JW Insider

What would be wrong, then, with just admitting that elders also come closest to fitting the role that nearly everyone, including most JWs, have in mind for clergy? It's a little bit like the word rapture, where many people have a wrong connotation of what all is implied with the word, so that we don't use it specifically for the Greek word "harpazo." But we still, according to the latest WT on the subject, believe in the "rapture" part of the word "rapture." To most people, clergy, refers to those who teach and take the lead in religious services, including those who "shepherd" the flock, take confessions, etc. Nothing to see here as far as I'm concerned.
This doesn't mean, of course, that we shouldn't also distinguish our use of terms from wrong connotations that these terms imply to others.

That doesn’t mean it doesn’t fall. Maybe he has a point.
Did you notice how Bro Losch ran down all those end-time predictions from about the year 400? There was a avalanche of them. When he got to ‘our brothers have made some, too’, he didn’t take cover in numbers. He doubled-down and went into detail of how they missed. He didn’t even use the perfect outs that he might have used—verses like Acts 1:6 to show that they were in good company.
So when they had assembled, they asked him: “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?”  
No budging on 1914, though.

This formulation is the same as most businesses on Earth. You start at the bottom and work your way up, with the difference being they are volunteers. The GB members all gained spiritual and mental experience in the many years they were full time publishers alone with no other responsibilities. They were trained by older men, the older men suggest to a body of older men that they be considered to help a congregation or branch office while the continue their volunteer service as door to door ministers.
You don't start in the mail office one week then become president the next. The structure of Jehovah's Witnesses leadership weeds out those who have no desire to serve God. Many pioneers have spent 120 hours a month going door to door with the magazines,this is the expressed will of God preaching the Good News of God's Kingdom in all the Earth. They keep records before God who and where they spoke with someone, that they may reach every door, every person.
Have you ever spent 120 hours a month as a volunteer, spending your own money for all expenses? Previously they paid for the literature they lovingly gave to those who would read them. The GB are lowly servants of Jehovah. They respect that Jesus is the true head of the congregation. Having a body lead the organization spiritually is much better than having one man with unpredictability.
If the Apostles Paul and Peter were members, there would be complainers inside and out of the organization.The world is full of nonconstructive complainers.What will be their outcome? We leave that to the one who peers into such conversations from the heavens!
The GB are lowly men who are humble before God, searching the Bible for truth and direction, no different than a father who tries to care for his families spiritual needs.  

@Kosonen, I agree with much of what @Arauna has said above but I would consider several different factors that get in the way of the NYC identification for BtG.
For one thing, there is what I already mentioned about the idea that Jehovah would "lead" the WTS out of NYC/BtG for a few extra moments of smooth operation and comfort when this tribulation on NYC begins, but not do the same for all the Circuit Overseers, Elders, pioneers, individual anointed ones, and "rank-and-file" Witness families. It makes Jehovah a "respecter of persons" and it makes it appear that Jehovah wants to protect buildings and physical equipment as somehow more important than lowly individuals. Yet Jehovah sees the "sparrow" fall to the ground.
(1 Corinthians 10:13) . . .No temptation has come upon you except what is common to men. But God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear, but along with the temptation he will also make the way out so that you may be able to endure it.
Why would Jehovah make the way out for some, so many years in advance, but not make the way out for others until a related tribulation is right on top of them? Potentially trapping Witnesses in the worst of all situations for 3.5 years.
I understand how you could still defend against this possible contradiction. After all, a major point of the Olivet sermon (Mt24,Mk13,Lk21) was to get Christians out of Jerusalem in time so that would avoid the greatest part of the tribulation, but not send them out so early that they would suffer for years waiting after fleeing to the mountains of Pella, for example. Jehovah made a way out in this case by opening a "window of opportunity" between the attack in 66 CE, and the destruction in 70 CE (which coincidentally [?] happened to be about 3.5 years). And of course, the cutting short of those days of tribulation was on account of the "chosen ones." You could make an argument that the "chosen ones" do not generally include the anointed or other Witnesses outside of NY headquarters, but especially refers to those "chosen ones" at the headquarters in upstate NY.
Through "eisegesis," it is possible to make almost any historical situation fit a Biblical prophecy when the prophecy is written in symbols, or we are overly anxious to see prophecy fulfilled. You mentioned the fact that the WTS makes most of this prophecy fulfilled 100 years ago. In truth, the WT writers could just as easily have found "significant" fulfillments for these prophecies anywhere between 1799 and 2019. Russell found fulfillments in the 1800's. The WT writers in Rutherford's time latched onto the most dramatic thing that ever happened to the WT organization during the time period of "limbo" between 1914 and 1925. As an example the Watch Tower publications promoted ideas like the following that very year in 1919:

   
Of course, these writers were "cut from the same cloth" as those who could write the 1917 book "The Finished Mystery" which contains so many outlandish "fulfillments" of prophecy, such as Revelation 14:20 being prophesied in advance as the distance from Brooklyn to Scranton by way of the Lackawana RR station (p.230). This was a book that could literally find some significance in Brother Russell's hemorrhoids (p.54).

Of course, I'm not comparing your idea to the same foolishness produced in "The Finished Mystery." NYC does more than just "symbolize" a commercial center, a financial center, a foreign relations center (UN), a fashion center, an entertainment center. To some extent it's just about every kind of worldly center except a religious center. 
My main reason for dismissing the significance of NYC as prophetically significant here, however, is because I don't believe we should pin any of our "end-times" expectations on any specific "knowledge" about anything happening in the world today. That includes anything that the UN says no matter how significant it seems. It also means we should give no particular significance to anything that the Pope says, anything that any world council of churches or any other leaders would say -- if we think it means that the end is somehow more imminent because of anything we might think is a sign matching a prophecy in the Bible.
And that's because Jesus warned us that the end would come at a time when it would surprise us. A thief does not give a sign or warning before breaking into a house, therefore we would expect no sign or advance warning. The parousia will come upon the world while people are still thinking there is peace and security, much like the way life was going on as usual before the Flood, or before fire rained down upon Sodom, as if without warning. The circumstances of this speculation about NYC, according to your own explanation, provides a way of extending the end of the system beyond 3.5 years from now. This creates a problem. It creates a window of opportunity for some to say "the master is delaying" and a temptation to use that time to lord it over their fellow slaves. It creates a window of opportunity for the heart to be tempted into a lull, where the love of a great number of Christians could cool off. Jesus told us that it would come as a surprise for a reason. So that we would be ready at all times, not just trying to get our hearts in shape after we see a significant sign.
Also, you pretty much admitted that this NYC scenario provides "no reason to panic" on the one hand and a reason to warn Witnesses in NYC on the other hand, when this scenario is more widely understood.

There is no way you can "suit yourself" in a secular  court of law - you fight to win....... to expect otherwise is unjust.  If you lose while innocent and obeying God (like brothers in Russia) one serves the penalty and then try to appeal within the secular law system they have created.
4jah2me, if your sense of justice is still outraged :  I understand..but do not forget, even if a guilty person gets away with something like murder, rape, etc. Jehovah sees everything and he will compensate in future when His system arrives - in the end there will be true justice for all.
Do you believe that God really exists and there is a future where he will compensate?   .... The 1000 years is called a day of judgment is it not?  This world is not all there is....
The GB will be judged as individuals and how they executed their responsibilities given to them. If you really believe God exists - then rest assured no-one will get away with something serious...  The elders too.  God is not partial. 
I have seen elders handle their responsibilities in good way.... and bad.  If their brand of justice is flawed, I have seen elders fall out or be removed...  but jehovah is a God of mercy...... he always gives people time to change or improve..........or repent....... no matter what their sin was.
In a secular court - we accept judgment - even if a mistake was made. We accept that human judgment is not perfect and then try to fight the verdict through legal channels. Many people on death row have been innocent.
In the congregation people's spiritual lives are at stake.... I can speak from experience..... I come across here as hard ... but I have been in truth since I was 21 - the first in my family.  The knocks I got from imperfect brothers and sisters in this time  did affect me....especially when I was young, stupid and fragile. .. but in the end it strengthened me and gave me "endurance". 
I stuck to jehovah (made Him my joy) and cultivated humility. I always tried to understand imperfection and only trust jehovah and stick to him..... this helped me to endure and grow in understanding.
This it is the crux of the matter...... trust that jehovah is the great compensator.  He is the only and absolute provider of true justice. He is righteous.
I read a lot of news .... when I read of the growing injustices against Christian's in north Africa...... the murders, rapes etc.  I just want to literally cry...... in this world run by satan behind the scenes, there is no true justice. 
JUSTICE really depends what kind of government is in power ..... and how corrupt it is or not.    We all will learn this soon when governments turn on religion.... we will see how just governments really are.  The bible does not say for nothing that those who accept Jesus' randsom will be persecuted before Armageddon. 
The law is usually the instrument by which they persecute people when the society is reasonably civil.  When society is in chaos, you are just executed or kangaroo court prevails.
Be glad you are living in a first world country - although things are deteriorating fast.  I cry for the young children being raped in Africa ...... all the time.... it is endemic....  law and order is only for those in power..... not the victims.
Jehovah loves the lowly, the victims..... and they do get a measure of comfort from Him in this world....... the full healing for them will only come in the new system.. ...but they must draw close to jehovah now to get this comfort.  Some do not appreciate this offer from jehovah..... and throw the opportunities away.
 

If people in the 1st century were homosexuals before learning the truth of God's Kingdom and Christ' sin atoning blood became anointed, what is the difference today.
The GB members are no different than any other witnesses, they just have been giving opportunity to direct the organization.They have not been blessed with an Apostleship and Outward Displays of Holy Spirit as some of them were.
Like us, and those in the 1st century, they repented and left ungodly practices behind and are reaching forward.They may have preached the message full time and been given responsibility one step at a time after many years. WHO IS THEIR JUDGE?

It seems that you believe that the Watchtower Society, or perhaps the Governing Body, representing Jehovah's Witnesses, have already followed the advice of Revelation 18:4 to 'Get out of Babylon the Great.' This happens sometime between the time when the angels say that Babylon has fallen, and before she is burned, and the rest of the world mourns for her from a distance.
We currently teach that Babylon the Great took God's people captive beginning in about the year 100 CE, and that Babylon fell in 1919 CE. But that she will be completely destroyed during the time of the Great Tribulation/Armageddon.
You must think that the Society and/or GB have made this move out of New York City without being fully conscious of Jehovah's leading in this matter. I say this partly because, while they themselves got out of of Babylon the Great, they did not ask all other Witnesses to get out of Babylon the Great (BtG) before it burns and sinks.
Of course, you might say that there is no need for other Witnesses to leave NYC, because when it's time for BtG to burn and sink, Jehovah can and will protect his people. Of course, this implies that Jehovah can protect individuals, but not an organization, or not the individuals in the GB. Then again, you might be implying that it was the temptation to share with her in her sins that made it more important for the WTS/GB to get out of the Great City (NYC), so that they would not be tempted to get involved with the UN in that same city, for example. Perhaps the temptations on the WTS were somehow greater than the same temptations of the Great City on congregations or individual Witnesses.
I see this potential contradiction as a hole in your theory.
Looking forward to your explanation.

It seems that you believe that the Watchtower Society, or perhaps the Governing Body, representing Jehovah's Witnesses, have already followed the advice of Revelation 18:4 to 'Get out of Babylon the Great.' This happens sometime between the time when the angels say that Babylon has fallen, and before she is burned, and the rest of the world mourns for her from a distance.
We currently teach that Babylon the Great took God's people captive beginning in about the year 100 CE, and that Babylon fell in 1919 CE. But that she will be completely destroyed during the time of the Great Tribulation/Armageddon.
You must think that the Society and/or GB have made this move out of New York City without being fully conscious of Jehovah's leading in this matter. I say this partly because, while they themselves got out of of Babylon the Great, they did not ask all other Witnesses to get out of Babylon the Great (BtG) before it burns and sinks.
Of course, you might say that there is no need for other Witnesses to leave NYC, because when it's time for BtG to burn and sink, Jehovah can and will protect his people. Of course, this implies that Jehovah can protect individuals, but not an organization, or not the individuals in the GB. Then again, you might be implying that it was the temptation to share with her in her sins that made it more important for the WTS/GB to get out of the Great City (NYC), so that they would not be tempted to get involved with the UN in that same city, for example. Perhaps the temptations on the WTS were somehow greater than the same temptations of the Great City on congregations or individual Witnesses.
I see this potential contradiction as a hole in your theory.
Looking forward to your explanation.

It doesn't matter what the JW version of confidentiality is or was. The question posed in the heading of this post is: "Did Jehovah's Witnesses lie to the Montana court about confidentiality"
The answer is no, the JWs did not lie about confidetiality. The court was fully aware of the JW's version of confidentiality before it made its decision to reverse the judgment. The court reversed its judgment on the basis of the JWs version of confidentiality.
Page13 of the Court's Decision: "the summary judgment record demonstrates that Jehovah’s Witnesses have an established process for receiving and investigating reports of child abuse within their congregations; that they consider this process confidential; and that the process necessarily involves multiple elders and congregation members, including the accused, CCJW elders who provide spiritual guidance, and local elders who conduct the investigation."
Not sure what you mean by that....but if you mean that this could be misused to intentionally falsely accuse someone, then yes, that is true. Trust is put in the good will of people, and it is assumed that they will not make things up. People like to believe in the general goodness of humanity.  And there are many “good” people out there. But yes, this trust can, and has been abused, no doubt about that. I even have know of an experience where that happened. The underage daughter in the custody of her dad, wanted to go and live with her mom, so she made up a story about her dad, that he was beating her. She called child abuse helpline. I don't think we should underestimate the training these people have in knowing how to recognize authentic reports. The authorities came and investigated, and found out the real truth. The authorities are usually not quick at condemning someone without due proof. (We are taking about civilised countries). Separating families merely because someone suspects foul play usually is not the procedure.

Money makes all sorts of pain magically go away, didn't you know that? 
Interestingly, in the Montana case (and I only know this because as I said, I read the court transcript, over 400 pages of it, in order to get a clear and unbiased view) one of the victims (the other sibling who also reported the abuse) did not want to become a part of the lawsuit. He said in his deposition that he just wants to get on with his life. In other words, he was not interested in money to "repair his trauma". This victim was the only one who is still in the truth. So it appears he was more interested in remaining one of Jehovah's Witnesses than in money. Now I am sure there will be malcontents (as you call them) who will claim that he must have been brainwashed into being loyal to the organization. All speculation of course. But the more realistic approach is; maybe he just liked being one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and therefor why would he want to claim damages from a community that he likes being a part of, especially when he knew they were not responsible for what his stepdad did to him. He knew his step dad was going to be prosecuted, and that was enough justice for him. Obviously, he felt that his spirituality helped him in overcoming his trauma. But if one doesn't have that kind of faith, then money is the next best thing.
Don't forget, this was never condoned. Anything can happen if done in secret.

When a person is a alcoholic or drug addict, what is the common goal of rehab?
To help the person gain a relationship with God! With Hope that a higher responsibility toward God will help the person refrain from wrong doing.
2 Corinthians 10:5 For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are bringing every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the Christ; 
A person may imagine sexual scenarios, is this the Christian thing to do? NO. A person seeking to be pleasing before God must try to control thought and actions. Why? See Galatians 5:19-21. 
Jehovah's Witnesses teach what fornication is and how such imagination is the first step of sin. What is sexual sin in God's eyes. To arouse sexual desire in someone who is not your wife or husband. This can be done many different ways.The Watchtower magazine often teaches it's readers to abstain from thoughts or actions that will cause emotional and spiritual pain. The congregation will always try to help individuals to "have the mind of Christ"
The Bible teaches of one of David's sons who imagined his half sister would react differently. In his mind he had left any desire to please God, and was full throttle toward satisfying the sexual passion that  imagination had built within him. 
2 Samuel 13 Now David’s son Absalom had a beautiful sister named Taʹmar, and David’s son Amʹnon fell in love with her. 
Amnon played sick and arranged for her to come cook him a meal. 
9 Then she took the pan and served him. But Amʹnon refused to eat and said: “Have everybody leave me!” So everybody left him.10 Amʹnon now said to Taʹmar: “Bring the food into the bedroom, so that I may eat it from your hand.” So Taʹmar took the heart-shaped cakes that she had made and brought them to her brother Amʹnon in the bedroom.11 When she brought them for him to eat, he grabbed her and said: “Come, lie down with me, my sister.”12 But she said to him: “No, my brother! Do not humiliate me, for such a thing is not done in Israel. Do not do this disgraceful thing.13 How could I live down my shame? And you will be regarded as one of the disgraceful men in Israel. Now speak, please, to the king, for he will not withhold me from you.”14 But he refused to listen to her, and he overpowered her and humiliated her by raping her.
With What Result?
15 Then Amʹnon began hating her with a very intense hatred, so that his hatred for her became greater than the love he had felt for her. Amʹnon said to her: “Get up; go away!” 
After his sexual passion was satisfied his chemicals returned him to reality and He Now hated her for not matching his imagination. In moments his thinking was changed, however, I'm sure desire soon returned. 
Sexual transgressions are nothing new in the world, however the wickedness is reaching higher levels than ever before. 2 Timothy 3:13 states that in our time "But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled."
The cause: Every type of sexual desire can be fed on TV, Videos,The Web, magazines and any kind of product commercials.There is no conduct kept in the closet as unspeakable or shameful conduct. 
Though there may be individuals that have left any sense of responsibility to Jehovah behind, there is no reason to color the entire organization of people with the same brush.Jehovah's Witnesses are the only organization on Earth performing the expressed will of God as we read at Matthew 24:14 and Mark 13:10. They try to live their lives with a consciousness toward the Holy God they represent and teach others about. 
Most of Jehovah's Witnesses hate seeing the name of their God mentioned in a way that brings reproach and shame upon it. They hate that someone in their midst would act as a pedophile or betray the relationship between elder and those seeking spiritual help. When such a person is found in the congregation they are subjected to scrutiny by the elder body. It may be very difficult to tell whether a person is truly repentant. The world knows that if a person is found to be a non-repentant person, as someone who may cause harm to the congregation,or that they will continue to practice something that God hates, they are expelled from the congregation, this is what God Himself had instructed towards Moses sister who complained about Moses wife. Later in the 1st century, congregations were instructed to do this that the wrongdoer may repent and reapply themselves to reach out for God's approval. This is much like Jews previously practiced by removing people from the Sanhedrin, who actual had to move away from God's people in order to be able to work and live.  
Jehovah's Witnesses have great desire that the day will soon appear when Jehovah reads the inner person of every adult on Earth and each one will be marked as a sheep or a goat.The goats: everyone who has no personal relationship with the true God Jehovah, will no longer do any harmful acts or acts of any kind on Earth. While the sheep, those who have tried to act in a way that pleases God, both in their imagination and visible acts, will be allowed to continue living on Earth and growing towards the perfection Jesus enjoyed as a human being.These are ones who make a practice of bringing every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the Christ; this is the only solution to the excelling of wickedness being imagined and practiced on Earth. 
The Goal of Satan:As God's adversary, is to distort how you view any of Jehovah's Witnesses. He wants you see something unholy, transgressors of what is good. He propels this thought so that you will be less likely to listen to them while they do the will of God, just as Jesus did, preach the Good News of God's Kingdom. Just as Satan used many different means to stop Jesus from loyally acting as God's appointed Messiah, Satan will use many different ways to stop people from learning how God's Kingdom will set all matters straight. Satan does not want anyone to gain eternal life as Jehovah's friend since he will not be allowed life after his judgment is executed. That Good News of God's Kingdom includes the knowledge that God will give what is deserving to everyone bringing reproach on His Holy Name. You should also know that the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses hate what is bad and try to act as an exemplary neighbor!
 

As I just said - law is law....... no place for compassion. It carrys the sword.... and uses only the sword - nothing else.  You can only fight for defence within the boundaries the law allows you...... or go under. 
Rome was vicious, but do not be misled - our times are more vicious and about to become much more so. 

You should speak with some of the Watchtower attorneys. I don't think you will ever again claim that they would like to give the victim compensation.

That "third" person appears (to me) to be someone who helped write or translate a letter for the penitent, or who helped translate the person's voice or words from another language (including sign language).
It was interesting that the same site you quote also included:
It’s important to understand the difference between clergy privilege and the duty of confidentiality. Privilege simply means the information cannot be shared in court. The duty of confidentiality applies in all contexts and is an ethical matter every minister must navigate carefully. A minister’s duty of confidentiality is breached when they disclose confidences to anyone, anywhere. However, there may be times when it is appropriate to share confidential information, under extreme circumstances where people may be killed or severely injured. There are only nine cases in the history of this country where a minister was sued for breaching the duty of confidentiality. Of those, only three of the cases found the minister civilly liable for sharing confidences. In the other six cases, the courts concluded there was no duty under the circumstances for the minister to keep the confidentiality. So it can be concluded that ministers who decide to share confidential information should not in most cases be held personally liable from a legal standpoint, but they certainly won’t be held legally liable for not sharing. The exception to this rule is child abuse. In 41 states clergy are mandatory reporters of suspected or known child abuse.
It gives the impression that it's rare that a minister would ever get in trouble for revealing a confidentiality, but that they would never get in trouble for breaching the confidentiality of child abuse by letting the authorities know.
When these laws are invoked to say it was OK for Witness ministers to keep the child abuse secret, it's contrary to the spirit of these current laws about privilege and confidentiality in child abuse cases. They are intended to protect the child, and make sure that the minister does not get in trouble for revealing confidentiality. But we still seem to be asking for these rules to be invoked to protect the organization.

You should speak with some of the Watchtower attorneys. I don't think you will ever again claim that they would like to give the victim compensation.

That "third" person appears (to me) to be someone who helped write or translate a letter for the penitent, or who helped translate the person's voice or words from another language (including sign language).
It was interesting that the same site you quote also included:
It’s important to understand the difference between clergy privilege and the duty of confidentiality. Privilege simply means the information cannot be shared in court. The duty of confidentiality applies in all contexts and is an ethical matter every minister must navigate carefully. A minister’s duty of confidentiality is breached when they disclose confidences to anyone, anywhere. However, there may be times when it is appropriate to share confidential information, under extreme circumstances where people may be killed or severely injured. There are only nine cases in the history of this country where a minister was sued for breaching the duty of confidentiality. Of those, only three of the cases found the minister civilly liable for sharing confidences. In the other six cases, the courts concluded there was no duty under the circumstances for the minister to keep the confidentiality. So it can be concluded that ministers who decide to share confidential information should not in most cases be held personally liable from a legal standpoint, but they certainly won’t be held legally liable for not sharing. The exception to this rule is child abuse. In 41 states clergy are mandatory reporters of suspected or known child abuse.
It gives the impression that it's rare that a minister would ever get in trouble for revealing a confidentiality, but that they would never get in trouble for breaching the confidentiality of child abuse by letting the authorities know.
When these laws are invoked to say it was OK for Witness ministers to keep the child abuse secret, it's contrary to the spirit of these current laws about privilege and confidentiality in child abuse cases. They are intended to protect the child, and make sure that the minister does not get in trouble for revealing confidentiality. But we still seem to be asking for these rules to be invoked to protect the organization.

I agree that this seems to be the goal of the updated policy. I'm happy for that. This is hopefully just an artifact of obsolete procedures.

Yes, I saw that too. (I just wanted to highlight the bit about what seems to be the two "types" of confidentiality"). 
You know my feelings on this anyway,  that I don't see the purpose of applying clergy privilege to the elders in the first place. I have a feeling though that this will become less of an issue, and hopefully will be just a formality, like "let's see what the law says in our state, but then do what our conscience tell us is the right thing to do to protect our children". 
 

That "third" person appears (to me) to be someone who helped write or translate a letter for the penitent, or who helped translate the person's voice or words from another language (including sign language).
It was interesting that the same site you quote also included:
It’s important to understand the difference between clergy privilege and the duty of confidentiality. Privilege simply means the information cannot be shared in court. The duty of confidentiality applies in all contexts and is an ethical matter every minister must navigate carefully. A minister’s duty of confidentiality is breached when they disclose confidences to anyone, anywhere. However, there may be times when it is appropriate to share confidential information, under extreme circumstances where people may be killed or severely injured. There are only nine cases in the history of this country where a minister was sued for breaching the duty of confidentiality. Of those, only three of the cases found the minister civilly liable for sharing confidences. In the other six cases, the courts concluded there was no duty under the circumstances for the minister to keep the confidentiality. So it can be concluded that ministers who decide to share confidential information should not in most cases be held personally liable from a legal standpoint, but they certainly won’t be held legally liable for not sharing. The exception to this rule is child abuse. In 41 states clergy are mandatory reporters of suspected or known child abuse.
It gives the impression that it's rare that a minister would ever get in trouble for revealing a confidentiality, but that they would never get in trouble for breaching the confidentiality of child abuse by letting the authorities know.
When these laws are invoked to say it was OK for Witness ministers to keep the child abuse secret, it's contrary to the spirit of these current laws about privilege and confidentiality in child abuse cases. They are intended to protect the child, and make sure that the minister does not get in trouble for revealing confidentiality. But we still seem to be asking for these rules to be invoked to protect the organization.

.

Confidentiality: "There are two views held by state courts regarding confidentiality as it pertains to clergy privilege. In two-thirds of the states, a communication is considered confidential if made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present for the purpose of the communication. In one-third of the states, privileged communication means a communication made in confidence only to the minister, with no third person present".
Taken from: https://www.agfinancial.org/blog/bid103391church-liability-clergy-privilege-confidentiality-and-reporting/
 

I think that is the general idea, and that we have seen the last of any pedophiles or child molesters getting away with their disgusting crime. Also, I think anyone thinking about doing anything disgusting to children will think twice about it. (However, there is the problem of new people coming in, they may not be aware of this strict child policy. But I do know that brothers who are being considered for appointment as elders are asked if there is anything in the past that would disqualify them from taking up this position).  I do not expect to see any more new cases in the coming years. I think if any cases come to light now, it will be from the past.
A few months ago I researched the Montana case quite extensively (I read the 400 or so page court transcript) and posted some of my "observations" in the Private JW Club. This was another classic instance of  "a dirty old step dad/grandad molests step children and then years later a step grandchild". (If memory serves right, I think this happened about 10 years ago). The step daughter with the grandchild knew that her step dad had molested her sister, and despite that, she brought her child (the grandchild) to his house for baby sitting because of convenience sake. I don't think this sat too well with the Jury, since it was evident she had knowingly put her child in harms way. Most of the members of that family were not very strong in the truth, and one of the victim's claim was thrown out of court as unreliable (basically she made some stuff up).
I have not followed up on the results of the lawsuit, so thanks for posting that. Anyway, what I remember from reading the transcript is that it all seemed to hang on clergy privilege law in Montana. You might already know this, but each state in USA has their own state laws. Some states have no clergy confidentiality, and others do. Then there is the issue of "what exactly is meant by "confidential". Does this mean no one but the one whom the confidential issue was disclosed to knows? If I remember right, what had to be established by the court was: whose definition of confidentiality was going to be used. Was it going to be the "Catholic" version, where only the priest knows, or was it going to be the particular religions version, in other words what that particular religion viewed as confidential. In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, confidentiality is not the same as the Catholic version of confidentiality. As we know, when a JW judicial matter is said to be confidential, it means that more than just one elder gets to know the matter and in the case of CSA, advice is sought from the branch office as to reporting laws, i.e. what does the law for that particular state say about reporting? So here we already have perhaps more than 4 people who know about the matter. However, in this version of confidentiality, only those persons who are involved in handling the matter know. No one outside of that circle is privy to this information*. Also, another criteria for the Catholic version of confidentiality is that the penitent must approach the cleric, the confessional.  However, with the Witnesses, this is not always the case. The perpetrator is approached by the elders, as it was in this case. So, although I haven't read the report yet, it appears that the state of Montana recognizes a religion's interpretation of confidentiality, therefor they deemed the JW version as confidential information. So it wasn't because the elders were lying about confidentiality in order to deceive the court. The transcript clearly showed that the elders said how they proceeded, so the court was well aware the that more than one person knew, and that the elders on the judicial committee also called the branch for consultation. There was no deceit on the part of the elders.
* It just occurred to me that if no one outside the confidential circle was to know, then parents of other children were not to find out either. However, this is not the case now. When it is established that there may be concern over the behavior of someone in the congregation, then the parents of any children in that congregation are notified. So really, now there is no confidentiality for the sake of protecting the children. So, I wonder how we can even claim clergy penitence now, because of that. It seems this would be a moot issue with any new cases. It makes me see how in contrast, the other version of clergy penitence is a danger to children, because the priest must not tell anyone else. This is why I think it's stupid for any state or country to have this outdated religious law written in their secular law. Some states are trying to abolish this, but religious tradition is so closely intertwined with politics that it may never happen. Especially not in predominantly Catholic countries....

@Srecko Sostar, I think that was Brother Lett doing his own version of Saturday Night Live's Church Lady:
"Could it be SAAAAAAAAATAAN?!?!?!?!?"

 

Your observation was, and I quote:
If you can't see how you just insulted everyone here, then I don't think there would ever be enough evidence in the world to convince you. And, by the way, I have never banned anyone, nor have I asked for anyone to be banned. If you already know this, then you are being dishonest. If you don't already know this, then I don't think there would ever be enough evidence in the world to convince you of this either.

I used the word dishonest only because this has been repeated to you so many times, by me and others, too. So it seems that you just don't want to know the truth, when it would be so easy just to ask the admins. I can't imagine that someone who is always insulting others for their poor research skills would not look into a matter himself before making false claims.