Evacuated

You are doing a great deal of work in rummaging through archives of old material like this.
I hope you realise that the time and effort and expense that you are putting in to this, like all the others so engaged, is actually only providing us with some entertainment? It is only fair to point this out in case you thought you were accomplishing something else more serious. But given that, carry on please.
When there is time to read through these old ideas, it provides a light diversion from the more serious business of living, and indeed, saves some valuable time in avoiding the necessity for doing the same thing twice.

@Outta Here Trinitarians are like dumpster divers when it comes to targeting someone that does not believe in the Trinity, anything to get their giggles by saying in all caps or shout YOU DENY THE DEITY OF THE CHRIST; a dollar for every time I heard that, I'd be a rich man perhaps.

Further to all the earlier postings and your original point. 
Yes, I can see what you mean. In the context of Paul's words having been written prior to John's writings, and to the consensus on what constituted the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures, then, yes, Paul's statement might be viewed as a mini-prophecy as you state.
However, it is entirely unlikely that Paul meant specifically that his words should be understood that way. Rather, the purpose of his writing  was to instruct Timothy in what should form the basis for his own faith and that which he would teach to others, namely "the holy writings", or "All Scripture", as opposed to the ear-tickling teachings he refers to at 2 Tim.4:3.
He may well have had in mind at this time the coming conclusions to be made regarding his own writings, as well as the other completed letters and gospels, especially in view of the spiritual gifts he undoubtedly enjoyed. Also, as the book of Revelation confirms, further written communication is to be expected from Jehovah, so it seems unlikely that Paul felt the "All" was done in his day. In fact more likely that what was to be termed "All" would be expanded.
There is prudence in terming the holy writings as "All Scripture". If he had said the "Jewish Scriptures", or some other time-rooted descriptor, then there would have been room for dispute over what constituted those writings, perhaps falling into the hands of the Judaizers, or some other apostatisers and their time-wasting definition debates. This is, however a hindsight observation of practicality of expression, not unlike the embedded wisdom we can now see in the injunction to "cleanse ourselves of every defilement of flesh and spirit", which circumvents the need for listing every possible combination of the same.  ?
 

You are doing a great deal of work in rummaging through archives of old material like this.
I hope you realise that the time and effort and expense that you are putting in to this, like all the others so engaged, is actually only providing us with some entertainment? It is only fair to point this out in case you thought you were accomplishing something else more serious. But given that, carry on please.
When there is time to read through these old ideas, it provides a light diversion from the more serious business of living, and indeed, saves some valuable time in avoiding the necessity for doing the same thing twice.

Made in America - Sold to the World
ME
It's a good thing there are no anti-GB meme makers around here!

Good points, especially from our current vantage point in time. On the latter point in the above quote, Paul could be said to have dealt with that issue, by the admission that Scripture was "Jewish Scripture" in the following verse:
(Romans 3:1, 2) . . .What, then, is the advantage of the Jew, or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 A great deal in every way. First of all, that they were entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God. Yet the immediate context, plus the entire book as further context, provides the explanation against misuse of this statement by Judaizers:
(Romans 2:29) . . .But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and his circumcision is that of the heart by spirit and not by a written code. . . .

Further to all the earlier postings and your original point. 
Yes, I can see what you mean. In the context of Paul's words having been written prior to John's writings, and to the consensus on what constituted the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures, then, yes, Paul's statement might be viewed as a mini-prophecy as you state.
However, it is entirely unlikely that Paul meant specifically that his words should be understood that way. Rather, the purpose of his writing  was to instruct Timothy in what should form the basis for his own faith and that which he would teach to others, namely "the holy writings", or "All Scripture", as opposed to the ear-tickling teachings he refers to at 2 Tim.4:3.
He may well have had in mind at this time the coming conclusions to be made regarding his own writings, as well as the other completed letters and gospels, especially in view of the spiritual gifts he undoubtedly enjoyed. Also, as the book of Revelation confirms, further written communication is to be expected from Jehovah, so it seems unlikely that Paul felt the "All" was done in his day. In fact more likely that what was to be termed "All" would be expanded.
There is prudence in terming the holy writings as "All Scripture". If he had said the "Jewish Scriptures", or some other time-rooted descriptor, then there would have been room for dispute over what constituted those writings, perhaps falling into the hands of the Judaizers, or some other apostatisers and their time-wasting definition debates. This is, however a hindsight observation of practicality of expression, not unlike the embedded wisdom we can now see in the injunction to "cleanse ourselves of every defilement of flesh and spirit", which circumvents the need for listing every possible combination of the same.  ?
 

True. Also, it was an accusation from outsiders and therefore not necessarily an accurate reflection. But there is also the fact that it is not rebutted in Acts, and it fits what Jesus said about revealing truths not to the wise and intellectual. 
(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." Paul recognized the same point, and even spurned his own educational training as worthless.
We can also combine this with the fact that of the original 12 apostles, only two of them, Matthew and John, were ever credited with writing a gospel account. But even this is based on later traditions. Nowhere, in any of the gospels do we even see the names of the writers, whether Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. There was an early tradition that Matthew had written a gospel and that it was originally in Hebrew (Aramaic), but this gospel could not have been the one we now call Matthew. There was also a well-known gospel called the "Gospel of Peter" that probably originated in the second century, but might have even been written in the first century while the apostles were still alive. In spite of the name, it was not taken seriously after the second century, and the "Gospel of Mark" was seen as Peter's gospel through a "second" hand.
Yes. The Watchtower has referenced this view.
*** w09 7/1 p. 4 1. Ask the Author for Help ***
Jesus’ apostles were considered “unlettered and ordinary” because they had not attended rabbinic schools for religious training. (Acts 4:13) Nevertheless, Jesus assured them that understanding God’s Word was within their reach. Although the very next year, the Watchtower moved back to the idea of illiteracy in language education.
*** w10 10/1 p. 30 Speaking in Tongues—Is It From God? ***
Spreading the good news to that extent would require the use of many tongues other than Hebrew.  However, many of those early disciples were “unlettered and ordinary.” (Acts 4:13) How, then, would they be able to preach in distant lands where languages were spoken that they may never have heard of, let alone learned to speak? Holy spirit empowered some of those zealous preachers with the miraculous ability to preach fluently in languages they had never before learned to speak. I have read the view that many Judeans of this time and even many more Galileans and Samaritans never learned Greek, but knew and spoke only their form of Aramaic (sometimes called "Hebrew" as in the above quote from the 2010 Watchtower). Being unlettered (illiterate) in the sense of not knowing how to read and write in your language even if you spoke it fluently, is considered an insult to one's intelligence in most societies today. But illiteracy was very common in the first century, and no one expected anyone to be able to read and write except a certain level of soldier required to send reports, certain types of merchants, and the rabbis who would need to learn to read for the synagogue services. Not even the average tax collector needed to know how to read and write, even though we now tend to think of some kind of accountant/scribe.
Because we anachronistically consider it to be such an insult, we think we are coming to the defense of the apostles by saying that this was only referring to a special level of illiteracy and a technical meaning of "ordinary."  We forget that "rabbinical schools for religious training" were precisely where persons learned to read and write. This is why even the persons we would today call civil lawyers came out of this same class of education (Pharisees, scribes). Josephus, for example, rose in military rank in Galilee due to his rabbinic training, i.e., literacy. After his capture by the Romans, he maneuvered quickly into Roman acceptance due in large part to literacy.  
I'm glad you pointed out one of the meanings of idiotai, as it would be easy for English readers to only see the insulting cognate when the original term did not have the meaning "idiot."

You are doing a great deal of work in rummaging through archives of old material like this.
I hope you realise that the time and effort and expense that you are putting in to this, like all the others so engaged, is actually only providing us with some entertainment? It is only fair to point this out in case you thought you were accomplishing something else more serious. But given that, carry on please.
When there is time to read through these old ideas, it provides a light diversion from the more serious business of living, and indeed, saves some valuable time in avoiding the necessity for doing the same thing twice.

The only portion of your excellent post that I would take issue with due to the possibility of an ambiguity.
The reference is to Acts 4:13 where this description of the apostles Peter and John appears: "unlettered and ordinary". The use of the word agrammatoi could be understood as "illiterate" in respect of it's literal meaning  of being "without letters". But this would only be done  by someone figuratively so. To take such a line of reasoning, in the face of scholarship on the application of this word to the apostles, would be as reasonable  as applying a similar "rule" to the use of the word idiotai, (rendered ordinary), which appears in the same verse. Then we could render Luke's description of the religionists' view of Peter and John as being "illiterate idiots".
Now, this might fit the religious leaders'general perception of those outside their social circle as being "accursed", eparatos,  (am haarets elsewhere). But it has long been held that the phrase has reference to those who are "unlettered"  in the sense of not having had formal religious training in a Rabbinic school of the day. The sense of the other word rendered as "ordinary" should be understood as one not having had the level of formal professional training necessary to become a State official of the day. So in more modern mode, their words, their speech and demeanor did not reflect them to be public school (UK version) educated, university graduates with degrees in theology and social policy.  The description could apply to most of us today, but, as then,  in no way would it be a relevant assessment either of our literacy, or IQ.
Interestingly, many "highly placed, public school (UK version) educated, university graduates with degrees in theology and social policy" also require "second-hand "secretaries" to record their first-hand experiences and memories", and indeed, much else of what they produce.  ?

You are doing a great deal of work in rummaging through archives of old material like this.
I hope you realise that the time and effort and expense that you are putting in to this, like all the others so engaged, is actually only providing us with some entertainment? It is only fair to point this out in case you thought you were accomplishing something else more serious. But given that, carry on please.
When there is time to read through these old ideas, it provides a light diversion from the more serious business of living, and indeed, saves some valuable time in avoiding the necessity for doing the same thing twice.

Great that you found this. But it has no meaning for us today. It is like finding information about how people cannot talk on phones across great distances with wires. And yet many people have iPhones and use FaceTime or Skype. So this that you have found is worthless. A time capsule that is intriguing, but has lost its bite. Those teachings may have been the way of the day, but we have learned better, this is a progressive learning process. From when Jesus began, through the apostles and after the dark ages, until now, we continue to learn and on into the new system. As long as we are alive under the sovereignty of Jehovah we will learn.

The Bible is the perfect book it should be. But we should discern the spirit of the Christian message and not be distracted with so many lower-priority details that we miss the forest for the trees. As brought up in the post to @Outta Here we need to be alert to what we are being taught. If we understand the "spirit" of the message and the "priorities" we will not be quickly shaken from our reason in believing a message has apostolic authority when it really was just some speculation over less important details:
(2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) . . .we request of YOU 2 not to be quickly shaken from YOUR reason nor to be excited either through an inspired expression or through a verbal message or through a letter as though from us. . . I think most of us would agree that the idea of priority of the objective has been perfectly met in the Bible, and is perfectly encapsulated in 1 Timothy:
(1 Timothy 1:5-7) . . .Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly.

Is it time for this forum to close its doors?
This used to be an interesting place. Discussion on matters that are not usually found in the everyday congregational setting. Viewpoints and questions, perhaps a bit different from the norm, but for the most part enlightening. Some topics a little challenging, but some genuinely creative opinions as a rule. And some input from non-witnesses, but with an educated and stimulating perspective.
It has deteriorated this year. Perhaps that has something to do with the article prompting this thread which suggested that "An online forum is not an appropriate setting for “instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed.” (2 Tim. 2:23-25; 1 Tim. 6:3-5).
Unfortunately, the forum of late seems to have attracted a growing group of whining, whingeing, critical, sarcastic, and apparently self-centered participants, set on maligning the Jehovah's Witness Governing Body, airing their rather sad, one-sided experiences and soured perceptions, along with tired, doctrinal debates, and the tedious repetition of time-worn anecdotes on perceived congregational injustices.
Leave the doors open, these people need somewhere to offload, but maybe a change in name is in order?
Jehovah's Witnesses Public Club? Why not Jehovah's Witnesses (Dontwannabe) Public Club?

Thanks. Now I understand your specific point.

Probably Paul......

Oh, that means it takes the average publisher about 1825 years to help one person become a Jehovah's Witness.

That is exactly what happened to me.
It was cleared up in less than 20 seconds.

Kind of sucks doesn't it, if the accused is actually innocent. Until there is proof, I don't think the police can do anything either. The person can only be put on a sexual predator registry only if they are convicted, otherwise no. I think in a congregationally un-established case it would be good to hand the matter over to the police, since they have better means for investigation at their disposal. But I always say there is no smoke without a fire. And most children do not make things like this up. The problem is the victims tend to speak up when they are adults, and who knows what kind of ulterior motive can there be behind an accusation.....
There is no doubt  that false allegations do happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse
 

I remember this article well. I really welcomed it at the time. As a teenager, a close friend of mine was an avid and highly proficient chess player. He actually taught me the game, and continued to trounce me daily for a period of years. I actually did checkmate him once when his concentration was impaired, but that was never repeated. He put his success down to his superior intellect, and constantly reminded me of this, attributing my "deficiency" to genetic inheritence.
We both became witnesses, and he continued his passion. Indeed, other witnesses (including some at Bethel) who shared this passion would travel miles to play him and of course their sole purpose in that was to attempt to beat him at the game. I don't recall any succeeding in this. Then, this article came out in the Awake. I was triumphant! My suspicions of the games "evil" origins were confirmed. My feelings of inferiority faded and my damaged self image was healed. My friend was unimpressed. "It's a matter of conscience" he said. "Doesn't change the fact you're just a born loser at this". By that time I had acquired some musical skills that my friend was desiring to emulate. He, unfortunately suffering from a condition where he couldn't hear note difference, was unable play in tune although he was able to technically read music much better than me. Somehow, the balance was adjusted by this as we came to agree that chess proficiency was not the only measure of intellect or worth as a person. We are still friends, and he still plays chess.
The article in the Awake summed up (more completely than the quote above), "Surely chess is a fascinating game. But there are questions regarding it that are good for each one who plays chess to consider." 

1Cor.14:40 would seem to cover any instructions on procedures in congregational matters.
This doesn't seem to address the specific issue as sharing the information is not prohibited in the instruction. More relevant would be "why is legal  advice and direction required prior to sharing with another congregation information regarding those accused of child sexual abuse (established or not)?

I don't see anything in those instructions that prohibit the elders from informing the new congregation. All it says is to inform the legal department first. The pertinent question is what kind of direction do the elders receive back from the legal department.....
I just realised @Gone Away gave a similar answer....

On The Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin
 
The game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement. Several very valuable qualities of the mind, useful in the course of human life, are to be acquired or strengthened by it, so as to become habits, ready on all occasions.
1. Foresight, which looks a little into futurity, and considers the consequences that may attend an action; for it is continually occuring to the player, 'If I move this piece, what will be the advantages or disadvantages of my new situation? What use can my adversary make of it to annoy me? What other moves can I make to support it, and to defend myself from his attacks?
2. Circumspection, which surveys the whole chessboard, or scene of action; the relations of the several pieces and situations, the dangers they are respectively exposed to, the several possibilities of their aiding each other, the probabilities that the adversary may make this or that move, and attack this or the other piece, and what different means can be used to avoid his stroke, or turn its consequences against him.
3. Caution, not to make our moves too hastily. This habit is best acquired, by observing strictly the laws of the game; such as, If you touch a piece, you must move it somewhere; if you set it down, you must let it stand. And it is therefore best that these rules should be observed, as the game becomes thereby more the image of human life, and particularly of war . . .
And lastly, we learn by Chess the habit of not being discouraged by present appearances in the state of our affairs, the habit of hoping for a favourable change, and that of persevering in the search of resources. The game is so full of events, there is such a variety of turns in it, the fortune of it is so subject to sudden vicissitudes, and one so frequently, after long contemplation, discovers the means of extricating one's self from a supposed insurmountable difficulty, that one is encouraged to continue the contest to the last, in hopes of victory from our own skill, or at least of getting a stalemate from the negligence of our adversary . . .
If your adversary is long in playing, you ought not to hurry him, or express any uneasiness at his delay. You should not sing, nor whistle, nor look at your watch, not take up a book to read, nor make a tapping with your feet on the floor, or with your fingers on the table, nor do anything that may disturb his attention. For all these things displease; and they do not show your skill in playing, but your craftiness or your rudeness.
You ought not to endeavour to amuse and deceive your adversary, by pretending to have made bad moves, and saying that you have now lost the game, in order to make him secure and careless, and inattentive to your schemes: for this is fraud and deceit, not skill in the game.
You must not, when you have gained a victory, use any triumphing or insulting expression, nor show too much pleasure; but endeavour to console your adversary, and make him less dissatisfied with himself, by every kind of civil expression that may be used with truth, such as 'you understand the game better than I, but you are a little inattentive;' or, 'you play too fast;' or, 'you had the best of the game, but something happened to divert your thoughts, and that turned it in my favour.'
If you are a spectator while others play, observe the most perfect silence. For, if you give advice, you offend both parties, him against whom you give it, because it may cause the loss of his game, him in whose favour you give it, because, though it be good, and he follows it, he loses the pleasure he might have had, if you had permitted him to think until it had occurred to himself. Even after a move or moves, you must not, by replacing the pieces, show how they might have been placed better; for that displeases, and may occasion disputes and doubts about their true situation. All talking to the players lessens or diverts their attention, and is therefore unpleasing.
Lastly, if the game is not to be played rigorously, according to the rules above mentioned, then moderate your desire of victory over your adversary, and be pleased with one over yourself. Snatch not eagerly at every advantage offered by his unskilfulness or inattention; but point out to him kindly, that by such a move he places or leaves a piece in danger and unsupported; that by another he will put his king in a perilous situation, etc. By this generous civility (so opposite to the unfairness above forbidden) you may, indeed, happen to lose the game to your opponent; but you will win what is better, his esteem, his respect, and his affection, together with the silent approbation and goodwill of impartial spectators.

This has to be the best off topic entry ever!
And have you noticed (in the movies) 
Everyone has a black umbrella if it rains at a funeral People always leave car keys behind the sun shade Computer passwords and even government systems are always hackable in seconds or minutes You can nearly always park just where you need to Single bullets can spectacularly explode cars Friends, (and others) can often just walk into houses People are always having dreams that make them sit bolt upright in bed Gangs often walk four abreast in rows whether goodies or villains Nobody ever finishes their breakfast Heroes can often shoot rifles accurately one-handed, but baddies demolish walls and ceilings with automatic assault rifles Pedestrians always jump out of the way of reckless drivers, even if they are driving on the pavement Ventilation shafts are often accessible, human sized, well-lit, spotless and go anywhere you want People often clean their teeth without toothpaste, in fact only villains have bad teeth. And regardless of overall dirty appearance, goodie's teeth are perfectly white and dentally manicured. News reports about you always start as soon as you turn on the TV, even though someone told you it was on already

This has to be the best off topic entry ever!
And have you noticed (in the movies) 
Everyone has a black umbrella if it rains at a funeral People always leave car keys behind the sun shade Computer passwords and even government systems are always hackable in seconds or minutes You can nearly always park just where you need to Single bullets can spectacularly explode cars Friends, (and others) can often just walk into houses People are always having dreams that make them sit bolt upright in bed Gangs often walk four abreast in rows whether goodies or villains Nobody ever finishes their breakfast Heroes can often shoot rifles accurately one-handed, but baddies demolish walls and ceilings with automatic assault rifles Pedestrians always jump out of the way of reckless drivers, even if they are driving on the pavement Ventilation shafts are often accessible, human sized, well-lit, spotless and go anywhere you want People often clean their teeth without toothpaste, in fact only villains have bad teeth. And regardless of overall dirty appearance, goodie's teeth are perfectly white and dentally manicured. News reports about you always start as soon as you turn on the TV, even though someone told you it was on already