but I did. It was a sister who moved into our congregation in the 1990's, who attended for a while and then disappeared. When my wife spoke with her, this was her exact explanation for why she had moved into our congregation. She had hoped that the attitude she saw displayed was going to be different, but she saw the same kind of haughtiness among some elders and couldn't "shake" the feeling that it would just happen again.

Are you even in the right thread? A person is not a JW just because they have the same initials as Janice Wright.
Besides -- (This one took exactly 30 seconds.) -- "there's a time and a place" and in this instance you got them both wrong.
These photographs actually show a crocodile that was shot and killed on  6 July  2003 at Pointe-Noire in the Republic of Congo. According to an article in allafrica.com, the reptile was a Nile crocodile whose vital statistics fell a bit short of the claims made above: he was estimated to be  50 years  old, about  16 feet  in length, and about  1,900 lbs.  (not quite the 80-year-old,  21-foot,   4,500-pound  monster described in  e-mail).  The local mayor reportedly insisted on preserving the crocodileÂ’s carcass against the efforts of locals who wanted to eat it and arranged for it to be shipped to a taxidermist.

Residents in one Houston, Texas neighborhood said they were swimming for their lives on Tuesday when a 4,500 pound crocodile was found wading around in their underwater neighborhood. Janice Wright, a forty-year resident of Houston, said this 21 foot crocodile is nearly missed her grandson as he was swimming away from the beast.

My grandson was helping us rescue a group of people outside their homes, when he said the large beast appeared in the water,” said Wright. “ThatÂ’s when he saw this giant crocodile eat a stranded puppy and then it lunged toward my grandson. All I heard was screaming and yelling! It almost killed my him!”
Scientists who receive the alligator after its capture say the animal is around 80 years old. They also say that he was looking to eat humans because he was too slow and old to catch animals. The crocodile was tranquilized and captured by Army personnel Tuesday afternoon and the animal is being held by local scientists for further evaluation.

I think you have the essence pretty much correct. What sort of persons we ought to be is a much higher priority than our exact doctrinal beliefs. Witnesses believe this even if most of us don't say it out loud because we know that even the Watch Tower Society under Russell and Rutherford and Knorr and Franz had hundreds of doctrines wrong, but we don't judge them as having been judged harshly by Jehovah. We also believe that billions who have lived and died in the past in every religion on earth will be resurrected to an opportunity to live forever. But we know that Jehovah considers only two teachings to be of the highest priority: love of God and love of neighbor. He is not concerned with specific works, or works at all. Jehovah is concerned with our motivation, and if our motivation is love of God and love of neighbor, then proper "works" will follow naturally. 
Here's how good doctrine ("healthful teaching") will follow. Our love of God makes us want to know more about him. We would expect him to have made himself known without excess difficulty. As Paul says in Romans:
(Romans 10:6-8) 6 But the righteousness resulting from faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ that is, to bring Christ down, 7 or, ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ that is, to bring Christ up from the dead.” 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your own mouth and in your own heart”; that is, “the word” of faith, which we are preaching.
So the "word" is near to us. If we listen closely with a desire to know God better, we will hear it being preached, we will find Bibles and books that comment on the Bible. Our desire to know God better will ultimately lead to an attraction to the teachings that make the most sense overall, those that let us know what God's will is, those that let us know the "mind of Christ." Sufficient accuracy of doctrine will follow from our love of God. In trying to imitate our God, we will be motivated to do good for others.
Thus spreads Christianity!

"By sheer accident one fine blogging day I came across Brian, a Witness youngster who’d decided that the home team was wrong and that the atheists were right. The atheists! So he figured he’d better tell the Watchtower off. He had his letter of disassociation posted right there on the internet, building up courage to submit it to the elders. The letter contained six “blatant Watchtower errors.” He was worried about the consequences but brave enough to face them. Atheists were in the background egging him on:
"‘You could be with us! Forget the fountain of youth; we have the fountain of death! Fifty good years, and then you’re gone! No God to suck up to! No elders telling you what to do! You can be free!!!!!!!!!!’
"But it wasn’t the atheists who would face the consequences of Brian telling the brothers to take a hike. “What is that to us? - you must see to it!” the chief priests told Judas before he hanged himself. Formal disassociation would mean that few, if any, Witnesses would speak to him afterwards. Would the atheists be there for support? Or would they let him twist in the wind? Brian was not sure exactly how matters would unfold.
"So I told him. And I suggested how to better submit his letter. Shorten it. Delete five points. If any one of them is enough to justify jumping ship, why include them all? That’s just the atheists stoking the fire. Offer just one point, and then you have the option of discussing more at any subsequent meeting; you haven’t locked yourself in that way. ‘Look, it’s not a good decision, but if you’re going to do it, you might as well do it right.’ Furthermore, I challenged two of the points. Not vigorously, not condescendingly - indeed, the specific facts were not incorrect, they were just skewed in a peculiar atheist light. ‘Here’s another light in which you might see them,’ I wrote.
"Next thing you know, Brian has hit the books, uncovered the atheist ruse, torn up his letter, and deleted his blog, leaving the atheists shaking with rage! Trust me, I had no idea such a thing was going to happen. I was even a little sorry about it; I’d looked forward to commenting a few times on his site. They’re slippery, those atheists are, ignoring 2nd Peter 2 and the ‘Enemies’ campaign, masquerading as saviors of the human race. I don’t like them, and they don’t like me. One of them said online that I reminded him “of the ‘too clever’ Witnesses that were in love with themselves.” How did he know?"

I'll add a few other points to 'Why Remain a Witness when Bad things happen?' - all gleaned from this week's meeting. These verses all came up for comment.
'For we are God's fellow workers. You are God's field under cultivation, God's building' - 1 Corinthians 3:9
it's nice to be in a field and to feel yourself cultivated for the better. Outside of the Christian congregation, you are on your own. There is little to help you become a better person and much to impede you. Some aspects train the mind but almost never the heart, and training of the mind is a mixed blessing unaccompanied by a trained heart: "Sam Harris gave yet another TED talk in which he asked: “Can We Build AI Without Losing Control Over It?” The answer is no; you’ll screw it up like you screw up everything, like you drove Albert Einstein to say 'if I had known, I would have become a locksmith.'"
In God's organization, all you have to do is go with the flow and you will be automatically improved. If you step on the gas, all the better. Of course, you must avoid the piss pots of 2 Timothy 2:20.
I like, too, how the priests of Ezekiel 44:23 will instruct the people about 'the difference between what is clean and what is unclean.' People don't know. We live in a time where what is good is said to be bad and vice versa. The young have been sold down the river by the old, who have swooned over every means of the trickery of men and every wind of a faddish teaching. Their 'students' reap what they have unwittingly sown and suffer for it, yet, stuck with only the moral compass of this system of things, never know why. The Governing Body sees to it that the Bible's teachings are undiluted and its beneficial doctrine preserved at the meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Of course, the meeting did not go without a hitch. The Largatherins made a fuss, insisting on their own teachings as they always do. Harvey and Irma Largatherin are - let us not mince words here - blowhards, pure and simple.

It sounds like you are saying that A.C. did not depart due to the uncommon traits that Witnesses are known for, but instead that A.C. departed for the common traits that Witnesses are known for, which you admit to be "doctrinal errors" and that such doctrinal errors have been perceived even by our own skeptics. These doctrinal errors area pushed constantly you say by JWI and others, and have caused others to stumble.
I can guess that you probably intended to say something else a little different from the above. But in any case, as the accusation of causing stumbling has been proposed, I would like to offer a more likely alternative about what causes this type of stumbling among us.
What you refer to as doctrinal error that I have proposed, might very well be doctrinal error. It is after all being proposed by an imperfect human with faults common to many of us. And the persons from whom I first learned of such doctrinal alternatives were also imperfect humans with faults common to many of us. However, what I have presented is nothing new, and has been presented for hundreds of years by Bible students and Bible commentators. More specifically, several of the most damaging points to some of our doctrines that I have presented were actually made by Russell himself and Rutherford himself. And of course the absolutely most damaging evidence against some of these doctrinal points was made thousands of years ago, because I have always tried to highlight where these points were made in the Bible itself. If I had to guess, I'd say that this is the point that causes the most problems, as evidenced by the fact that you had no Biblical answers to even one of the points of Biblical evidence.
I could turn around and say that it doesn't even matter who among us presents the Bible evidence for or against a certain belief. It could just as well have been presented as a question about who might have a Bible answer for the information that is presented over on some discussion site by Simon [forgot last name], or a blog by Doug Mason or a book by Carl Jonsson. These are points that we are all going to have to face head-on from the next generation of converts. And we are going to have to face the problem of many younger Witnesses who already know that a couple of the doctrines are on very problematic. "Fortunately" for the Watchtower Society, most current Witnesses and even most current converts don't care to concern themselves with the Scriptural evidence or lack thereof for certain doctrines. But unfortunately this means that the bulk of our publishers are also completely unable to explain the issue or even act like they ever noticed the problem. This will result in an unnecessary stagnation. I see some evidence of it already starting in several countries. 
So what really causes "stumbling" is not the person pointing out a potential problem, which is already pointed out in a hundred other places, going all the way back to the Bible writers themselves, but it's the dogmatic requirement of acceptance of some doctrines that cannot be defended by any of us. Here, on this forum, we have a chance to see if anyone can defend these, or see if are we destined to just accept without evidence. The latter is a dangerous position to be in. But it's also a self-inflicted injury. We need not teach any indefensible doctrines as dogma, we only need to teach them as a possibility that currently makes sense to many people, based on the secular world conditions which at least form a kind of parallel to the expectations that appear to be predicted Biblically. 

Sorry for the barrage of questions, but I'm interested in a few things. I take it you are leaving for the doctrinal reasons, and not because of how you have been treated. Do you have family among the Witnesses, any close friends still in the congregation? Are there nearby congregations meeting in the same hall or one nearby? Is it your intent to explain all of your doctrinal reasons to persons within the congregation? Have you already told the elders how you feel about "some" doctrinal errors. I mention that last one because I think you'll find that if you weigh the pros and cons you could still find more pros. I hope you will at least be willing to discuss some more of your concerns here, and directly with persons at Bethel. They will take a phone call on any subject, and although they will want to inform your local elders you can ask that they do not if you are not comfortable. Ask to speak directly with one of the GB Helpers whom you think might be receptive to a discussion. If you want to message me, I can give a couple of suggestions.

No. Billy belonged to our in-house whack-a-mole generator of souls. AI couldn’t crank out personas as quickly as he. They usually met the same end and for the same reason.
I can’t imagine AlanF presenting as anyone other than AlanF
He presented here exactly this way.
Last night at the mid-week meeting, criticism arose over Stephen’s reply to the Sanhedrin, that he didn’t actually answer their question. More than once I pulled a ‘Stephen’ on Alan’s gotcha questions and he invariably responded the same as that august body did to the evangelizer.
Then there was that time I signed on as ‘Dr Adhominum’ and tried to gradually draw him into a discussion of evolutionary psychology and the very recent hypothesis that boisterous flatulence evolved because it would quickly clear the area of predators, same as it does today with the general populace. To his credit, he saw through the ruse within 2 or 3 posts. Though, in typical AlanF fashion that he cannot be wrong in anything, even the most insignificant of details, he later insisted that he saw through it instantly.
These guys who bluster about their superior knowledge and just assume it puts them in the driver’s seat of anything usually get my goat. I don’t know how God can resist the temptation of stopping the sun in its tracks for a while just to throw off their calculations.

In a recent response to JR, I wrote:
”Key to me is Jesus words at Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. 
“What other topic is like that, in which young children get the sense of it but the wise and intellectual ones do not? I think it means that a person ought park his/her intellectualism at the door, because it doesn’t help. Per Jesus’ words, it may even hinder.
“In any academic topic I can think of, the wise and intellectual always have a leg up over the young children. Here, they lose out. Translation: Worship of God is not an academic subject and the biggest mistake one can make is to treat it as though it is. . . . 
“So, at least three factors exist that trump intellectualism: obedience, humility, and love. For the most part, those who frame discussion of faith as an intellectual endeavor make no mention whatsoever of these qualities.”
Alan may have had some of those latter qualities. But, if so, he displayed none of them here. But you only see of people what they choose to reveal, plus perhaps a bit of speculative  reading between the lines. I’ll allow he was ‘passionate’ and a more complex person than he revealed here.

I'm trying to see your perspective here, and it made me go back and look through the threads that I remembered him in pretty well. I was surprised to notice that in the worst-case posts I had recalled, that he wasn't the one who started it. Others were being nasty, and calling him a "fool" before he responded in kind, but he was less apt to watch his vocabulary even if others were escalating. I also noticed that he was adamant that someone should try to respond to his point rather than constantly dodging and weaving and diverting. 
But I recall once seeing him refer to Arauna as foolish in a chronology topic, and either Tom or I let him know he was picking on "sweet old lady." (Sorry if that offends, Arauna.) He responded that it didn't matter how old anyone is, if they is going to spout nonsense with such conviction, then age is no excuse; she is going to hear where she is wrong. 
It's true that it's easier to ignore empathy and emotion in an online discussion if you are just here to defend your [strong] opinions against the [strong] opinions of others. I know a couple of people who are brilliant intellectually, but who are "on the [autism] spectrum" and have that exact trouble in real life, and they are always getting in trouble with others. I counseled one who has problems at work because he does OK with others in a meeting format, and one-on-one, but he writes scathing emails, and raises his voice with co-workers on the phone. I had also noticed that at meetings he did better when he looked at people's faces when disagreeing with them. I told him about this, as a way to help, but he said he grew up with "Asperger's" and would never look at a person's face when he talked to them. 
As a moderator I remember having to warn Alan a couple of times and sent that warning up the flagpole to the admins:

But who's counting? LOL
Unlike others who got warnings (who would dig in their heels and get suspended), AlanF would respond humbly and contritely and explain himself without making excuses.
 

No, he was not Billy The Kid. BTK was "Wally McNasty" as Pudgy called him. He is also George88, Cesar Chavez, Allen Smith, Alphonse, BTK59 [BillyTheKid59], Moise Racette, Dmitar, Boyle, etc, etc. I used to keep track, but I stopped at around 50 names. 
AlanF never used but that one handle here and evidently in several other forums around the Internet. And he would identify himself with his full name (if you asked) and not just hide behind the handle like some of us. LOL. I never followed him much into those topics about the Flood, the Ice Ages, Evolution, etc., because I'm pretty incompetent about those things and don't care to learn too much just yet about them. Maybe next year.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "his good posts." But I looked back through some chronology topics and found dozens of well written polite posts that merely shared information, and all the while he was getting called names by others here. There was some light-hearted bantering between him and scholarJW  as they had obviously had a long history of previous discussions elsewhere. But I see a lot of obnoxious posts to him before he responded. 
But I will start out with one of his absolute worst, because I thought that TTH's response was about the funniest and most memorable retort:
But that was after he had developed a kind of persona where he had developed a HISTORY with Cesar, and Arauna and TTH, and we already expected that these were just follow-ups from prior topics. But I go to his old topics in 2017, 2018 and 2019 and he was actually quite helpful in providing sources and resources for information. But a topic couldn't go for 10 pages before he started fighting back.
I do see one thing in his favor, in my opinion. Those attacking him were often just offering empty opposition and ignoring his points, or offering "tired" old standby arguments from Young Earth Creationists which he considered totally debunked scientifically. Even though he wasn't attacked with foul language, he was attacked with constant escalating levels of antagonism, and ad hominem stuff. But in the middle of his rather-too-direct responses to those, whenever someone asked a reasonable question, he was right back to giving emotionless straightforward facts to think about. These are the same facts we should be aware of as counter-arguments to, let's say, the Flood, should it ever come up. In the middle of all this bantering, notice how he goes right back to being an encyclopedic resource, even though we don't like the info. Here:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88407-creation-evolution-creative-days-age-of-the-earth-humanoid-fossils-great-flood/?do=findComment&comment=153844
It's too long to display the contents here, but his follow-up comment is also thought-provoking and I'll quote it in full:
That's not faith-building, of course. And it's not stuff I personally want to think about. But it's thought-provoking information and the kind of thing that's useful in a discussion forum, especially if others know how to respond and defend against it (especially the informative post above it with only the link).
 

Actually, I think you are engaging in exaggerated thinking again. I am surely one of many who is very concerned. But not all of us wish to speak up. It's not our nature. The kind of person who goes online to look at a forum such as this is probably already showing a level of concern about others, and the possibility that not all is right and that this could hurt others.
I'm sure there are several here who are also concerned about people like me, too, and they show it by speaking up to make sure that I don't go too far in pushing a view that could stumble others. But if you look closely, almost everyone here, even those most active in defensive of the GB, will show signs of not being 100 percent in agreement with all the current teachings. I'm sorry he's not here to defend himself, but even the famous Allen Smith spoke of ideas he had that he might send in to the Watchtower Society that would adjust a certain defense of their chronology. He even spoke of having addressed a question related to Mexico/Malawi to Raymond Franz about a claim in his book. So I think you are seeing different kinds of Witnesses on this forum that you weren't seeing in your congregation. Hopefully, if you were not satisfied with the level of effort in "making sure of all things" in your own congregation, you might find it in a loosely webbed community such as this. I see a lot more interest in scripture, prophecy, and world events here than I see in the average Witness in the Hall. I think a lot of the interest shows up as "crazy" speculation, but I'm sure that's how my own interests show up to others, too.
Indeed, it's probably a rare thing in most situations. But it has already happened under severe us vs. them circumstances. And I'm sure that as a group we are beyond the majority when it comes to trust of one another, the ability to work with other races, nationalities, and material classes.
(Romans 5:7) 7 For hardly would anyone die for a righteous man; though perhaps for a good man someone may dare to die. I know it's probably not quite as far ahead of others as some of us would like to think, but I've stayed with Witnesses all over the world that I barely knew, and vice versa. I've trusted many Witnesses with material things, and they with me. I hardly give a second thought to the idea of trusting another Witness. (Yes, I know. Please start another thread if you wish to bring up how trust can lead to child sexual abuse.)
I see an unusually successful attempt to show love to others among millions of other persons. It's refreshing to meet and greet others with so much in common, and invariably find people we know in common.
The Revelation book is still very much available on JW.ORG, WOL and the WT-LIB CD/DVD, also available online in desktop format. It's still the truth that these explanations are not considered infallible.
I'm sure much of it will prove false, just as most of everyone's explanation of Revelation in the entire world has proved false when the time for fulfillment of those explanations finally came. We just have to learn not to speculate unless we label it as speculation.
There is a difference in believing that you have a terrible and awesome responsibility, having been asked and assigned to work on the Governing Body, and "pretending" to be God's faithful slave. It's a traditional concept among most JWs that the GB represent the rest of the anointed and that this is Jehovah's only arrangement that makes sense. The types of persons on the GB who ask others to join them as replacements and helpers are exactly the types of persons who also think this is the only arrangement that makes sense - and that they shouldn't even consider the possibility of another arrangement because it would be 'doubting' Jehovah. So it never happens that they are actually 'pretending' they are just believing.

I dunno. I think this is more like my son-in-law not going to another house until he has cleaned out my fridge.

BTW I hate the zoom crap. I want to feel the breath and spittle of the speakers on my face.

…. and because you clearly do not know the difference, BTK 59, as an off-subtopic aside, an apostate is someone who renounces or abandons their religious or political beliefs, whereas a heretic is someone who holds beliefs contrary to the official or orthodox teachings of a religion or ideology. So, while both involve deviating from established beliefs, apostasy is more about abandoning beliefs altogether, while heresy is about holding beliefs that are seen as incorrect or contrary to the mainstream.
I hold JW core beliefs, but reject the made-up self-agrandizing and irrelevant crap.
That makes me a disfellowshipped heretic, not a disfellowshipped apostate.
……

lol. Why do you think I’m attracting attention to this forum through their internet network right after making a donation?

Another ‘tortured soul,’ methinks, for whom I must have compassion.
The best way to heal and not to further inflict torture upon oneself is to forgive.
“If errors were what you watch, O Jah, Then who, O Jehovah, could stand?” (Psalms 130:3)
Errors are all people watch today, inside or outside of religion. Nobody stands in the face of such treatment.
 
What is that saying about resentment—that it is like drinking poison and hoping the other person will die?

I dare say for certainty that I've known AlanF for probably decades before you encountered him here. Anyone acting as you described is screaming torture they've experienced.
Sometimes it's not enough to walk in another man's shoes. Sometimes you have to feel their feet walking in their shoes, a thing most of us are untrained to do. But fellow feeling would have us recognize a tortured soul when it's screaming at us. Bullies aren't born; they're made, and typically they didn't ask to be made. Rather, it was done to them. That's not to say AlanF was a bully, but in a text only format it could come across that way. In real life the man would stand up for the downtrodden every time. Every single time. Particularly if he saw someone being intellectually manipulated. He'd jump into that like a dog on a snake!