JW Insider

So much can go wrong with trying to read too much into the numbers. Even if there is a database of 12,000 or more pedophiles, this does not mean that all of them were found to be actively committing crimes in the congregation. A big reason for such a database is clearly to keep a lookout for danger even if the person had been convicted or suspected long before becoming a Witness. Some were probably cases of incest, and crimes of opportunity, where the children are no longer in direct danger after they leave the household. (And this is another reason why the WTS would want to protect the privacy of such a database.) Many of the persons involved are likely dead by now. Remember that the brother who estimated this percentage was giving a rough estimate, not of how many are currently in the congregations, but the number that a typical congregation might "have had." If it was 1% over a period of a couple decades, then I would suspect it's more reasonable to conclude that there was another 1% or so who got away with it. But even here, we are talking about a period of decades, not a current number.
Recently, closer attention to the subject has helped to drive down the opportunities. It has helped parents stay more alert and better equipped to protect their children. I think you remember that years ago, on this forum, I complained that the WTS had not yet done nearly enough to change the process and the basic direction of the way such crimes were treated. In the last year, I have explained that I agree with the current direction. I have seen important changes to these processes, and important changes to the basic direction of the judicial focus. (There is no longer an implied element of protecting the reputation of the congregation, and the focus has shifted almost completely to the protection of children, and recognizing that the shame is on the perpetrator and no one else.) I am satisfied that the WTS did about as much as it was possible to do for now, and that most of the current issues are carry-overs from prior to these last changes.

I know this is just your opinion, but the numbers don't bear this out. In mathematical terms 1 percent is 1 out of 100, so that .0001 percent, literally means that only one out every million JWs are pedophiles. In other words, there are only 8 pedophiles in the entire world who are JWs.
Since 1950, there have been on the order of 100,000 JWs in Australia (there are over 60,000 today). During that time, there were over 1,000 perpetrators who were considered by the congregations to be pedophiles, persons who had committed sex crimes against children. 1,000 out of 100,000 (1 out of 100).
That's actually 1 percent, not .0001 percent. And since most cases are never caught and most pedophiles attack more than one child, the effect of the crimes probably affect an even higher percentage of Witness children.
Even back in the early 1990's a brother in Writing who had worked in the Service Department for several years estimated (to me) that every congregation of 100 people has had at least one. (That's also 1%.)

So much can go wrong with trying to read too much into the numbers. Even if there is a database of 12,000 or more pedophiles, this does not mean that all of them were found to be actively committing crimes in the congregation. A big reason for such a database is clearly to keep a lookout for danger even if the person had been convicted or suspected long before becoming a Witness. Some were probably cases of incest, and crimes of opportunity, where the children are no longer in direct danger after they leave the household. (And this is another reason why the WTS would want to protect the privacy of such a database.) Many of the persons involved are likely dead by now. Remember that the brother who estimated this percentage was giving a rough estimate, not of how many are currently in the congregations, but the number that a typical congregation might "have had." If it was 1% over a period of a couple decades, then I would suspect it's more reasonable to conclude that there was another 1% or so who got away with it. But even here, we are talking about a period of decades, not a current number.
Recently, closer attention to the subject has helped to drive down the opportunities. It has helped parents stay more alert and better equipped to protect their children. I think you remember that years ago, on this forum, I complained that the WTS had not yet done nearly enough to change the process and the basic direction of the way such crimes were treated. In the last year, I have explained that I agree with the current direction. I have seen important changes to these processes, and important changes to the basic direction of the judicial focus. (There is no longer an implied element of protecting the reputation of the congregation, and the focus has shifted almost completely to the protection of children, and recognizing that the shame is on the perpetrator and no one else.) I am satisfied that the WTS did about as much as it was possible to do for now, and that most of the current issues are carry-overs from prior to these last changes.

A pretty good guess, I would imagine. I like to think that is still quite low, in view of Invisiblechild.org  reporting that 1 out of every 5 children in the US will be suffer molestation before age 18. But such will never be known for sure because practically nobody other than JWs made note of abuse cases within the membership; Witnesses did so in the spirit of Romans 2:22– to ensure that they ‘practice what you preach.’ In doing so, they produce a ‘paper trail,’ the 1000 ARC cases that nobody else produces because everybody else was content to not look.
Their vigilance is readily used against them. It is the classic example of the cynical phrase, ‘No good deed goes unpunished.’ Had they stuck their heads in the sand, as was the pattern elsewhere, and cried like Sergeant Shultz: “I know nothing!!” they would have fared better.
 

I know this is just your opinion, but the numbers don't bear this out. In mathematical terms 1 percent is 1 out of 100, so that .0001 percent, literally means that only one out every million JWs are pedophiles. In other words, there are only 8 pedophiles in the entire world who are JWs.
Since 1950, there have been on the order of 100,000 JWs in Australia (there are over 60,000 today). During that time, there were over 1,000 perpetrators who were considered by the congregations to be pedophiles, persons who had committed sex crimes against children. 1,000 out of 100,000 (1 out of 100).
That's actually 1 percent, not .0001 percent. And since most cases are never caught and most pedophiles attack more than one child, the effect of the crimes probably affect an even higher percentage of Witness children.
Even back in the early 1990's a brother in Writing who had worked in the Service Department for several years estimated (to me) that every congregation of 100 people has had at least one. (That's also 1%.)

Talk of removing him as an overseer goes a ways back, but I never heard that this was actually done. If it was done recently this could even explain a few things. But I couldn't tell for sure if this was just your opinion or a guess.

It’s true. With Zoom, I thought I could get away without wearing a tie. When the speaker noticed it, he told the cable company to cancel my ISP, and now I have to communicate through smoke signals.  I had imagined that the beard I have grown would have covered up the lack of tie, but no such l**k.
On the other hand, it might have been the Farmer Mort pants my wife has taken to wearing.

I am not sure which 3 points you have in mind (that were made by News Corp). Can you be specific?

Talk of removing him as an overseer goes a ways back, but I never heard that this was actually done. If it was done recently this could even explain a few things. But I couldn't tell for sure if this was just your opinion or a guess.

#2020

I think two reasons...one for protection of the sheep...and one for their own protection.
True apostates are devious and incredibly selfish...con men and women who speak artfully contrived things and aid in scattering the sheep who are already beaten down and wounded,....Apostates were stumbled..and need to have ones think like them to justify their stumbling.
Keep in mind many who are branded Apostates are not True apostates...I’m talking about True Apostates here,
Secondly  
They truly have been used by Jehovah in advancing Gods work and knowledge of his Great Plan....BUT....pride and humility And abuse of such a position may also prove to be their stumbling stone...
 

Wow Tom, that was a long reply! At first I thought it was JWI 😂. I am just playing, no disrespect to either of you, I do the same I know, especially when I get in my rant mode.
Gotcha!
I think you meant that Jehovah will raise up a prophet like Moses in reference to Jesus, the future Messiah. Which shows that Jesus became the "greater" Moses. What does that make the GB? That is why I don't think they can be viewed as Moses. Jesus already filled that role. We both agree they have some similar tasks in leading the people organizationally, and providing Bible literature, but as for having the status of being Jehovah's "mouthpiece", (or similar) I am not so sure about that. Many friends do think that, probably because the GB in the past have referred to themselves in that way. Is it any wonder then that some have this idea that the GB are more than what they actually are. And this can create problems, and has created problems where people leave the Truth because of this erroneous understanding. You inadvertently point out the problem: (in bold)
Those in the crowd might be less inclined to view things that way if the GB were NOT behind a curtain in the first place. And saying things like "we are Jehovah's mouthpiece" and "we will give you instructions that may not make sense from a human stand point" do not help.
But I agree with this though:
 
When I said the above, I was not comparing you to Furuli. By publications I meant the WT etc. I meant you could write them. Anyone with some intelligence and Bible knowledge could. My example was to show that the spiritual food provided by the GB is nothing that isn't there already (in the Bible). Just made more understandable and applicable in practical terms, which you could do as well. (in fact as we know, the writing department does all this, the GB merely proofread and put their stamp of approval on it). So how can it be said that God is communicating through the GB, (the FDS) if it's nothing new, and if you could do the same? That is what my argument was about. But you already explained what you meant.
Thanks (blushing modestly). No but seriously, it has done me some good too, I feel the same way:
Just gives you a broader view. I think any and all knowledge is beneficial, whether to deter you from doing bad, or encouraging you to do good. But then am I reasoning like Adam? Why would he want to eat from the tree of knowledge? Hmmmm.....
That's off topic, but maybe it could make an interesting topic!
I thought you quit that long ago. I have. There is no point. Maybe Reddit is different and compels you more to respond. I don't read Reddit. There is only one apostate forum I check on every now and again just to see if there is anything new. Not in their reasoning, that's the same old, but they are the first with leaked videos etc. That forum is more like a club where people of like mind associate. It helps them to cope with what they've left behind as they find encouragement from people of like mind and situation. If there is a JW club, (not here, I mean JW-Talk) you know there has to be an ex- JW club too.
 
 Yes. And poor Amber. I do actually feel sorry for her. (bold mine)
"Why wasn't she better prepared for the contrasting view"? Yes, it may have helped. But have you ever wondered why the likes of me, you, JWI, Arauna, Outta Here, ComfortMyPeople, b4ucuhear, JTR and others, although we have become familiar with the "contrasting view" we have not gone "rogue"? I have though about this quite a bit and my opinion is that those who fall away, do so not necessarily because they find out something "shocking" and thus lose faith, but because they find out something that gives them an excuse to fall away because they were already subconsciously that way inclined. Amber was unhappy in her marriage. I think overall she was not content with her life, hence looking for something different (China). Then comes along a charming kindred spirit that "opens her eyes" to the wonders of another world outside the JWs. She falls in love. And there you have it. The perfect end to a concoction to finally do what she really wanted. I can't speak for the others, but I have no need for any of that. I suppose I have matured enough now to see through these things. And yes, really making the Truth your own is key. Ok, I don't want do a Peter here and say we can never be stumbled and fall away, we can, but I would hope it would be a temporary lapse like it was with Peter. We are all weak in varying respects....but what is there outside of Jehovah? A brother asked the other week for us to imagine for a moment how we would feel if suddenly Jehovah stopped existing. I know how I felt. Is that perhaps another key to understanding why some leave and some stay despite man's (GB) imperfections?
Got to go, will continue later.
 
 
 

Obtain your copy now at the link below while the supply lasts:
‘Tom Irregardless and Me’—Starting with Prince, a fierce and frolicking defense of Jehovah’s Witnesses. A riotous romp through their way of life. “We have become a theatrical spectacle to the world, and to angels and to men,” the Bible verse says. That being the case, let’s show some theater! Let’s skewer the liars who slander the Christ! Let’s pull down the house on the axis lords! Let the seed-pickers unite!
All persons with names like ‘Irregardless’ are real though generally composite. You can meet them in my circuit or even yours. Events related are faithfully depicted except for a few that I’ve made up. Persons with names recognizable from history or current events – you’re nuts! – it’s not those people at all!
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/686882
”Puts Rolf’s book to shame!”.....Oscar Oxgoad
”A highly entertaining author—especially if you’re not fussy”.....Tom Brexit
”Acceptable after a fashion. But his grasp of science and is weak, and his critical thinking abominable.”....Bernard Strawman
”A pack of lies! I hate it!”.....Vic Vomodog
”His chapter on blood transfusion taught me some valuable lessons.”....Dr Max ‘Ace’ Inhibitor

If it was JWI, you’d still be reading it. 
Because that “merely” is a pretty big merely. 
What if my roof caves in tomorrow and I decide it’s God’s fault? What if I park on the Kingdom Hall lawn, the elders tell me not to, and I say, “Oh yeah?! Well I show you right here on my blog!!!!” If I do it at Bethel, the GB will “merely” decline to put their stamp of approval on my rant—they will put me on potato-peeling detail in the kitchen instead, and call up someone from the bullpen who has his head screwed on straight. But if I am a loose cannon with my own blog—there is nothing anyone can do when I go haywire. That’s why I don’t ever expect to be acknowledged for my self-appointed role as an apologist, much less commended for it. Even the real apologists of the early centuries have not fared will at the hands of the writing committee, that tends to focus on things they got wrong.
No, the “merely” is a big deal. It makes for constancy and consistency. Call it a “think tank” at Bethel if you will. It is a concentration of gray hairs and experience, of meeting trials, of knowing they are to be judged for their actions (or inaction), of following up on having brought understanding of the sacred writings to begin with. 
I can just shoot my mouth off here, say whatever pops into my head, insult 4Jah whenever he deserves it (which is almost always), praise the Benoit Blanc movie even though there is crude language—and perhaps I have never faced a care in the world. But they can’t. 
What are my morals? I could (to paraphrase Bob Dylan) “be respectably married—or running a whorehouse in Buenos Aries.” Nobody knows. But the Bethel writers are vetted, not just for being good writers, but for being good Christians. They take it for granted that if your conduct is sullied, somehow that will come out in your guidance, even if it doesn’t seem to at first glance.
I had a friend that, eccentric though he was, had a gift of making complex things simple—even oversimplifying to drive the point home.  I can still hear him recounting to someone just how it works in Jehovah’s organization: “At Bethel, the Governing Body study their Bibles. An idea will occur to one of them. They will discuss it among themselves and when they all come to agreement, it will appear in print.”
“Now, the thing is,” he continued, “you also study your Bible. The same idea might have occurred to you, maybe even before it occurred to them. ‘And if this were Christendom, you’d run out and start your own religion over it.’  But because you know it is not a free-for-all, and you know that Jehovah is a God of order, you wait for material to come through the appointed channel.”
So if they have called themselves “Jehovah’s  mouthpiece” in the past, I can live with that. They have the greatest think tank collection of gray hairs that per the scriptures denotes wisdom, of experience in Christian works, in safeguarding and extending the king’s belongings, in knowing the will be held accountable before God. They have the  greatest sense of direction and following up on momentum. No, I will not do a Miriam and say—“does not Jehovah speak through all of us?” I am happy to have a thought that makes sense—I don’t go thinking I am God’s gift to the brotherhood for it.
The trouble is that there are so many literalists who see the expression “crocodile tears” and take it as proof that the one shedding them is a crocodile. There are so many literalists who do not strive to think of how phrases like “Jehovah’s mouthpiece” might apply, but they strive to think of how they don’t. It is the same with “being led by spirit.” It is almost too explosive a phrase to use because of the literalists—if you go to the bathroom—well—how can you be guided by spirit? since holy spirit would never do THAT!
It’s the same with elders and servants being “appointed by holy spirit.” How do you know they are? To my mind it is because the qualifications are in the Book inspired by holy spirit and the judgment as to how they measure up is made by a (small) “think tank” of holy spirit, and seconded by a traveling minister patterned after scripture—another repository of holy spirit. It works for me. But there will be some who think that if an appointee ever goes bad afterwards it must be that they were not appointed by holy spirit. I think not. Any of these terms must necessarily be “watered down” some when put in the context of humans, “in whose heart the inclination to do bad” is ingrained from youth up.
I think of certain brother appointed upon the recommendation of the BOE. The circuit overseer, an older and very experienced man, okayed the recommendation, with the observation: “He’s not the most humble brother in the world.” He didn’t have to be. All he had to do was to meet each of the qualifications to an acceptable degree. Alas, the CO should have listened to his gut, for the man in time went apostate. He was the one who was a history buff and used to impress the householder by answering, “Because I’m an historian,” when asked how he knew this or that about the past. Once I said to him, “Will you knock it off?! You are a history buff. An historian is when other people acknowledge you, not just you yourself!”
I could be wrong, but I bet the GB has learned to be very leery of such phrases and terms as “mouthpiece” and “inspired” and “spirit-directed”—not just for all the literalists, but for all the critics (who are often the same).  Some things if they say just once, it is magnified 100 times. Other things they say 100 times, only to find it ignored. “Don’t save seats for everyone you know,” they would say about the Regionals, “think of the elderly.” Finally, they gave up, and said to let the elderly in early, and everyone else only after the oldsters were seated. Innumerable directives went unheeded. Yet if they speak just once about “forums,” theIr words are enshrined for all time. I alluded to this in Tom Irregardless and Me. The organization would say that the Governing Body does not endorse such and such, and the friends would accordingly have a helpful sense of priority and focus. And then Oscar or someone would be found doing it, and Tom Pearlandswine would descend to tell him that the Governing Body DOES NOT ENDORSE!!! such and such. You never know what quote will be magnified and what will be forgotten, but I bet they are advancing on the learning curve.

Got it. So it was this part below:
If you recall from the Covid video during the meeting, there was especially one sister mentioned who had thought that there was no need for caution because the virus had barely touched their country yet. That person came to realize the wisdom of the GB counsel to be cautious because the virus soon hit their country, too.
So what I said above was a reflection of your own statement that a person would have to be living in a cave to think that there was no need for caution with the virus spreading all around the world. And to get that particular experience on JW Broadcasting I joked that they might have to search around the world for such a person so that they could relate this modern-day parable of the uncautious sister.
Obviously, that sister was not really living in a cave; lots of people question the need for so much caution. So my last paragraph just tries to highlight the irony of claiming that such a person must be living in a cave, when it's even possible that this sister has the Internet and might even find herself being talked about right here in this very forum.
Caves and Internets don't usually go together. Thus, the reference to how badly I had just contradicted myself. (This was said in response to the fact that you said the GB had effectively contradicted themselves.)

On Tuesday April 28th 2015, a man named Franklin Minaar, member of the Branch church went to the East London South Africa zoo, climbed over the wall of the lion’s enclosure, walked up to the lions and said, “Let the battle begin.” He was mauled to death. According to his sister Audrey Minaar he was a very religious man, and said her brother had previously been treated for mental illness at Cecilia Makiwane Hospital. For some reason or other, his Bible was found in the in the same old age home where I am. The owner allowed me to keep it.

With the exception of a few chapters in Kings and Chronicles, he went through the entire Bible, changing the word God into “El”, (Gen. 1:1) Lord God into “Yahweh” (Gen. 2:4). At the bottom of the page in Afrikaans, he wrote, “HWHY” (JHWH reversed) “Because the Israelite text was from right to left.” From there onwards he used Tippex to blot out every text containing words, Lord or God and wrote Yahweh using at first a red pen, and later black. In the Greek scriptures he also used Tippex to blot out the word “Jesus” and wrote “Yahoshua”.

Seeing that I’m going on 90 years old, I asked a much younger friend of mine, to keep his Bible until the resurrection.

Imagine how happy Mr. Minaar would be when hears that we kept his Bible. He will have two new friends to teach him all that transpired since his death. My friend will also be keeping my Scofield Reference Bible which was used when anointed brother Andrew Jack studied with me during 1956.


 
Jack, Andrew: yb07 183 (dx86-16 Latvia)
w09 7/15 p. 24 Ninety Years Ago I Began to ‘Remember My Grand Creator’


 

I’ve heard of that school. “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.” He should have been more cautious.
Ben Franklin once remarked of the parents of their graduates:
“I reflected in my Mind on the extream Folly of those Parents, who, blind to their Childrens Dulness, and insensible of the Solidity of their Skulls, because they think their Purses can afford it, will needs send them to the Temple of Learning, where, for want of a suitable Genius, they learn little more than how to carry themselves handsomely, and enter a Room genteely, (which might as well be acquir'd at a Dancing-School,) and from whence they return, after Abundance of Trouble and Charge, as great Blockheads as ever, only more proud and self-conceited.”

I see what you are saying, but this is like comparing pumpkins and slippers (Thanks to Arauna for the expression, possibly inspired from Cinderella). You are doing quite the opposite of what it appears that Furuli has been doing. I agree that the narcissism label is fraught with problems. But it is not evidenced in people who admit that they will likely agree with someone on things and disagree on other things and simply not understand one way or another on other things. This is already good evidence that you are NOT a narcissist.
I don't think Furuli is a narcissist simply for writing a book that trashes the current accepted view of the GB. As you probably know, I agree with much of what he says about that same subject. Just as I agree with what Fred Franz said about the subject from a scriptural perspective. And I have long presented my view that the "faithful slave" is a lesson for all of us, not a lesson about a clergy of appointed slaves to serve spiritual food for the good for nothing slave laity.
The idea of narcissism comes from the scholastic dishonesty he has engaged in. And, believe it or not, from my own perspective, I'm giving him a generous rationale for his scholastic dishonesty. If it is based on the inability to see where he has ever been wrong, then this is an explanation for why he cannot deal with evidence that shows he is wrong. A person can engage in scholastic dishonesty without being purposely dishonest in the sense of being devious. A narcissist will create such an extreme bias to protect their own ideology that it produces a mental block against rational handling of counter-arguments and counter-evidence. Extreme bias can make one engage in dishonesty without making them a purposeful liar.
On the topic of 607, this really has nothing to do with whether the date is right, or whether Furuli or anyone else has the doctrine right or wrong. It's simply about his many cases of obvious scholastic dishonesty. Even if he was absolutely right about 607 he still handled the evidence dishonestly.
I agree that it's quite possible I'm wrong. But if it has no overriding mental basis, I'd be inclined to see his past actions as absolute, purposeful, devious dishonesty just to keep his reputation intact. I have to admit that I think he has at times, engaged in this type of dishonesty, too. One time, on a very academic Biblical language forum he said something that was proven to be absolutely false, and he couldn't deny it. He couldn't admit he was wrong, so he claimed that what he wrote had started out as a purposeful presentation of the wrong side, that he had sent without the correction. To me, that was either a mental inability to admit being wrong, or it was purposeful "devious" dishonesty. 
And, as you say, he may be right on many of the points made in this latest book, but many of them continue in this consistent pattern of having promoted a certain ideology, from somewhere around the 1970s, for example, but with the inability to admit that anything that changed after that point had ever have been wrong in the first place.
I'd like to think that this latest book is a complete turning over of a new e-leaf, and I could dismiss the past foibles. Yet, he still wants the creative days to add up to 49,000 years.

This statement has been mocked by those who think it sounds cult-like. Like, 'drink this spiked kool-aid even if you don't agree.'
To avoid additional embarrassment from detractors, the GB have likely been looking for a some practical example that makes sense even to the detractors. So they would have been hoping for something to come up that could be used to explain this statement in a more natural, easy-to-understand context, that didn't sound scary from a "cultish" perspective.
So, it was serendipitous that someone had said that preparing for Covid in their country made no sense to them until it spiked just a few weeks later. Then they understood that the GB direction saved lives.

This will sound a bit cynical, but I assumed that the GB have been on a constant lookout for a really good practical example to make that old quote from the 11.15.2013 Watchtower seem less "scary" to outsiders. They latched onto this one and hoped it would make sense to enough people, and then they searched high and low for a Witness or two who had been "living in a cave."
And I hope that their cave does not get the Internet, because I'd hate to have just insulted someone who is also on this forum. (See how easy it is to contradict oneself?)

This will sound a bit cynical, but I assumed that the GB have been on a constant lookout for a really good practical example to make that old quote from the 11.15.2013 Watchtower seem less "scary" to outsiders. They latched onto this one and hoped it would make sense to enough people, and then they searched high and low for a Witness or two who had been "living in a cave."
And I hope that their cave does not get the Internet, because I'd hate to have just insulted someone who is also on this forum. (See how easy it is to contradict oneself?)

Continued....
So going back to the brother who asked the question; "how we would feel if suddenly Jehovah stopped existing". I wonder how we would feel if suddenly if the GB stopped existing? Would we fall apart?
Yes, well said. 
Yes. And funny you mentioned too many chiefs and not enough Indians, I was going to mention that very phrase, lol. Actually, I was going to say you can't have more chiefs than Indians. Same thing.
Going back to the fear of apostates, it makes me wonder why they (the GB) are so afraid, to the point of putting the fear of God in you if you so much as glance at something apostate related. That has always bothered me a bit. Are they afraid that their influence be undermined? That people will lose trust in them? If that is so, where then does the trust in Jehovah figure? Are we not supposed to trust Jehovah more than any man? Does it not reveal that our trust may lie more in the GB than Jehovah? Recently, in one of the study articles it was mentioned that idolizing someone (the reference was to the GB) could become a stumbling block if that someone falls away. Is it then not better to see the "contrasting view" because that might help us be more realistically grounded. And as JWI alluded (I think it was JWI) why try and "hide" something unless we are ashamed of it (meaning the GB) and why not be candid and transparent? Why have all this "secret" stuff for the apostates to dig up and wave around? Stuff that the GB does not want us to read? Do they think our faith in Jehovah is so fragile?
When you believe in God, then this inevitably leads to questions about his purpose for us and the meaning of life. This in turn leads to an analysis of writings which claim to explain that. This leads to admitting that the Bible has the most intelligent explanation, and that Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones who adhere to all of it despite some personal sacrifice on their part.
When you do not accept there is a God, like Amber, all that is no longer relevant.
Of course those who no longer believe there is a God fall back on so called "scientific proof" . And yes. There are things that don't quite add up about the timeline of the flood, the fossil record, and the age of man, etc. but despite that, even JTR, who believes in evolution (with a helping hand from Jehovah) is still with us.

For any intelligent person there is more proof of the existence of God than there isn't. Those who deny the existence of God do it more for personal reasons than because of science. When it comes down to the crunch, in the end, things are always personal, even if people try to imply some other noble cause or scientific enlightenment, or apostate reasoning. So what are the GB so afraid of?
 

Such an amazingly great scripture. It can take years to fully get our hearts and our head around it.

Surely, by now, others have come into contact with brothers from Chile and have been able to confirm or deny what I was told about it. I spoke with a brother who had been there, and had relatives there. I also made lot of phone calls to various congregations (and got no response). I believe the photos are genuine. I believe that the letter content is genuine, although it still bothers me that the words SERVICE DEPARTMENT are in English. I have not been able to find another example of a letter like this. The English contents of the letter are evidently copied exactly from directives on the topic written by brothers at NY HQ. There is absolutely nothing here inconsistent with what Bethel HQ would say about the topic. The inconsistent application of governmental requirements in Chile was also explained to me in a way that makes sense (even if I personally disagree with it).
But I agree with the contents of the letter itself. And I think you are right, SM, that conforming to the governmental requirements about the use of a Chilean flag does not reflect idolatry by the Witnesses there. I doubt they even think about it as anything more than an annoyance to have to put up a national flag now and then. No one is idolizing it. No one is saluting it. In the United States, Witnesses often stand for a flag salute, and just refrain from putting their hand over their heart and repeating some words that people quote mindlessly. The idol itself is meaningless. To me it's a far cry from even "a pinch of incense" at an idol.

I'm sure TTH will speak for himself, but you probably know that it is difficult to make a clear point without sounding self-righteous. It's difficult to call oneself JW Insider, or my intended name 'Bible's Advocate,' or nearly anything without sounding self-righteous to someone. ("Meekest man on the face of the earth"?) When we have an opinion, it's nearly impossible to remember to put the "IMO" caveat after every sentence, so you just stop doing that and state your position. I'm sure we end up sounding overly confident and self-righteous as a consequence.
(1 Peter 4:11) 11 If anyone speaks, let him do so as speaking pronouncements from God;. . .
But many of us have probably learned a lot and changed opinions over time here, too. I know I have. And I've seen evidence from several others, including TTH. Let's just hope that those opinions have changed in the right direction.
I agree. And I had high hopes for the book providing some value to the GB, if it was in a completely different spirit from his previous books. At this point in the book I saw a bit of love coming through. But when it reverted to a bit of braggadocio I couldn't help but see it as a continuation of his former persona.
At any rate, you are right that none of us can judge correctly, and none of us can see his motives in total. I do agree that what he did might very well have been an act of self-sacrifice in bringing his gifts to the table. I saw it as a mix of good and bad motives, probably because I was unable to give him a clean slate. I'd be happy to rethink my position and concerns about him, and assume that he did not intend to convey some of the characteristics I thought I saw in him.
I promise to re-read and give him every benefit of the doubt, and see what I can make of it.