Evacuated

Their true reward is  Jehovah and Christ's approval and trust as shown in the bestowal of incorruptibility; immortality; positions as kings and priests with Christ; enabled to follow the Christ wherever he goes, and a decisive and executive share in the restoration of all things and any future arrangements Jehovah has in store in the outworking of his eternal purpose.
Their power will enable them to share in the destruction of Satan's earthly system and the abyssing of Satan and his demons, the resurrecting, judging, and restoring of all mankind and planet earth throughout the millenium,  the eventual destruction of all rebellion against Jehovah in the sprit and physical realms. Their example of humble acceptance of the sovereignty of Jehovah, despite their position and power, will serve as an everlasting example to all of creation to Jehovah's glory and praise.

I knew it was you who had that experience. That's what gives it such credibilaty! I mean, credability! Or do I mean, credibilalitie! (I wish I had stayed at college and not gone on that cart!!)

Probaly best not to judge this achievement by personal lack of talent.
I'm not quoting the expletives.  Use of these appears  to either express contempt for convention, which still considers this particular choice of wording as an unacceptable expression in normal speech, or it serves as an expression of frustration at a situation which exceeds  personal boundaries of acceptance along with  an exhaustion of resource to understand or even combat the issue that is faced. Probably is all of that. 
Well, I have some sympathy here, it's never good to see someone at the end of their tether, but "twisted knicker syndrome" is all I can offer by way of commiseration.
Serena and Venus Williams?  What's to explain? They are not Jehovah's Witnesses are they?  Prince? What's to explain? What is the relevant comparison to the euphamistic Mirjana? Wayans Brothers? Damon, I'm not sure but what is the point? Keneen and Shawn, are they Jehovah's Witnesses? I don't really know what the rest of the family do. Selena? Is this the singer that was murdered by a criminal employee, Selena Quintanilla-Pérez. What did she do? Not a Jehovah's Witnesses was she? Coca Rocha? Now she is interesting. What has she done wrong? She is famous and rich I agree. Wait a minute, is that what's wrong with her? Surely we  are not looking at jealousy here? Maybe a desire  to be famous and rich but someone getting in the way could root some people's criticism here?  

That's why as I walk down the street, I constantly stop and look behind me, or dodge into a doorway, or hide behind a lamp post, looking back ....or dodging and weaving get off a few shots ... just in case.
.... better to be safe ... than sorry.
 
 

.... and my favorite, Mickey Spillane.
Agenda driven examples of ANYTHING are only generalizations, that may .. OR MAY NOT apply.
Infinite experiences....
.... Infinite results.
Often as we get older ... not having been able to make the cut as a helicopter or commercial airline pilot causes us to remember that our goal was always to be a shoe salesman.

This is an interesting concept and has a bit more to it than it's context.
For the congregation, in the absence of an alternative, there is a 2 witness rule. Now the debate about what does or should constitute the 2 witnesses is being tested elsewhere.
But what is it to accomplish? That one judged as guilty as charged and unrepentant is excluded from the congregation. Pretty pathetic sanction when compared with the gravity of the crime wouldn't you say? Aw, the poor little molester's relatives won't talk to him no more What a shame.....not.
There are probably other crimes that could be similarly characterised. The congregation today only has a spiritual role and the sanctions against crime can only be handled in that context. Isn't that why Romans 13:4 says current secular governments serve as "God's minister", and "it is not without purpose that it bears the sword"?
There is no need for 2 witnesses to report an allegation of child abuse to the secular authorities, although the inconsistencies of requirements and conflicting legislation make it very prudent for legally-inexperienced congregation elders to seek legal advice in carrying out this action where it is not specifically mandated.
The congregation is simply neither authorised nor equipped to carry out the kind of investigation and victim support needed, or to try, and if found guilty, impose sanctions that God's secular minister has within their remit  at this time. And if God's secular minister finds such a perpetrator guilty of a crime of this nature, then we can trust that the finding is sufficient once the appeal process has been exhausted. The perpetrator, if found guilty, has carried out a henious crime and will likely find that the hands of Caesar are a lot rougher in the short term than the hands of Jehovah via the current congregational structure, to which stoning is no longer an option.
So it will always be true that Theocratically, we can trust that Jehovah's current arrangement, which allows for the secular authorities to execute judicial decisions, is always going to be better than our own. And, thankfully, they answer to him, not us, as how they are discharging their responsibility.

With reference to reference #11 from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915 edition is in Google Books. 1933 edition link, below.), the subject is developed here, with hints as to the reasoning already available in apocryphal writings, where Ascension of Isaiah, for example had referred to him as "mediator" and "intercessor":
(11) "The archangel" (Jude 1:9). Probably also the unnamed archangel of 1Th 4:16is Michael. In the Old Testament he is mentioned by name only in Daniel. He is "one of the chief princes" (Da 10:13), the "prince" of Israel (Da 10:21), "the great prince" (Da 12:1); perhaps also "the prince of the host" (Da 8:11). In all these passages Michael appears as the heavenly patron and champion of Israel; as the watchful guardian of the people of God against all foes earthly or devilish. In the uncanonical apocalyptic writings, however, Jewish angelology is further developed. In them Michael frequently appears and excretes functions similar to those which are ascribed to him in Daniel. He is the first of the "four presences that stand before God"--Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Uriel or Phanuel (En 9:1; 40:9). In other apocryphal books and even elsewhere in En, the number of archangels is given as 7 (En 20:1-7; Tobit 12:15; compare also Re 8:2). Among the many characterizations of Michael the following may be noted: He is "the merciful and long-suffering" (En 40:9; 68:2,3), "the mediator and intercessor" (Ascension of Isaiah, Latin version 9:23; Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Le 5:1-19; Da 6:1-28). It is he who opposed the Devil in a dispute concerning Moses' body (Jude 1:9). This passage, according to most modern authorities, is derived from the apocryphal Assumption of Moses (see Charles' edition, 105-10). It is Michael also who leads the angelic armies in the war in heaven against "the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan" (Re 12:7 ff). According to Charles, the supplanting of the "child" by the archangel is an indication of the Jewish origin of this part of the book.
The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Re 12:1-17, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel (for a full discussion see Hengstenberg, Offenbarung, I, 611-22, and an interesting survey in English by Dr. Douglas in Fairbairn's BD).
I would have added that Jesus is referred to as "Prince," in Prophecy (Isaiah 9:6), Parable (Luke 19:11-13) and in Narrative (Acts 3:15) and using the same Greek word, Satan is called the "Prince" of this world, who is to be cast out (John 16:11, Revelation 12:1-12).
The mention of "Fairbairn's BD" is Patrick Fairbairn's 6 -Volume Bible Dictionary. The Bible Encyclopedia, above, forgets to tell us where in the volumes this is, however. Probably under the entry for "Michael." I think that Fairbairn, if consistent, probably held the view he expressed in 1859 in "Introduction to the Exegetical Study of Scriptures in the New Testament," p. 233-236 where he says that all these evidences of the previous 3 pages "confirm the identification of Michael with Christ." (p.236)

Based on 1 Thess 4, etc., it certainly makes sense, and it's not surprising that several groups had already come up with this belief. I think a good place to start is to check out the references in Wikipedia, from the point where the topic of Michael as Christ comes up, right up to the mention of the position held by Jehovah's Witnesses. The rest of this post is just a copy and paste from Wikipedia:
Citing Hengstenberg, John A. Lees, in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, states: "The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the 'child' and the archangel in Rev 12:1-17, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel."[11] Charles Haddon Spurgeon[52][53] stated that Jesus is Michael “the only Archangel”,[54] and that he is God the Son, and co-equal to the Father.[52] In Spurgeon’s view, "archangel" means "head of the angels" rather than "head angel," and is a title similar to "Leader of the host." (Daniel 8:11)[55][56][not in citation given] Within Anglicanism, the controversial bishop Robert Clayton (died 1758) proposed that Michael was the Logos and Gabriel the Holy Spirit.[57]Controversy over Clayton's views led the government to order his prosecution, but he died before his scheduled examination.[58][59]  . . .
Seventh-day Adventists[edit]
See also: Seventh-day Adventist, beliefs about Michael and Pre-existence of Christ   Le Grand Saint Michel, by Raphael (Raffaello Sanzio), Archangel Michael defeating evil Seventh-day Adventists, being of the Protestant heritage, lineage and faith, believe that Michael is another name for the eternal Son of the Father, the Heavenly Christ, and another name for the Word-of-God (as in John 1) before he became incarnate as Jesus. "Archangel" (meaning "Chief of the Angels", "highest messenger") was the leadership position as held by the Word-of-God as Michael while among the angels. According to Adventist theology, Michael was considered the "eternal Word", and not a created being or created angel, and the one by whom all things were created. The Word was then born incarnate as Jesus.[60] Seventh-day Adventists believe the name "Michael" is significant in showing who he is, just as "Immanuel" (which means "God with us") is about who Jesus is. They believe that name "Michael" signifies "one who is God" and that as the "Archangel" or "chief or head of the angels" he led the angels and thus the statement in Revelation 12:7-9 identifies Jesus as Michael.[61] Seventh-day Adventists believe that "Michael" is but one of the many titles applied to the Son of God, the second person of the Godhead. According to Adventists, such a view does not in any way conflict with the belief in his full deity and eternal preexistence, nor does it in the least disparage his person and work.[62] In support of the Seventh-day Adventist belief, Michael is also identified by them as being the very commander of Heavenly legions of the hosts of the LORD, God's invincible army, which helped Joshua son of Nun to lead Israel in to conquering Jericho [Joshua 5:14 - "And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant?"] In the Seventh-day Adventist view, the statement in some translations of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God" identifies Jesus as Archangel, which is Michael.[63] (Other translations have "For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God.")[64]And the Seventh-day Adventists believe that John 5:25-29 also confirms that Jesus and Michael are the same.[63]  
11 ^ John A. Lees, "Michael" in James Orr (editor), ''The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia''(Eerdmans 1939)". Internationalstandardbible.com. 2007-07-06. Retrieved 2012-12-27. 52 ^ Jump up to:a b The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) - With slight revisions by C. H. Spurgeon Archived 2010-04-07 at the Wayback Machine. - spurgeon.org - Phillip R. Johnson - 2001 - Retrieved 12 September 2014. Jump up53 ^ Morning and Evening - Charles Haddon Spurgeon - Devotionals by Spurgeon Sermons - Spurgeon Sermons with C.H. Spurgeon - Retrieved 12 September 2014. Jump up54 ^ The Angelic Life - Charles Haddon Spurgeon - Sermon No. 842. Jump up55 ^ Grace Abounding in a Believer's Life by Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Robert Hall and Lance Wubbels 1996 ISBN 1883002095 page 54 Jump up56 ^ Weapon The Blood of the Lamb, the Conquering Weapon - Charles Haddon Spurgeon - Sermon No. 2043. Jump up57 ^ Robert Clayton, An Essay on Spirit 1751 Jump up58 ^ Dictionary of National Biography: Clayton, Robert Jump up. . . Jump up60 ^ Seventh Day Adventists: What do they believe? by Val Waldeck Pilgrim Publications (April 5, 2005) page 16 Jump up61 ^ "The Remnant". Adventist World. Archived from the original on 2012-07-24. Retrieved 2011-12-05. Jump up62 ^ Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington, D.C., 1957. Chapter 8 "Christ, and Michael the Archangel". 63 ^ Jump up to:a b Bible readings for the home by 7th Day Adventists. London. 1949. p. 266. [if you get blue arrow icons over some of the references, just select/highlight and they will be easy to read, or go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_(archangel) ]

A lot of repeats for both. You get a quick sense by the different dates and different states where something is reported. But I only did a spot check.
It's also interesting to consider that, when based on similar criteria, Jehovah's Witnesses are now about the same size as the Presbyterian Church, which is something I added later to the post above.
According to PEW research, more than twice that number identify as JWs (2.8 Million), which might be based on Memorial attendance, it being the last religion they associated with, etc. This would make JWs a larger religion than Presbyterians.
@TrueTomHarley I hope you are not considering the idea that these search results prove that you are 30 times more likely to find abuse in the Presbyterian Church than among JWs.

Sorry if I was a bit unclear. My point was that, regardless of the downs experienced by Jehovah's people on earth, like the incarceration and reputation maligning of the GB in 1918, and regardless of the reasons or blame for those negative events,  the current child abuse crisis will make no difference whatsoever to the successful outworking of Jehovah's purpose, (which includes mankind), "the greater scheme of things". 
We can see that, despite the dire situation and bleak prospects for the IBSA if viewed from a prison cell in 1918, the outworking of events in connection with Jehovah's people on earth in the 100 years since Rutherford's incarceration likely eclipses even the most optimistic "vision" that any of the GB members may have had from their prison cells at that time albeit based on the Bible indications that the good news WILL be preached worldwide, regardlss of any weapons formed against it. What has taken place since then:
the worldwide expansion of the preaching activity and the response to it, the development of Bible knowledge and understanding the development of the organisation, the publishing infrastructure, the expansion into a range of media channels, the quality of the published information both in content and appearance, the court victories in the field of human rights, the defiance of secular dictatorial bodies, the enduring and surviving of secular attempts to suppress etc, etc has demonstrated that the success of Jehovah's people in carying out Jehovah's will on earth, has continued regardless of external attempts to suppress, malign, interfere, and despite it's being directed by imperfect humans with the inevitable wrong turns, dead ends,  false alarms, that such direction at times has resulted in. 
I suppose I could have used a picture of Adam and Eve being expelled from the Garden of Eden instead of the Rutherford mug shot. On a greater scale, there was a pretty hopleless situation for Jehovah's people on earth. There actually weren't any!! And that was the fault of those who once were! Yet in "the greater scheme of things", Jehovah was not phased. His way of working out matters includes many negative experiences for those who worshipped Him, regardless of an anlaysis of blame and reason. But, good has come from every situation experienced (for those who remain faithful), and notably, good on occasion has been administered by those who did not worship Jehovah, and were not a part of His people at the time.
My point was that the current Child Sexual Abuse issue will be the same as past crises for Jehovah's people. It will be resolved, successfully, and regardless of how and who is involved in this, it will make no difference to the outworking of Jehovah's purpose, and, microcosmically, will benefit all involved.
That's why I welcome any intervention, from any source, to resolve such a matter, whilst abhorring those who stoop to such a level of crime, regardless of their protestations of remorse. Let Caesar use his sword, in this case!
 

No. I mistook this to mean mostly the latter, although I suppose I was probably reading it more like "in the long run" based on how you compared it with "immediate benefits" (in 'the short run'). That's also because you also used an example that reminded me of "the overall progress of those who worship Him here on earth" which had apparently applied Rutherford's earthly experience to both to "the greater scheme of things" and the "immediate benefits."
Of course, I was pretty sure you were not referring to the loss of his health which had been blamed on the penitentiary, and Brother Martin's related purchase of a San Diego residence in order to accommodate those health issues.
I was also thinking that TTH should change the expression "the greater world" to "the greater scheme of things." It's a good replacement for "system of things."

And ....first-born......

This is an interesting concept and has a bit more to it than it's context.
For the congregation, in the absence of an alternative, there is a 2 witness rule. Now the debate about what does or should constitute the 2 witnesses is being tested elsewhere.
But what is it to accomplish? That one judged as guilty as charged and unrepentant is excluded from the congregation. Pretty pathetic sanction when compared with the gravity of the crime wouldn't you say? Aw, the poor little molester's relatives won't talk to him no more What a shame.....not.
There are probably other crimes that could be similarly characterised. The congregation today only has a spiritual role and the sanctions against crime can only be handled in that context. Isn't that why Romans 13:4 says current secular governments serve as "God's minister", and "it is not without purpose that it bears the sword"?
There is no need for 2 witnesses to report an allegation of child abuse to the secular authorities, although the inconsistencies of requirements and conflicting legislation make it very prudent for legally-inexperienced congregation elders to seek legal advice in carrying out this action where it is not specifically mandated.
The congregation is simply neither authorised nor equipped to carry out the kind of investigation and victim support needed, or to try, and if found guilty, impose sanctions that God's secular minister has within their remit  at this time. And if God's secular minister finds such a perpetrator guilty of a crime of this nature, then we can trust that the finding is sufficient once the appeal process has been exhausted. The perpetrator, if found guilty, has carried out a henious crime and will likely find that the hands of Caesar are a lot rougher in the short term than the hands of Jehovah via the current congregational structure, to which stoning is no longer an option.
So it will always be true that Theocratically, we can trust that Jehovah's current arrangement, which allows for the secular authorities to execute judicial decisions, is always going to be better than our own. And, thankfully, they answer to him, not us, as how they are discharging their responsibility.

I agree with the sentiment. I have been fooled by "reliable sources" in the past. And even the most reliable source might only be repeating something because they heard it from one or more reliable sources, which might themselves turn out to have placed unwarranted trust in unreliable sources. Or our reliable source may have misunderstood their reliable sources at any weak link in the chain. 'Let God be true though every man be proved a liar.'
It bears repeating that everything stated here is a kind of opinion, even if we state it as if it is a proven fact. Even common sense deductions don't always hold up. Even "proven facts" don't always hold up.
There are rules of evidence, logic and reason that make some deductions better than others, but that doesn't mean the conclusions are necessarily more correct than others.

@Gone Away I'll have to be brief because I have no access to my research information to post it here. The belief started centuries ago. Some will say around the 7th-9th century, others have information going centuries back, but such info is small. Most information we have today is in regards to the 16th-18th century, with such ones like John Calvin who also has this belief, as with others, which also reflects that of biblical passages that seem to equal Jesus to Michael in both title and or action, perhaps even more things.
Moreover, there is a literal counterpart to JWs, known as SDAs, who also has this view, but maintain an Orthodoxy approach and they not only see Micheal as Jesus, but they see him as God,f or such ones are Trinitarians.
When I do get back, I'll be happy to post here my findings from a few years back regarding this whole Jesus/Michael thing and the view of others on this matter.

@Gone Away Trinitarians are oblivious to the Septuagint and the source of that even has God's name on it. @Cos problem is with the JWs, but ironically, he is not aware of even Trinitarians who made an attempt to use and or restore the name Yahweh/Jehovah into the scriptures themselves, despite trying to erroneously say and or compare Jesus to God the Father, some of them even calling Jesus Jehovah, when clearly both the Father and the Son are different from each other, despite both being Lords, one clearly has higher authority than the other.
 
The hypocrisy is when Trinitarians also attack Muslims to say hat God's name is in the New Testament, which is the case in the majority of the EU, mainly the UK, but here we see a defective Trinitarian doing loop-de-loops on his own kind.

"In 1987, Cleveland social workers and pediatricians removed over 100 children from their families suspected of sexual abuse. Public outcry was such, fueled by media cries alleging ‘overzealous’ and ‘intrusive’ agency overreach, that most were promptly returned, despite credible evidence of abuse. Lucy Delap, writing for History and Policy, credits ‘feminist campaigners’ with making the protection of children a priority, and states that “clear guidelines for best practice were not established until the 1990s.”  (from Dear Mr. Putin...)
It is the height of dishonesty to measure yesterday's sins by today's standards, yet this is usually the rule when zealots get into the act.
Frankly, child abuse that fell short of rape was once one of those things that children were thought to bounce back from rather easily. Even Richard Dawkins, in his book 'The God Delusion" maintains this view,. He has learned to keep his mouth shut about it so as not to infuriatie those who are, in many respects, his allies.

There is definitely a principle of transparency that is lost even in some Western judicial systems. There is one type of case, which is often used as a case against such transparency in child sexual abuse cases. These are cases of incest. It is believed that irreparable harm is brought to the child victim if such cases were completely out in the open. Of course, as these cases go to criminal courts, the accusations become known anyway. For us, (Witnesses) it's also been a matter of learning that some sins are also crimes, even if we hadn't really treated them that way in the past.

This is an interesting concept and has a bit more to it than it's context.
For the congregation, in the absence of an alternative, there is a 2 witness rule. Now the debate about what does or should constitute the 2 witnesses is being tested elsewhere.
But what is it to accomplish? That one judged as guilty as charged and unrepentant is excluded from the congregation. Pretty pathetic sanction when compared with the gravity of the crime wouldn't you say? Aw, the poor little molester's relatives won't talk to him no more What a shame.....not.
There are probably other crimes that could be similarly characterised. The congregation today only has a spiritual role and the sanctions against crime can only be handled in that context. Isn't that why Romans 13:4 says current secular governments serve as "God's minister", and "it is not without purpose that it bears the sword"?
There is no need for 2 witnesses to report an allegation of child abuse to the secular authorities, although the inconsistencies of requirements and conflicting legislation make it very prudent for legally-inexperienced congregation elders to seek legal advice in carrying out this action where it is not specifically mandated.
The congregation is simply neither authorised nor equipped to carry out the kind of investigation and victim support needed, or to try, and if found guilty, impose sanctions that God's secular minister has within their remit  at this time. And if God's secular minister finds such a perpetrator guilty of a crime of this nature, then we can trust that the finding is sufficient once the appeal process has been exhausted. The perpetrator, if found guilty, has carried out a henious crime and will likely find that the hands of Caesar are a lot rougher in the short term than the hands of Jehovah via the current congregational structure, to which stoning is no longer an option.
So it will always be true that Theocratically, we can trust that Jehovah's current arrangement, which allows for the secular authorities to execute judicial decisions, is always going to be better than our own. And, thankfully, they answer to him, not us, as how they are discharging their responsibility.

This is an interesting concept and has a bit more to it than it's context.
For the congregation, in the absence of an alternative, there is a 2 witness rule. Now the debate about what does or should constitute the 2 witnesses is being tested elsewhere.
But what is it to accomplish? That one judged as guilty as charged and unrepentant is excluded from the congregation. Pretty pathetic sanction when compared with the gravity of the crime wouldn't you say? Aw, the poor little molester's relatives won't talk to him no more What a shame.....not.
There are probably other crimes that could be similarly characterised. The congregation today only has a spiritual role and the sanctions against crime can only be handled in that context. Isn't that why Romans 13:4 says current secular governments serve as "God's minister", and "it is not without purpose that it bears the sword"?
There is no need for 2 witnesses to report an allegation of child abuse to the secular authorities, although the inconsistencies of requirements and conflicting legislation make it very prudent for legally-inexperienced congregation elders to seek legal advice in carrying out this action where it is not specifically mandated.
The congregation is simply neither authorised nor equipped to carry out the kind of investigation and victim support needed, or to try, and if found guilty, impose sanctions that God's secular minister has within their remit  at this time. And if God's secular minister finds such a perpetrator guilty of a crime of this nature, then we can trust that the finding is sufficient once the appeal process has been exhausted. The perpetrator, if found guilty, has carried out a henious crime and will likely find that the hands of Caesar are a lot rougher in the short term than the hands of Jehovah via the current congregational structure, to which stoning is no longer an option.
So it will always be true that Theocratically, we can trust that Jehovah's current arrangement, which allows for the secular authorities to execute judicial decisions, is always going to be better than our own. And, thankfully, they answer to him, not us, as how they are discharging their responsibility.

I agree with this idea, too. And as you mentioned a few other possibilities in your preceding paragraph, the few things that might change in the greater scheme of things could result in some longer-lasting benefits, too. As you said:
And there are also longer-term benefits when any of the "evil" people (perpetrators or deliberate enablers) were in positions of responsibility, as is often the case, or when persons, through a misplaced sense of priorities or naivety, inadvertently contribute (enablers) are put on a correct path. As you said:
I really appreciated that your comment was thoughtful and covered a lot of bases.
 

I can't for the life of me see why this kind of topic should be presented in such a sinister and threatening manner.
At the worst, investigations could reveal nothing. 
At the best, evil people who have wormed their way into the congregation will be exposed and ousted. The naivety of those inadvertantly contributing will be shown up and addressed. Processes will be reviewed and refined. Hopefully, victims will be acknowledged and gain some real benefit from the whole experience (although, sadly, this is not guaranteeed).
Admittedly, there are implications in terms of financial costs, time and attention of a large number of people, emotional impact on victims and their associates, reputational issues around perpetrators exposure, issues around mishandling and injustice due to distorted exaggeration driven by the bias and prejudice of opposers and those easily swayed by opinion, and the inevitable media brouhaha.
But really, what's to fear or to lose? Nothing changes in the greater scheme of things, but the immediate benefits far outweigh the costs.
I mean I am sure Bro Rutherford's experience was unpleasant at the time, but what was lost? And what was gained?

Probably because "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows" Matt.24:36.

They did as a whole, however the problem was the total misapplication of 1 Corinthians 6:5-7 by some elders. I personally know of an instance where the elder advised to keep the matter away from secular authorities lest it brought shame to Jehovah. That was the attitude of some in the 80's as far as I know. It was never the policy of the society on the whole though. I am so pleased we have a concise, transparent document now which informs not just the elders, but also the publishers and anyone else of how cases of child abuse should be handed. Every one can be on the same page now. I particularly like par. 10 because it makes a clear distinction between congregational matters and secular matters of the same same instances:
"Child abuse is a serious sin. If an alleged abuser is a member of the congregation, the elders
conduct a Scriptural investigation. This is a purely religious proceeding handled by elders according
to Scriptural instructions and is limited to the issue of membership as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. A
member of the congregation who is an unrepentant child abuser is expelled from the congregation and
is no longer considered one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (1 Corinthians 5:13) The elders’ handling of an
accusation of child abuse is not a replacement for the authorities’ handling of the matter.—Romans
13:1-4.
This is also good for instances where congregationally a perpetrator is not disfellowshipped because of lack of evidence or some other reason, but if the perpetrator is convicted of a crime by secular authorities, especially the crime of sexual abuse of children, then this notoriety may warrant disfelowshipping.
For those who haven't read  the document yet:
https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal-resources/information/packet-jw-scripturally-based-position-child-protection/

@Gone Away Usually when people want to take a shot at anyone, even at JWs, they will bring up God's name and the New Testament. Clearly such ones has never heard of anything outside of the 1245, it is the same situation dealing with those who want to react negatively to the name of God's Son.
 
Other times such ones will say that Jesus/Yeshua is Jehovah/Yahweh, which is another annoying situation on its own.