JW Insider

This could easily be true. It's also possible that a JW in good standing at the Australian Branch leaked it. It's also possible that it was cleaned up to make it look like many fewer Elders and MS were involved. Some things seem very unlikely to us because we all have preconceived ideas about what such data would look like.
I responded when I saw this because the word "proof" and "proves" were being used. This is evidence, not proof. I think that JTR recognized this when he said we needed "hard data." None of us collected the evidence. None of us produced the spreadsheet. I'm confident that this is good evidence, but that doesn't make it proof.
For example, we don't know but that perhaps all Elders and MS were supposed to have been mostly removed from that sheet before it was handed over. This seems unlikely, but things like this have happened. Statistics are often manipulated. On a much more minor topic I gave my own experience where I was "in the room where it happened" as one particular statistic was changed so that the WTS appeared to have a better report than it actually got when the statistic was announced. 
Also, TTH, the abusers reported were not 100% clergy in all the other reports given over to the ARC. In fact, some of the commentary about other entities run by churches, but not by clergy were part of the investigation.
Outside of the ARC, I have only followed a few cases haphazardly, but I saw several reports where I could tell they were not just including "clergy." The Southern Baptist cases, for example, included many church volunteers along with clergy. Wikipedia says:
On February 10, 2019, the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News published an investigative report into widespread sexual abuse within member churches of the Southern Baptist Convention. The report found since 1998, roughly 380 clergy, lay leaders and volunteers had faced allegations of sexual misconduct, leaving behind over 700 victims.[1]

I get the impression that other ex-JWs, too, would like to give the impression that the majority of abuse is committed by elders (Mark O'Donnell, for example) even if they know better. It's an unbalanced view.

"They" is a very wide ranged group, if you are talking about all ex-JWs. But it's not likely true that an ex-JW will automatically have a more balanced view. Something could have driven them to leave the JWs, or perhaps they just drifted away, or perhaps something they did resulted in their being identified as no longer associated. In any case I can see the strong possibility of the ex-JW being angry about being "forced" into a situation he or she may not have wanted. I think that's a much stronger motive for a lack of a balanced view. And even if not, I have seem exJWs with terribly unbalanced views. I believe you yourself have admitted to some unbalanced views such as not trusting anyone, not even your wife.

I believe this is true, although I'm not sure what it proves. It seems that only just over 10 percent of the abusers in that list were Elders or MS. (Taken only from two samplings of 200 near the front and 200 near the end.) With Witnesses, even parishioners have a "title" or "role" in the congregation.
In the majority of reports from other religious organizations it is usually those in leadership positions or persons with "titles" of some kind, teachers in religious schools, etc. But this has not always been true. Some other religious organizations have given reports that included parishioners in their lists of abusers.
Also, a review of newspaper articles about individual criminals associated with JWs more often go for the story where an elder or MS is the abuser.
But there are still a couple of potential problems with the lists. One is that the question is often about whether the abuser was in the role of Elder or MS at the time of the first abuse. I noticed a case on the very first page where the answer was only a Parishioner, yet that same person was also removed from their position as Elder or MS. (Also there are cases where the person was an Elder and not removed.) When cases take a long time to process or be reported, or there were multiple cases of abuse, the abuser might very well continue to progress to MS or Elder until the abuse is reported or made known.
Also, I hope this one is much less likely, but when the abuse is first "reported" it is not yet (or sometimes ever) technically considered an actual case of abuse, only an accusation. This leaves time to remove the elder or MS from his position, as he should be 'free from accusation.' This removal can even happen without a committee, just based on the suggestion to the accused 'until things are cleared up.' So when an accusation is finally taken seriously enough to treat as a real case of abuse, this might be based on the fact that a previous accusation was not taken seriously and now it must be.
Therefore the "first" case of abuse can be timed to the "second" accusation, after the precaution was taken of removing the elder or MS from his position. I know of a physical abuse case that was handled this way. And in another case (not abuse) I know my father was involved as one of two elders rushing to get a generally inactive Witness disfellowshipped to reduce any embarrassment on the congregation before the incident hit the papers.

I believe this is true, although I'm not sure what it proves. It seems that only just over 10 percent of the abusers in that list were Elders or MS. (Taken only from two samplings of 200 near the front and 200 near the end.) With Witnesses, even parishioners have a "title" or "role" in the congregation.
In the majority of reports from other religious organizations it is usually those in leadership positions or persons with "titles" of some kind, teachers in religious schools, etc. But this has not always been true. Some other religious organizations have given reports that included parishioners in their lists of abusers.
Also, a review of newspaper articles about individual criminals associated with JWs more often go for the story where an elder or MS is the abuser.
But there are still a couple of potential problems with the lists. One is that the question is often about whether the abuser was in the role of Elder or MS at the time of the first abuse. I noticed a case on the very first page where the answer was only a Parishioner, yet that same person was also removed from their position as Elder or MS. (Also there are cases where the person was an Elder and not removed.) When cases take a long time to process or be reported, or there were multiple cases of abuse, the abuser might very well continue to progress to MS or Elder until the abuse is reported or made known.
Also, I hope this one is much less likely, but when the abuse is first "reported" it is not yet (or sometimes ever) technically considered an actual case of abuse, only an accusation. This leaves time to remove the elder or MS from his position, as he should be 'free from accusation.' This removal can even happen without a committee, just based on the suggestion to the accused 'until things are cleared up.' So when an accusation is finally taken seriously enough to treat as a real case of abuse, this might be based on the fact that a previous accusation was not taken seriously and now it must be.
Therefore the "first" case of abuse can be timed to the "second" accusation, after the precaution was taken of removing the elder or MS from his position. I know of a physical abuse case that was handled this way. And in another case (not abuse) I know my father was involved as one of two elders rushing to get a generally inactive Witness disfellowshipped to reduce any embarrassment on the congregation before the incident hit the papers.

Not really a bombshell though based on the January 2nd date.
Someone has done some good work here (video below) on the actual timeline. He's an American who has lived in China for a few years. He reads and speaks Chinese very well. (He's not a pro-Communist spokesperson, and has even been involved in the same types of large anti-government protests that thousands of other Chinese citizens have participated in.)
Even the article on Xi's knowledge of the epidemic actually appears to be a good thing, not something nefarious. It fits right into the timeline:
On January 20th, Xi officially acknowledged that there was an epidemic going on. That was two days before he first spoke publicly about it. In the speech released by Xi’s ruling Communist Party, the president told his party members on Jan 7 that he was already taking measures to contain the coronavirus outbreak.
 

Witnesses did not predict anything.  The magazine highlighted what the experts said - their educated guess - and brought it to the attention of the readers of Awake magazine, like they do with many important and timely subjects. Get over it!

I've used this argument at the door and with Bible studies, too: that supposedly Christians, even if they claim they are not worshiping the item, should still find it wrong to carry around a model of the "murder weapon" that killed Jesus Christ! I've even heard the additional example from other Witnesses, such as: "If your own father had been murdered with an AK-47, or a .38 revolver, would you ever think about carrying around a small model of an AK-47, or a .38 revolver, on a chain around your neck?"
Of course, this seemed quite fair until I learned that a member of the Governing Body who had worn a cross in the past, remembered that it was the way in which they felt they were showing their agreement with the idea in Mark:
(Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [STAUROS] and follow me continually." It was the Bible that treated the STAUROS as a "symbol." And we would never have complained that Jesus was saying (Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [MURDER WEAPON] and follow me continually."
Similarly, the apostle Paul would have been saying:
(1 Corinthians 2:2) For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and [his MURDER WEAPON]. Jesus and Paul knew that the STAUROS (whether cross or stake) was a proper symbol that could remind us of Christ's sacrifice, and it would remind us of our own need for daily sacrifice, and even a similar sacrifice to the death if need be. But this is not an external symbol like baptism by which we show we have dedicated our lives to God and associate ourselves with Christians of like faith. For we walk by faith and not by sight, and need no ongoing piece of jewelry to state our Christian status.

I suppose you are referring to the fact that most Witnesses think that "spirit-directed organization" refers to the idea that the persons responsible for directing the WT organization would therefore have a greater measure of Jehovah's holy spirit, or at least a special measure of holy spirit specifically for the work of guiding and directing what counts as "spiritual food."
*** wp17 No. 1 p. 15 Is It Just a Small Misunderstanding? ***
The holy spirit also moves more knowledgeable Christians to come to the aid of those seeking greater understanding.—Acts 8:26-35. *** w17 February p. 24 par. 5, 10-14 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? ***
Christians in the first century recognized that the governing body was directed by Jehovah God through their Leader, Jesus. How could they be sure of this? First, holy spirit empowered the governing body. (John 16:13) Holy spirit was poured out on all anointed Christians, but it specifically enabled the apostles and other elders in Jerusalem to fulfill their role as overseers. For example, in 49 C.E., holy spirit guided the governing body . . . .  In 1919, three years after Brother Russell’s death, Jesus appointed “the faithful and discreet slave.” For what purpose? To give his domestics “food at the proper time.” (Matt. 24:45) Even in those early years, a small group of anointed brothers who served at headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, prepared and distributed spiritual food to Jesus’ followers. . . . .  the Governing Body to focus on providing spiritual instruction and direction. Evidence of holy spirit. The holy spirit has helped the Governing Body to grasp Scriptural truths not previously understood. . . .  Surely, no human deserves credit for discovering and explaining these “deep things of God”! The Governing Body echoes the apostle Paul, who wrote: “These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit.” . . . . can anything other than holy spirit explain the rapid increase in spiritual understanding since 1919? Evidence of angelic assistance. The Governing Body today has the colossal task of overseeing an international preaching work involving over eight million evangelizers. Why has that work been so successful? For one, angels are involved. What I think that many persons might find confusing here is that the article specifically used examples of how wrong we have been in the past as proof of the direction of holy spirit, otherwise how would the Governing Body have been able to make so many changes to its own false doctrines. The same article included these words:
The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food. So how can we answer Jesus’ question: “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?” (Matt. 24:45) What evidence is there that the Governing Body is filling that role? Let us consider the same three factors that directed the governing body in the first century. 13 Evidence of holy spirit. The holy spirit has helped the Governing Body to grasp Scriptural truths not previously understood. For example, reflect on the list of beliefs clarified that was referred to in the preceding paragraph. Surely, no human deserves credit for discovering and explaining these “deep things of God”! I think the biggest source of confusion is the contradiction between the idea that we don't yet have perfect knowledge and yet Jesus promised his disciples:
(John 15:26-16:13) 26 When the helper comes that I will send you from the Father, the spirit of the truth, which comes from the Father, that one will bear witness about me; 27 and you, in turn, are to bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning. . . . . For if I do not go away, the helper will not come to you; but if I do go, I will send him to you. . . .  13 However, when that one comes, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own initiative, but what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things to come. The contradiction is pretty obvious:
The Governing Body claims to be directed by holy spirit; The holy spirit was supposed to guide Christians into all the truth when it was poured out in 33 CE after Jesus was no longer present; The Governing Body admits to a long list of errors going back over 100 years; Many of these new errors and false doctrines were introduced after Jesus was supposed to be present again in 1914. The Second Adventists (and Seventh Day Adventist branch) resolved the issue by calling their false doctrines "Present Truth." If doctrines were found to be false and therefore changed, then the new doctrines were "present truth" and those past false doctrines were "present truth" at the time, even if time proved them to actually be false. Clever! It was based on a mistranslation/misinterpretation of 2 Peter 1:12. But in the tradition of Second Adventists, we (Bible Students/JWs) also needed to adopt the same solution, especially because we were promoting pieces of a chronology that was continually being proven false. For many years, the Watchtower used 2 Peter 1:12 to defend the idea of "present truth." We now admit that it was based on a mistranslation/misinterpretation. But it remained in Watchtower vocabulary for many years. At one time the doctrine has been so important it was capitalized.
*** w52 4/1 p. 219 An International Assembly in Rome ***
those who had already come to the truth must keep up with present truth. They must appreciate what the Lord provides through his organization and study diligently. *** yb88 p. 139 Korea ***
The Watch Tower of August 15, 1914, printed a fascinating letter addressed to Brother Russell, stating: “I am a stranger to you in one sense; but I came to a knowledge of Present Truth through your writings just twenty-two months ago. For some time I have been anxious to write and tell you of my special appreciation of the Truth, but circumstances did not permit until now. The real solution, I think, is found in Jesus' words about what the "spirit of truth" would lead them to. Truth is not the same as "accurate knowledge." Jesus said it would focus on three things: the truth about sin, righteousness and judgment:
(John 16:7-11) . . .For if I do not go away, the helper will not come to you; but if I do go, I will send him to you. 8 And when that one comes, he will give the world convincing evidence concerning sin and concerning righteousness and concerning judgment: 9 first concerning sin, because they are not exercising faith in me; 10 then concerning righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; 11 then concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. For other things, like this issue of cross vs stake, we should have absolutely no problem telling the truth about it. The truth is that we cannot be dogmatic. The truth is that we don't really have proof one way or another. It is NOT the truth to say that "Jesus was therefore executed on a single upright stake." But the truth is very accessible. All we have to do is say that, based on current evidence, Jesus may have been executed on a single upright stake, but there is also evidence that he may have been executed on a dual-beamed cross. It appears that both of these methods, and several others, could fall within the meaning of the term "stauros" found in the Scriptures.
So we have no reason to believe that holy spirit has not already led Christians "into all the truth." We even know the truth about cross versus stake.

Highest single day jump of reported cases was between yesterday and today. Don't know when they stop counting for the day, but it's 15,000 new cases identified in the most recent short period. Might be due to a recent increase in patrols where all houses are visited to make sure everyone gets to the hospitals, or identified for quarantine. (The new cases still nearly all confined to Wuhan, Hubei.)
Edited to add: as long as no one has responded to this, I should add that this apparently was actually the result of redefining what it means to have the infection. There was a certain level of evidence required to report a "sure case" of infection with the virus. Now that level of evidence has been redefined to include more cases that might have shown almost no symptoms previously. (A little like when the the autism spectrum was redefined and then suddenly the number of cases of reported autism rose dramatically.)

On February 6, 2020, in Orenburg, officers of Penal Colony No. 1 beat believers Budenchuk, German, Gridasov, Makhammadiyev, and Miretskiy with clubs and legs. As a result, one of them, Feliks Makhammadiyev, was hospitalized. The rest were falsely charged and sent to a punishment cell.
Believers were beaten upon admission to a penal colony located in the Krymsky lane, Orenburg. The next day, the doctors examined them. Only after Feliks Makhammadiyev wrote a document stating that he had “hit himself in the toilet” was an ambulance called in. He was hospitalized, underwent surgery, and a drainage tube was inserted into his lung to drain the fluid. Among other things, the tests showed that Makhammadiyev’s body was starving (he suffers from gluten intolerance, and the colony’s staff members had taken away his prescribed special food). The remaining believers were sent to a punishment cell on false accusations, for example, “for smoking in the wrong place.” (Jehovah's Witnesses do not smoke for religious reasons.)
https://www.jw-russia.org/en/news/2020/02/37.html

Very brutal...... Russia is a theocracy who does not adhere to international law.
We pray for our brothers.  

A report on the torture of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia and 4Jah attaches an laughing emoji to it. What a nasty piece of work he is.

JWI wants nothing of the sort.
But if you are going to do one of these things where you go on an attack with false "facts" again, then someone ought to point out at least a couple of them. First of all, you are conflating the Bible Students and the JW's if you think that the cross and crown was a view noticed "since 1950." The cross-and-crown pins were declared to be objectionable as early as 1928. The English Watchtower got rid of the symbol from its covers in 1931. The pin was objectionable because it was religious jewelry associated with Russell and the Bible Students, not because it showed a cross. The WT still taught that Jesus died on a cross up until about 1936.
Remember that the English name for the "Bible Students" still associated with the WTS was changed to Jehovah's Witnesses in 1931. Some Branches with the delay due to language translation lagged behind with the new name "Jehovah's Witnesses" and their redesigned Watchtower covers. (The Branch in Spain still had the cross-and-crown on their tablecloth design until 1932, and their Spanish Watchtower redesigned the covers in 1932.) Recall that in Germany the usual name was still Bibelforscher (Bible Students) from 1933 and beyond, and was used so much in Germany that many people didn't recognize that the Bibleforscher were the same as the Jehovas Zeugen (Jehovah's Witnesses) even after WWII. In fact, many of the Bibelforscher in concentration camps were not Jehovah's Witnesses but were Bible Students no longer associated with Rutherford and the Watchtower Society.
So this cross-and-crown change had nothing to do with the 1950's, even though a bit of confusion might still have occurred in the mind of outsiders about the Bible Student name up until then, as this Watchtower experience shows:
*** w92 6/1 p. 30 After Buchenwald I Found the Truth ***
In 1954, I was visited by two of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and I subscribed to the Awake! magazine. . . . During the discussions that followed, I remembered the Bibelforscher in Buchenwald who were so true to their faith. Only then did I realize that these Bibelforscher and Jehovah’s Witnesses were one and the same people. Thanks to a Bible study, my wife and I took our stand for Jehovah and were baptized in April 1955.
You have made this statement several times, seemingly forgetting that it is the Governing Body who have declared that the Watchtower erred in interpretation of scripture. You are so blinded in your anger against anyone who might admit this simple truth, that you are inadvertently claiming that the GB are opposed to the truth and seeking their own independent understanding. I don't believe they are opposed to the truth, nor do I think they are seeking their own independent understanding.
After 1929, Jehovah's Witnesses (since 1931), not just the Bible Students, believed that Romans 13:1 did not refer to the secular authorities:
*** w50 11/15 p. 442 par. 12 Subjection to the Higher Powers ***
On the clergy interpretation of Romans 13:1 has been based the Roman Catholic doctrine of the “divine right of kings”. Man-made governments since the flood of Noah’s day stem from Nimrod’s government at Babel or Babylon.
Since 1962, Jehovah's Witnesses now understand Romans 13:1 to refer to the man-made governmental authorities. As you have tried before, you try to be slick with your opposition to the truth of such matters, and as usual, it has led you to attempt some wordplay again. You try to divert with your wordplay to make it ambiguous about "why true witnesses understand the authority is God and Christ as inscribed by scripture."
Let's try to keep the facts straight:
*** w96 5/1 pp. 13-14 pars. 12-14 God and Caesar ***
As early as 1886, Charles Taze Russell wrote in the book The Plan of the Ages: “Neither Jesus nor the Apostles interfered with earthly rulers in any way. . . . to offer no resistance to any established law. (Rom. 13:1-7; Matt. 22:21) . . .  This book correctly identified “the higher powers,” or “the superior authorities,” mentioned by the apostle Paul, as human governmental authorities. (Romans 13:1, King James Version) . . . .
In 1929, . . . it was felt that the higher powers must be Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. . . . Looking back, it must be said that this view of things, exalting as it did the supremacy of Jehovah and his Christ, helped God’s people to maintain an uncompromisingly neutral stand throughout this difficult period.
In 1961  . . . the words used not only in Romans chapter 13 but also in such passages as Titus 3:1, 2 and 1 Peter 2:13, 17 made it evident that the term “superior authorities” referred, not to the Supreme Authority, Jehovah, and to his Son, Jesus, but to human governmental authorities. In late 1962, articles were published in The Watchtower that gave an accurate explanation of Romans chapter 13 . . . .
It was correct in 1886, under Russell, until it was changed due to what Rutherford "felt" about it in 1929. Finally in 1962, it was changed back to Russell's correct view so that it was an "accurate explanation" again. So this had very little to do with "Bible Students" as you tried to imply. I was referring to "Jehovah's Witnesses from 1931 to 1962.
Just a side note: For some reason the Watchtower added that "it must be said" that moving from a correct explanation to an inaccurate explanation of Romans 13:1 "helped." This makes one wonder why we no longer need the "help" of an incorrect explanation. Is it because we will no longer need to maintain an uncompromisingly neutral stand throughout any more difficult periods in the future? That can't be the real reason.
The real reason is clear. It was a mistake. We can be humble about it, instead of trying to use weasel words and other ambiguous wordplay to try to avoid being humble. We can't keep trying to give the impression that we avoid honesty to avoid admitting a mistake. It makes us look haughty. It makes us look like we are opposers who oppose the truth.
(Proverbs 12:17) . . .The one who testifies faithfully will tell the truth, But a false witness speaks deceit.
 

Around here there are quite a few that do just the opposite—focus on return visits—and you know the challenge of finding return visits home. It drives me nuts, and I am adamant not to be part of a large car-group, sometimes even a van, doing it. Occasionally I am outmaneuvered and when that happens I lose all interest in the ministry, take the back seat in the van, and nap or compose a blog post.
I would think so. The only way I could get my head around it was to read it was in a different country.
The concluding speaker told how a cop had said, with regard to some pretty obnoxious protestors, “Why don’t you just pop them one?” As to the one of the military monitoring mealtime, I had just about concluded that it was an urban legend—I had a Mormon tell me something similar about his people—but then Shultz told me where it was published. 
We all get better at handling challenging situations as we age ourselves. Running into the clergyman is another—or a group plainly immersed in conversation and directly in your path. One fellow eyed me cautiously as I approached. He was lugging heavy boxes from a moving van. “You look like someone that wants to talk about the Bible!” I said jokingly. He laughed so hard he nearly dropped the box.

JWI wants nothing of the sort.
But if you are going to do one of these things where you go on an attack with false "facts" again, then someone ought to point out at least a couple of them. First of all, you are conflating the Bible Students and the JW's if you think that the cross and crown was a view noticed "since 1950." The cross-and-crown pins were declared to be objectionable as early as 1928. The English Watchtower got rid of the symbol from its covers in 1931. The pin was objectionable because it was religious jewelry associated with Russell and the Bible Students, not because it showed a cross. The WT still taught that Jesus died on a cross up until about 1936.
Remember that the English name for the "Bible Students" still associated with the WTS was changed to Jehovah's Witnesses in 1931. Some Branches with the delay due to language translation lagged behind with the new name "Jehovah's Witnesses" and their redesigned Watchtower covers. (The Branch in Spain still had the cross-and-crown on their tablecloth design until 1932, and their Spanish Watchtower redesigned the covers in 1932.) Recall that in Germany the usual name was still Bibelforscher (Bible Students) from 1933 and beyond, and was used so much in Germany that many people didn't recognize that the Bibleforscher were the same as the Jehovas Zeugen (Jehovah's Witnesses) even after WWII. In fact, many of the Bibelforscher in concentration camps were not Jehovah's Witnesses but were Bible Students no longer associated with Rutherford and the Watchtower Society.
So this cross-and-crown change had nothing to do with the 1950's, even though a bit of confusion might still have occurred in the mind of outsiders about the Bible Student name up until then, as this Watchtower experience shows:
*** w92 6/1 p. 30 After Buchenwald I Found the Truth ***
In 1954, I was visited by two of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and I subscribed to the Awake! magazine. . . . During the discussions that followed, I remembered the Bibelforscher in Buchenwald who were so true to their faith. Only then did I realize that these Bibelforscher and Jehovah’s Witnesses were one and the same people. Thanks to a Bible study, my wife and I took our stand for Jehovah and were baptized in April 1955.
You have made this statement several times, seemingly forgetting that it is the Governing Body who have declared that the Watchtower erred in interpretation of scripture. You are so blinded in your anger against anyone who might admit this simple truth, that you are inadvertently claiming that the GB are opposed to the truth and seeking their own independent understanding. I don't believe they are opposed to the truth, nor do I think they are seeking their own independent understanding.
After 1929, Jehovah's Witnesses (since 1931), not just the Bible Students, believed that Romans 13:1 did not refer to the secular authorities:
*** w50 11/15 p. 442 par. 12 Subjection to the Higher Powers ***
On the clergy interpretation of Romans 13:1 has been based the Roman Catholic doctrine of the “divine right of kings”. Man-made governments since the flood of Noah’s day stem from Nimrod’s government at Babel or Babylon.
Since 1962, Jehovah's Witnesses now understand Romans 13:1 to refer to the man-made governmental authorities. As you have tried before, you try to be slick with your opposition to the truth of such matters, and as usual, it has led you to attempt some wordplay again. You try to divert with your wordplay to make it ambiguous about "why true witnesses understand the authority is God and Christ as inscribed by scripture."
Let's try to keep the facts straight:
*** w96 5/1 pp. 13-14 pars. 12-14 God and Caesar ***
As early as 1886, Charles Taze Russell wrote in the book The Plan of the Ages: “Neither Jesus nor the Apostles interfered with earthly rulers in any way. . . . to offer no resistance to any established law. (Rom. 13:1-7; Matt. 22:21) . . .  This book correctly identified “the higher powers,” or “the superior authorities,” mentioned by the apostle Paul, as human governmental authorities. (Romans 13:1, King James Version) . . . .
In 1929, . . . it was felt that the higher powers must be Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. . . . Looking back, it must be said that this view of things, exalting as it did the supremacy of Jehovah and his Christ, helped God’s people to maintain an uncompromisingly neutral stand throughout this difficult period.
In 1961  . . . the words used not only in Romans chapter 13 but also in such passages as Titus 3:1, 2 and 1 Peter 2:13, 17 made it evident that the term “superior authorities” referred, not to the Supreme Authority, Jehovah, and to his Son, Jesus, but to human governmental authorities. In late 1962, articles were published in The Watchtower that gave an accurate explanation of Romans chapter 13 . . . .
It was correct in 1886, under Russell, until it was changed due to what Rutherford "felt" about it in 1929. Finally in 1962, it was changed back to Russell's correct view so that it was an "accurate explanation" again. So this had very little to do with "Bible Students" as you tried to imply. I was referring to "Jehovah's Witnesses from 1931 to 1962.
Just a side note: For some reason the Watchtower added that "it must be said" that moving from a correct explanation to an inaccurate explanation of Romans 13:1 "helped." This makes one wonder why we no longer need the "help" of an incorrect explanation. Is it because we will no longer need to maintain an uncompromisingly neutral stand throughout any more difficult periods in the future? That can't be the real reason.
The real reason is clear. It was a mistake. We can be humble about it, instead of trying to use weasel words and other ambiguous wordplay to try to avoid being humble. We can't keep trying to give the impression that we avoid honesty to avoid admitting a mistake. It makes us look haughty. It makes us look like we are opposers who oppose the truth.
(Proverbs 12:17) . . .The one who testifies faithfully will tell the truth, But a false witness speaks deceit.
 

Thanks - no prob.  Just stick to subject if you please. 

@JW Insider  Thank you for that in depth truthful comment 

JWI wants nothing of the sort.
But if you are going to do one of these things where you go on an attack with false "facts" again, then someone ought to point out at least a couple of them. First of all, you are conflating the Bible Students and the JW's if you think that the cross and crown was a view noticed "since 1950." The cross-and-crown pins were declared to be objectionable as early as 1928. The English Watchtower got rid of the symbol from its covers in 1931. The pin was objectionable because it was religious jewelry associated with Russell and the Bible Students, not because it showed a cross. The WT still taught that Jesus died on a cross up until about 1936.
Remember that the English name for the "Bible Students" still associated with the WTS was changed to Jehovah's Witnesses in 1931. Some Branches with the delay due to language translation lagged behind with the new name "Jehovah's Witnesses" and their redesigned Watchtower covers. (The Branch in Spain still had the cross-and-crown on their tablecloth design until 1932, and their Spanish Watchtower redesigned the covers in 1932.) Recall that in Germany the usual name was still Bibelforscher (Bible Students) from 1933 and beyond, and was used so much in Germany that many people didn't recognize that the Bibleforscher were the same as the Jehovas Zeugen (Jehovah's Witnesses) even after WWII. In fact, many of the Bibelforscher in concentration camps were not Jehovah's Witnesses but were Bible Students no longer associated with Rutherford and the Watchtower Society.
So this cross-and-crown change had nothing to do with the 1950's, even though a bit of confusion might still have occurred in the mind of outsiders about the Bible Student name up until then, as this Watchtower experience shows:
*** w92 6/1 p. 30 After Buchenwald I Found the Truth ***
In 1954, I was visited by two of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and I subscribed to the Awake! magazine. . . . During the discussions that followed, I remembered the Bibelforscher in Buchenwald who were so true to their faith. Only then did I realize that these Bibelforscher and Jehovah’s Witnesses were one and the same people. Thanks to a Bible study, my wife and I took our stand for Jehovah and were baptized in April 1955.
You have made this statement several times, seemingly forgetting that it is the Governing Body who have declared that the Watchtower erred in interpretation of scripture. You are so blinded in your anger against anyone who might admit this simple truth, that you are inadvertently claiming that the GB are opposed to the truth and seeking their own independent understanding. I don't believe they are opposed to the truth, nor do I think they are seeking their own independent understanding.
After 1929, Jehovah's Witnesses (since 1931), not just the Bible Students, believed that Romans 13:1 did not refer to the secular authorities:
*** w50 11/15 p. 442 par. 12 Subjection to the Higher Powers ***
On the clergy interpretation of Romans 13:1 has been based the Roman Catholic doctrine of the “divine right of kings”. Man-made governments since the flood of Noah’s day stem from Nimrod’s government at Babel or Babylon.
Since 1962, Jehovah's Witnesses now understand Romans 13:1 to refer to the man-made governmental authorities. As you have tried before, you try to be slick with your opposition to the truth of such matters, and as usual, it has led you to attempt some wordplay again. You try to divert with your wordplay to make it ambiguous about "why true witnesses understand the authority is God and Christ as inscribed by scripture."
Let's try to keep the facts straight:
*** w96 5/1 pp. 13-14 pars. 12-14 God and Caesar ***
As early as 1886, Charles Taze Russell wrote in the book The Plan of the Ages: “Neither Jesus nor the Apostles interfered with earthly rulers in any way. . . . to offer no resistance to any established law. (Rom. 13:1-7; Matt. 22:21) . . .  This book correctly identified “the higher powers,” or “the superior authorities,” mentioned by the apostle Paul, as human governmental authorities. (Romans 13:1, King James Version) . . . .
In 1929, . . . it was felt that the higher powers must be Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. . . . Looking back, it must be said that this view of things, exalting as it did the supremacy of Jehovah and his Christ, helped God’s people to maintain an uncompromisingly neutral stand throughout this difficult period.
In 1961  . . . the words used not only in Romans chapter 13 but also in such passages as Titus 3:1, 2 and 1 Peter 2:13, 17 made it evident that the term “superior authorities” referred, not to the Supreme Authority, Jehovah, and to his Son, Jesus, but to human governmental authorities. In late 1962, articles were published in The Watchtower that gave an accurate explanation of Romans chapter 13 . . . .
It was correct in 1886, under Russell, until it was changed due to what Rutherford "felt" about it in 1929. Finally in 1962, it was changed back to Russell's correct view so that it was an "accurate explanation" again. So this had very little to do with "Bible Students" as you tried to imply. I was referring to "Jehovah's Witnesses from 1931 to 1962.
Just a side note: For some reason the Watchtower added that "it must be said" that moving from a correct explanation to an inaccurate explanation of Romans 13:1 "helped." This makes one wonder why we no longer need the "help" of an incorrect explanation. Is it because we will no longer need to maintain an uncompromisingly neutral stand throughout any more difficult periods in the future? That can't be the real reason.
The real reason is clear. It was a mistake. We can be humble about it, instead of trying to use weasel words and other ambiguous wordplay to try to avoid being humble. We can't keep trying to give the impression that we avoid honesty to avoid admitting a mistake. It makes us look haughty. It makes us look like we are opposers who oppose the truth.
(Proverbs 12:17) . . .The one who testifies faithfully will tell the truth, But a false witness speaks deceit.
 

Seems like the application is more like the lack of value that a foolish person might recognize in some very good counsel. Pearls and swine. That's not so different from his application. You can make it work among the brothers, but it sounds much more like our relationship with some in the world for whom we need to shake the dust off our feet.

JWI wants nothing of the sort.
But if you are going to do one of these things where you go on an attack with false "facts" again, then someone ought to point out at least a couple of them. First of all, you are conflating the Bible Students and the JW's if you think that the cross and crown was a view noticed "since 1950." The cross-and-crown pins were declared to be objectionable as early as 1928. The English Watchtower got rid of the symbol from its covers in 1931. The pin was objectionable because it was religious jewelry associated with Russell and the Bible Students, not because it showed a cross. The WT still taught that Jesus died on a cross up until about 1936.
Remember that the English name for the "Bible Students" still associated with the WTS was changed to Jehovah's Witnesses in 1931. Some Branches with the delay due to language translation lagged behind with the new name "Jehovah's Witnesses" and their redesigned Watchtower covers. (The Branch in Spain still had the cross-and-crown on their tablecloth design until 1932, and their Spanish Watchtower redesigned the covers in 1932.) Recall that in Germany the usual name was still Bibelforscher (Bible Students) from 1933 and beyond, and was used so much in Germany that many people didn't recognize that the Bibleforscher were the same as the Jehovas Zeugen (Jehovah's Witnesses) even after WWII. In fact, many of the Bibelforscher in concentration camps were not Jehovah's Witnesses but were Bible Students no longer associated with Rutherford and the Watchtower Society.
So this cross-and-crown change had nothing to do with the 1950's, even though a bit of confusion might still have occurred in the mind of outsiders about the Bible Student name up until then, as this Watchtower experience shows:
*** w92 6/1 p. 30 After Buchenwald I Found the Truth ***
In 1954, I was visited by two of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and I subscribed to the Awake! magazine. . . . During the discussions that followed, I remembered the Bibelforscher in Buchenwald who were so true to their faith. Only then did I realize that these Bibelforscher and Jehovah’s Witnesses were one and the same people. Thanks to a Bible study, my wife and I took our stand for Jehovah and were baptized in April 1955.
You have made this statement several times, seemingly forgetting that it is the Governing Body who have declared that the Watchtower erred in interpretation of scripture. You are so blinded in your anger against anyone who might admit this simple truth, that you are inadvertently claiming that the GB are opposed to the truth and seeking their own independent understanding. I don't believe they are opposed to the truth, nor do I think they are seeking their own independent understanding.
After 1929, Jehovah's Witnesses (since 1931), not just the Bible Students, believed that Romans 13:1 did not refer to the secular authorities:
*** w50 11/15 p. 442 par. 12 Subjection to the Higher Powers ***
On the clergy interpretation of Romans 13:1 has been based the Roman Catholic doctrine of the “divine right of kings”. Man-made governments since the flood of Noah’s day stem from Nimrod’s government at Babel or Babylon.
Since 1962, Jehovah's Witnesses now understand Romans 13:1 to refer to the man-made governmental authorities. As you have tried before, you try to be slick with your opposition to the truth of such matters, and as usual, it has led you to attempt some wordplay again. You try to divert with your wordplay to make it ambiguous about "why true witnesses understand the authority is God and Christ as inscribed by scripture."
Let's try to keep the facts straight:
*** w96 5/1 pp. 13-14 pars. 12-14 God and Caesar ***
As early as 1886, Charles Taze Russell wrote in the book The Plan of the Ages: “Neither Jesus nor the Apostles interfered with earthly rulers in any way. . . . to offer no resistance to any established law. (Rom. 13:1-7; Matt. 22:21) . . .  This book correctly identified “the higher powers,” or “the superior authorities,” mentioned by the apostle Paul, as human governmental authorities. (Romans 13:1, King James Version) . . . .
In 1929, . . . it was felt that the higher powers must be Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. . . . Looking back, it must be said that this view of things, exalting as it did the supremacy of Jehovah and his Christ, helped God’s people to maintain an uncompromisingly neutral stand throughout this difficult period.
In 1961  . . . the words used not only in Romans chapter 13 but also in such passages as Titus 3:1, 2 and 1 Peter 2:13, 17 made it evident that the term “superior authorities” referred, not to the Supreme Authority, Jehovah, and to his Son, Jesus, but to human governmental authorities. In late 1962, articles were published in The Watchtower that gave an accurate explanation of Romans chapter 13 . . . .
It was correct in 1886, under Russell, until it was changed due to what Rutherford "felt" about it in 1929. Finally in 1962, it was changed back to Russell's correct view so that it was an "accurate explanation" again. So this had very little to do with "Bible Students" as you tried to imply. I was referring to "Jehovah's Witnesses from 1931 to 1962.
Just a side note: For some reason the Watchtower added that "it must be said" that moving from a correct explanation to an inaccurate explanation of Romans 13:1 "helped." This makes one wonder why we no longer need the "help" of an incorrect explanation. Is it because we will no longer need to maintain an uncompromisingly neutral stand throughout any more difficult periods in the future? That can't be the real reason.
The real reason is clear. It was a mistake. We can be humble about it, instead of trying to use weasel words and other ambiguous wordplay to try to avoid being humble. We can't keep trying to give the impression that we avoid honesty to avoid admitting a mistake. It makes us look haughty. It makes us look like we are opposers who oppose the truth.
(Proverbs 12:17) . . .The one who testifies faithfully will tell the truth, But a false witness speaks deceit.
 

Sorry, but the answer is yes, I have seen most Watchtower leaders practicing love among one another, especially to the flock, and also practicing love to those we might otherwise consider our enemies when it comes to a preaching, and giving of our time to take a message of hope to them.
The kinds of elders or leaders who end up being involved in disfellowshipping those who disagree with doctrine are only working on one part of what they consider to be a Christian duty. I agree that it might show a lack of love with some, but only in that one activity, and not because most of them realize the lack of love. To most it's just a painful job that someone has to do. I know for a fact that elders sometimes cry during and after a judicial meeting. They imagine they are doing an act of sacred service.
(John 16:2) . . .Men will expel YOU from the synagogue. In fact, the hour is coming when everyone that kills YOU will imagine he has rendered a sacred service to God.
But sometimes we must forgive them, for they know not what they do. And other times, perhaps most of the time, they are doing the right thing. They ARE performing an act of sacred service. There is a scriptural basis for different versions of this practice.

So far, very little has gone on in that club. There were a few discussions of what people liked or didn't like about recent and/or upcoming Watchtower studies. It was probably considered better to discuss such things without every topic being turned into: "Yes that's true but you also have a CSA problem." You might not believe it, but we had a guy here once who could take any topic, even one about how you might pronounce YHWH, and would still find a way to weave in a dig about CSA.

Jesus is that source of truth, and does not produce bad fruit. We as humans must try to imitate Jesus and follow to the best of our ability. But even a piece of good fruit has flaws when you look at it too closely.
You appear to be interpreting this statement as if it is saying:
(Matthew 5:48) . . .You must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
But this is mitigated by another statement from the same Sermon on the Mount:
(Matthew 6:14-15) . . 14 “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; 15 whereas if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
If everyone must be perfect, and can never produce bad fruit, then what's the point of asking for forgiveness of our trespasses?