JW Insider

I should add that the meaning of 'persons who say "I am he" ' is probably best spelled out in Matthew's version:
(Matthew 24:23-28) . . .“Then if anyone says to YOU, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will give great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones. 25 Look! I have forewarned YOU. 26 Therefore, if people say to YOU, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; ‘Look! He is in the inner chambers,’ do not believe it. 27 For just as the lightning comes out of eastern parts and shines over to western parts, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 28 Wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together.
It is ironic that Russell put out a book called "The Time is at Hand" AND simultaneously taught that the solution to the "great mystery" doctrine was that those who were of the higher calling, including Russell himself, could rightly speak of themselves as "the Christ." The Christ was not just Jesus, but the full 144,001. Therefore, it was even possible for those who considered themselves of the 144,000, the Bride, the Higher Calling, to refer to themselves as:
"the Christ" "the Saviour" "the prophet greater than Moses" "eternal Father" "the Mediator" FWF was said to have often hinted in the 1940's and 1950's that this doctrine was still in effect. It was one of the reasons that "great crowd" were not invited to the Memorial for several years. But in the 1960's the Watchtower clarified that the expression "The Christ" could not refer to the rest of the 144,000. Even after that point however, books written by FWFranz, including "Then is Finished the Mystery of God" used the expression 144,001, which had evidently been a reference to the older version of this doctrine.
*** w63 9/1 p. 539 Names for Christ and His Congregation ***
“THE CHRIST”
We come now to a consideration of those terms or titles that apply or are used to refer to Jesus Christ apart from his body members. . . .
But what about the expressions “the Christ” and “Christ”? Does the use of the article with “Christ” designate something different from when no article is used? Might it be that, whereas the term “Christ” refers to Jesus Christ alone, the term “the Christ” could also include the 144,000 members of his body? Do the Scriptures support this thought or distinction?
No, they do not. . . .
In fact, the expression “the Christ” of itself at no time includes the members of Christ’s body. So the title “Christ,” with or without the definite article, refers to Jesus Christ, the article serving to draw attention to or to emphasize his office as the Messiah.
And of course there was no little disruption when FWFranz yelled at all of us one morning at Bethel breakfast because a few (somewhere?) had been balking at a recent article that said Jesus was not the Mediator of the great crowd. The much earlier view that had not been repeated in many years was that the 144,001 WERE the Mediator.
 

I believe you.
I worked for the man and know that he wasn't one to respond quickly to questions unless he was sure of the answer already given in the publications. He was a Gilead teacher and my father's KM school instructor, and was known to always look for the official answer. (If there was not an official answer, he saw this as an opportunity to come up with a solution. The research assignments I got from him were for areas where he was trying to develop a topic he could write a "new" article about. But he always wanted to be sure it was really "new" and that he could review anything previously "on the books" for any topic. His 1957 generation was a good case in point. He also wanted to develop a medical-based article tying together the Bible's use of "the heart." )
FWIW, I would have answered like this:
The verse says not to go after persons who say "I am he" AND who say "the due time is near."  On the first point, we could say that we do not say "I am he" in the CONTEXT of Jesus' answer in Luke. "I am he" is most likely referring to "false messiahs." The problem with this is that the idea of "false messiah" in context sets a kind of trap that you point out, in that anyone who tries to predict the closeness of the destructive judgment is making himself a kind of prophet or Messiah, saying that they are speaking for Christ. On the second point: "the due time is near," this would be much easier. Revelation has John stating that the due time is near. (Revelation 1:1-3) . . .A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. . . . 3 Happy is the one who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy and who observe the things written in it, for the appointed time is near. (Revelation 22:20) . . .“The one who bears witness of these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming quickly.’” “Amen! Come, Lord Jesus.”
If we can extricate ourselves from the "I am he" then Revelation 1 & 22 give us the basis on which to say "the due time has approached."

I've heard whole congregations give an enthusiastic Amen when the prayer includes thanks for the bounteous feast of spiritual food provided by the faithful and discreet slave. I've heard entire assemblies and conventions of people respond with joyful applause when a speaker mentions the opportunity to express appreciation for the Governing Body.
It's a social club with a basis in faith in God and in the merits of Jesus' sacrifice and the Kingdom hope for a new heavens and a new earth. Christianity is social.
Yes, an unfortunate percentage are in terrible personal situations because of circumstances imposed on them from the rules and processes. It's a relatively smaller percentage but I do think you are right that this reflects an unloving spirit and shows that many of us are capable of showing "no natural affection." Of course, there are some situations where even close relatives wouldn't talk to each other under similar circumstances when it has nothing to do with the WTS. Humans cut off other humans based on their conduct. If any of my parents or children turned out to be child molesters, for example, I think I'd pretty much disown them.
Yes. This is another area we need to clean up. People are leaving over it. I talked to one myself, although it's a combination for him: both the child abuse cases and overlapping groups within the last generation before the end. Still, my guess is that most JWs don't even think about it in any negative way.
Teaching that Christ never really existed and trying to work that into their teachings among the Christian congregation.
(1 John 2:22, 23) . . .Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either. But whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
(1 John 4:2, 3) . . .This is how you know that the inspired statement is from God: Every inspired statement that acknowledges Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God. 3 But every inspired statement that does not acknowledge Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the antichrist’s inspired statement that you have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world.
(2 John 7-11) 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Look out for yourselves, so that you do not lose the things we have worked to produce, but that you may obtain a full reward. 9 Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. 11 For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.
 

Feel free. I can't really stay on today anyway. I might keep the computer open and access from a remote desktop on my phone, but I won't really be putting enough effort into answering. If you do feel like taking on AlanF's argumentation, have him sign a waiver that he'll read your whole answer before responding to it. Ithinks sometimes he just assumes what you must have said even if you didn't say it. Hold his feet (if you dare) to the fire, if you will. (Especially if your own itchy feet are contagious.)

I've heard whole congregations give an enthusiastic Amen when the prayer includes thanks for the bounteous feast of spiritual food provided by the faithful and discreet slave. I've heard entire assemblies and conventions of people respond with joyful applause when a speaker mentions the opportunity to express appreciation for the Governing Body.
It's a social club with a basis in faith in God and in the merits of Jesus' sacrifice and the Kingdom hope for a new heavens and a new earth. Christianity is social.
Yes, an unfortunate percentage are in terrible personal situations because of circumstances imposed on them from the rules and processes. It's a relatively smaller percentage but I do think you are right that this reflects an unloving spirit and shows that many of us are capable of showing "no natural affection." Of course, there are some situations where even close relatives wouldn't talk to each other under similar circumstances when it has nothing to do with the WTS. Humans cut off other humans based on their conduct. If any of my parents or children turned out to be child molesters, for example, I think I'd pretty much disown them.
Yes. This is another area we need to clean up. People are leaving over it. I talked to one myself, although it's a combination for him: both the child abuse cases and overlapping groups within the last generation before the end. Still, my guess is that most JWs don't even think about it in any negative way.
Teaching that Christ never really existed and trying to work that into their teachings among the Christian congregation.
(1 John 2:22, 23) . . .Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either. But whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
(1 John 4:2, 3) . . .This is how you know that the inspired statement is from God: Every inspired statement that acknowledges Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God. 3 But every inspired statement that does not acknowledge Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the antichrist’s inspired statement that you have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world.
(2 John 7-11) 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Look out for yourselves, so that you do not lose the things we have worked to produce, but that you may obtain a full reward. 9 Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. 11 For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.
 

I've heard whole congregations give an enthusiastic Amen when the prayer includes thanks for the bounteous feast of spiritual food provided by the faithful and discreet slave. I've heard entire assemblies and conventions of people respond with joyful applause when a speaker mentions the opportunity to express appreciation for the Governing Body.
It's a social club with a basis in faith in God and in the merits of Jesus' sacrifice and the Kingdom hope for a new heavens and a new earth. Christianity is social.
Yes, an unfortunate percentage are in terrible personal situations because of circumstances imposed on them from the rules and processes. It's a relatively smaller percentage but I do think you are right that this reflects an unloving spirit and shows that many of us are capable of showing "no natural affection." Of course, there are some situations where even close relatives wouldn't talk to each other under similar circumstances when it has nothing to do with the WTS. Humans cut off other humans based on their conduct. If any of my parents or children turned out to be child molesters, for example, I think I'd pretty much disown them.
Yes. This is another area we need to clean up. People are leaving over it. I talked to one myself, although it's a combination for him: both the child abuse cases and overlapping groups within the last generation before the end. Still, my guess is that most JWs don't even think about it in any negative way.
Teaching that Christ never really existed and trying to work that into their teachings among the Christian congregation.
(1 John 2:22, 23) . . .Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either. But whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
(1 John 4:2, 3) . . .This is how you know that the inspired statement is from God: Every inspired statement that acknowledges Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God. 3 But every inspired statement that does not acknowledge Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the antichrist’s inspired statement that you have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world.
(2 John 7-11) 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Look out for yourselves, so that you do not lose the things we have worked to produce, but that you may obtain a full reward. 9 Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. 11 For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.
 

Totally agree. I come from Africa and know all about this.  I also preach to Muslims (arabic) and they sell their daughters to old men, the highest bidder.... or when they need cash.  My bible study was sold at age nine because her father needed the money for her older brother.  She had 4 children by age 17. .... and later 4 more.
I do not take you seriously because you are NOT a wise person. You cite tons of  scriptures but cannot apply them in a practical way.  It seems to be only knowledge and very little practical love.  A lot of judgment ..... too with no good suggestions..... just poison.
I do preach eternal life NOT hate like you do.  I am always aware that I am a sinner even though I do not commit gross sins.   I understand from scripture that I must be preaching (it is a duty for a true Christian) and I need to help a person to have a 'group of people'  - a body of people, with practical infrastucture for meetings and preaching ,  where they can incite each other to fine works and receive encouragement. 
I cannot take interested ones to a church because they teach a dogma of immortality of the soul - they teach that jesus did not really die.  I read in the bible that in last days there will be a "slave" providing spiritual food. Matt 24:45.  I also read in Isaiah 2:2-4 that there will be one nation in the world comprised of all nations that do not do war....... so OK - JWs fit these bible descriptions.
So now,  I expect to have spiritual association - BUT to still be the master of my own faith.  Do I expect some of thesepeople to deviate and become apostates - yes the bible warns against this.  Do i expect a measure of protection - maybe a little .... but how much - this the real question? 
If I expect perfect protection from everything that can go wrong...... then I must also expect the group leaders to mix in my private life to find out everything about me (past and present) and make everything known about me...... so others can be protected from my bad inclinations.  This sounds like the scientologists..... 
So obviously, there needs to be balance regarding the protection given...... and what about the parent's responsibility?  Must elders take this over too?  
So.... where there is freedom with personal responsibility - there will always be those who expect perfection and personal accountability from other individuals for their own mishaps..... or their own parent's oversight.
A call for perfect protection because an organization is religious is claptrap and based on a naive conception of the world.  When a person has been convicted in court or enough evidence collected for shunning then this is a different matter.  But as I said before - even professionals struggle to get the evidence..... So now they accuse the GB of being too unprofessional in their protection policies.  I guess these people should have joined the scientologists who have a better surveillance system. 
I do believe the GB should have reviewed their policies sooner - in line with the new government laws as they improved in each country - but they cannot protect every person from every danger.  It is the parent's duty to give that protection so the child is never in a compromising situation. 
The one law which governments have not yet changed is the law relating to confessional protection.  Lawyers and clergy have this.   The catholic church has refused to use confessions from people against them as well - as in JWs.    
What is WRONG in the catholic practice is this: the Catholics have moved clergy AFTER legal convictions were obtained or evidence was given and payouts made ....it is  pattern or practice in the organization.   Child molestation is everywhere where there are children..... and escalating by law right now as a legal blind eye is held when children are married against their will at age nine.
 
 

I think you are wrong here. I think that there are fewer apostasy disfellowshippings than you think, so the net effect can't be determined. Also, among JWs, there is a great appreciation for the good that comes out of association with others of like faith in the brotherhood. I'm sure you think this is irrelevant, but it would override any effect a few more or a few less disfellowshippings. 
In fact, I think the effect could be opposite. Membership roles might even increase as persons who had been pushed away would feel more comfortable associating again where they can now feel more supported, even if it weaknesses in their faith that caused their doctrinal deviations. It does not mean that less DFings would necessarily be right, because there are many who are only interested in disruption, chaos, contentions, and causing trouble and discomfort. These ones are not conducive to the comfort and encouragement of the brotherhood, and they should go.
It might produce a more flexible theology as it sounds like there would be less enforcement of deviations. But it would take a while for most JWs to be comfortable with the idea of any kind of deviations, anyway. For the most part we already have a high appreciation of what has been given to us through the organization. This is even true of those of us who recognize the GB as elders handling some specific necessary ministries, and do not think of them as the "governors of our faith" or the exact equivalent of the FDS.
When it comes to deviations of current doctrine, even "overlapping generations" would probably take some time to go, because no one has offered a consistent acceptable replacement yet. Witnesses are generally very comfortable with their leadership. We actually appreciate the humility it takes to remind us that they are imperfect and will make mistakes and that not all the food will be perfect. It would be considered even more discreet to stop DFing for certain kinds of apostasy.
Of course, the Bible already gives us a guide that shows there are also very serious kinds of apostasy, and therefore we would always expect nearly complete and unanimous approval about some disfellowshipping for apostasy.

I think you know that past WT articles have used a sense of apostasy that is not the equivalent of "rebellion against God." I could point to a post here where I discussed an "apostasy spectrum." But you are already aware that the WTS has stated that the "apostate" need not have specifically tried to turn away from God, but they are expressing a desire to leave the organization. (This is enough, and it is even reflected in the new way of announcing those who leave.)
@Arauna even made a point I've heard before that any organization has a right to expel persons for conduct or representation that the organization deems to be detrimental to its interests. A "Golf Course" can expel persons for its own reasons.

There are many lies told about me here. These are horrible people. They want to discredit me because they KNOW that I have information that will put their Mommy Watchtower right out of business.
I really thought that you would not be deceived. You are a very smart man who can see through a smokescreen.
At reddit.com I find love and support. I was hoping I could find the same here. Maybe it will still happen. Liars will not win forever.

I challenge you on that one! I think you are the one suffering from Dunning-Kruger effect.... Knowing what the effect is,  does not make one immune to it.

Vic Vomidog said:
I'm bored with stringing you along, TrueTomHarley, so this is the end.

I did not say that. I said God obviously didn't appoint Greenlees.
No it does not, it does not depend on that. No man can apply the scriptures perfectly. If they could, then there would be no need for Jesus to die. Also, man judges only by what he can see. So if someone appears to qualify according to the requirements in Timothy, then they are appointed.
It does, because you asked :
To which I replied, no God was not fooled but man was. Connect the dots please.
There are a few people that I met in my life who I suspect may be that way inclined. But I have no proof.
Holy spirit can be ignored, because we all have free will.
 I think this part should be put under a different topic heading. Perhaps JWI can do that? And then I will reply to it there.
You mean people like Bowen?
I doubt that.
My point was that if we really know the details, discoverable by reading detailed transcripts and unravel the complexity, then we can see that often there was no cover up, it merely appeared that way on the surface. I am sure you know about two sides to a story. With CSA there are multiple complex sides, its not easy to get the facts unless you hear all the sides. For example you find out that a disfellowshiped man molested an 8 year old girl, and that the elders knew about him molesting another girl years prior to this one. Those are the bare bones. Then you find out that the mother (of the child) took the child to the perpetrators house (who happened to be the mothers step dad) for baby sitting, knowing that he had previously molested her (the mother's) sister when they were young.  "The first to state his case seems right,Until the other party comes and cross-examines him". Prov 18:17
 
Ummm....., that tells me merely your opinion.
It is a process that is outlined in the Bible for the appointment of elder men. How else do you want me to understand it?
 
 

On this forum, we have seen this critique a few times. It was clearly claimed by @JOHN BUTLER, who sadly was "DF'd" from the forum. It is similar to what has been said by @4Jah2me more recently, and @Witness, too.
The idea is that if Jesus had in mind an ongoing feeding program from an appointed "faithful and discreet slave" where these teachers of the kingdom would teach things both old and new, then they should be inspired in the sense of having something like a "double portion of Jehovah's spirit." This does not mean "inspired" in the same sense as "apostolic succession" but aliases associated with @AllenSmith-38 have argued for something very close to "apostolic succession" or at least "apostolic precedence."
I think that TTH's blog was actually dealing with a real question about an idea that the GB should really be inspired, even infallible, and that they should produce "perfect" food, which of course, they don't claim to do.

I think you are wrong here. I think that there are fewer apostasy disfellowshippings than you think, so the net effect can't be determined. Also, among JWs, there is a great appreciation for the good that comes out of association with others of like faith in the brotherhood. I'm sure you think this is irrelevant, but it would override any effect a few more or a few less disfellowshippings. 
In fact, I think the effect could be opposite. Membership roles might even increase as persons who had been pushed away would feel more comfortable associating again where they can now feel more supported, even if it weaknesses in their faith that caused their doctrinal deviations. It does not mean that less DFings would necessarily be right, because there are many who are only interested in disruption, chaos, contentions, and causing trouble and discomfort. These ones are not conducive to the comfort and encouragement of the brotherhood, and they should go.
It might produce a more flexible theology as it sounds like there would be less enforcement of deviations. But it would take a while for most JWs to be comfortable with the idea of any kind of deviations, anyway. For the most part we already have a high appreciation of what has been given to us through the organization. This is even true of those of us who recognize the GB as elders handling some specific necessary ministries, and do not think of them as the "governors of our faith" or the exact equivalent of the FDS.
When it comes to deviations of current doctrine, even "overlapping generations" would probably take some time to go, because no one has offered a consistent acceptable replacement yet. Witnesses are generally very comfortable with their leadership. We actually appreciate the humility it takes to remind us that they are imperfect and will make mistakes and that not all the food will be perfect. It would be considered even more discreet to stop DFing for certain kinds of apostasy.
Of course, the Bible already gives us a guide that shows there are also very serious kinds of apostasy, and therefore we would always expect nearly complete and unanimous approval about some disfellowshipping for apostasy.

I think you know that past WT articles have used a sense of apostasy that is not the equivalent of "rebellion against God." I could point to a post here where I discussed an "apostasy spectrum." But you are already aware that the WTS has stated that the "apostate" need not have specifically tried to turn away from God, but they are expressing a desire to leave the organization. (This is enough, and it is even reflected in the new way of announcing those who leave.)
@Arauna even made a point I've heard before that any organization has a right to expel persons for conduct or representation that the organization deems to be detrimental to its interests. A "Golf Course" can expel persons for its own reasons.

On this forum, we have seen this critique a few times. It was clearly claimed by @JOHN BUTLER, who sadly was "DF'd" from the forum. It is similar to what has been said by @4Jah2me more recently, and @Witness, too.
The idea is that if Jesus had in mind an ongoing feeding program from an appointed "faithful and discreet slave" where these teachers of the kingdom would teach things both old and new, then they should be inspired in the sense of having something like a "double portion of Jehovah's spirit." This does not mean "inspired" in the same sense as "apostolic succession" but aliases associated with @AllenSmith-38 have argued for something very close to "apostolic succession" or at least "apostolic precedence."
I think that TTH's blog was actually dealing with a real question about an idea that the GB should really be inspired, even infallible, and that they should produce "perfect" food, which of course, they don't claim to do.

I think you are wrong here. I think that there are fewer apostasy disfellowshippings than you think, so the net effect can't be determined. Also, among JWs, there is a great appreciation for the good that comes out of association with others of like faith in the brotherhood. I'm sure you think this is irrelevant, but it would override any effect a few more or a few less disfellowshippings. 
In fact, I think the effect could be opposite. Membership roles might even increase as persons who had been pushed away would feel more comfortable associating again where they can now feel more supported, even if it weaknesses in their faith that caused their doctrinal deviations. It does not mean that less DFings would necessarily be right, because there are many who are only interested in disruption, chaos, contentions, and causing trouble and discomfort. These ones are not conducive to the comfort and encouragement of the brotherhood, and they should go.
It might produce a more flexible theology as it sounds like there would be less enforcement of deviations. But it would take a while for most JWs to be comfortable with the idea of any kind of deviations, anyway. For the most part we already have a high appreciation of what has been given to us through the organization. This is even true of those of us who recognize the GB as elders handling some specific necessary ministries, and do not think of them as the "governors of our faith" or the exact equivalent of the FDS.
When it comes to deviations of current doctrine, even "overlapping generations" would probably take some time to go, because no one has offered a consistent acceptable replacement yet. Witnesses are generally very comfortable with their leadership. We actually appreciate the humility it takes to remind us that they are imperfect and will make mistakes and that not all the food will be perfect. It would be considered even more discreet to stop DFing for certain kinds of apostasy.
Of course, the Bible already gives us a guide that shows there are also very serious kinds of apostasy, and therefore we would always expect nearly complete and unanimous approval about some disfellowshipping for apostasy.

I think you know that past WT articles have used a sense of apostasy that is not the equivalent of "rebellion against God." I could point to a post here where I discussed an "apostasy spectrum." But you are already aware that the WTS has stated that the "apostate" need not have specifically tried to turn away from God, but they are expressing a desire to leave the organization. (This is enough, and it is even reflected in the new way of announcing those who leave.)
@Arauna even made a point I've heard before that any organization has a right to expel persons for conduct or representation that the organization deems to be detrimental to its interests. A "Golf Course" can expel persons for its own reasons.

I like that you included some of the articles from the Awake! and mentioned that persons associated with the WTS sometimes could and should have been more aware and more careful. This is often very true, and parents should be very alert to potential child abuse. On the front lines, as it were. Also they know the personality of the child, assuming they are involved with them, and communicating with them. If something is wrong a parent who is in close daily communication with their children will often sense when something is off. Of course, during the ages when children are often abused, they are often going through personality changes that are difficult for parents to navigate with them.
Also, I noticed you made a big point out of the specific term "grooming" as if the Awake! had used this term before it was ever used in "the law." You said:
And you highlighted the timeline where you indicated that the Awake! had been discussing this in 2004 and 2007, implying that the law didn't catch up to the Awake! until 2009.
There are a few points to consider:
1. The Watchtower publications are not using the term in a legal sense, they are only copying the way in which the word had recently been used in worldly news reports, publications and newspapers. 
2. There is nothing special about the term, since it's merely the equivalent of various descriptions of the way a predator might prepare a victim and make them feel more and more comfortable in a situation where they will be further victimized. A single term that involved a range of activities is a time-saver, and can help communicate the need for a law, or help to effectively communicate the guilt of a person who is involved in activities that might otherwise not be prosecuted on their own. It's only when they can be seen as part of a pattern that the predator uses to escalate opportunities to find and create victims that they are seen as prosecutable.
3. The argument that knowledge of the term should make parents and guardians more aware, can backfire back onto the elders or other leaders of congregation activities, when they, as leaders and teachers, should even be more aware of everything printed in the publications, even those publications like the Awake!, that are not studied in a congregational setting. You are potentially arguing that elders are potentially more guilty for creating and permitting situations when grooming can take place.
Going to point number one, we find a description of the grooming process in discussions of child sexual abuse going back to the 1970's and probably before. The actual term "grooming" shows up in the 1980's, about 20 years before the Awake! used it.
The Oxford English Dictionary includes this definition of grooming:
Of a paedophile: to befriend or influence (a child), now esp. via the Internet, in preparation for future sexual abuse.
   1985 Chicago Tribune 28 May v. 8/2 These ‘friendly molesters’ become acquainted with their targeted victim‥, gaining their trust while secretly grooming the child as a sexual partner.    1996 A. Mullender Rethinking Domest. Violence vii. 200 Children have been ‘groomed’ by their abusers to associate abuse with apparently harmless topics that can continue to be mentioned in letters and cards.    2005 Big Issue 3 Jan. 18/2 While ‘stranger danger’ does exist—like internet chat-rooms where abusers groom children—sexual abuse often involves people intimate to the family or even within the family.
Legally, you can also see that the "idea" of prosecuting for "preparation and influence" goes back to discussions of predators in the AOL chat rooms of 1999. The following site points to a legal precedent from 2011 in footnote 3. But that footnote looks at sets of precedents from before:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/child_law/resources/child_law_practiceonline/child_law_practice/vol-34/november-2015/understanding-sexual-grooming-in-child-abuse-cases/
Footnote 3 points to https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/218946/united-states-v-chambers/
That 2011 precedent was based primarily on a 2006 ruling (over a much earlier precedent, see the end of the post), which already did everything except use the actual term "grooming":
18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), which makes it a crime to use interstate commerce to attempt or to knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce any individual under the age of eighteen to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any individual can be charged with a criminal offense.
The idea that activities in these preparatory steps might seem not to be serious enough on their own for prosecution was taken care of with:
United States v. Rovetuso, 768 F.2d 809, 821 (7th Cir.1985)
And further research tying it all back to what was now called "grooming" went back to 1998:
Grooming refers to deliberate actions taken by a defendant to expose a child to sexual material; the ultimate goal of grooming is the formation of an emotional connection with the child and a reduction of the child's inhibitions in order to prepare the child for sexual activity. Doe v. Liberatore, 478 F. Supp. 2d 742, 749-50 (M.D.Pa.2007); Sana Loue, "Legal and Epidemiological Aspects of Child Maltreatment," 19 J. Legal Med. 471, 479 (1998).
-------------
United States v. Robert Owen Bailey, 228 F.3d 637 (6th Cir. 2000)
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Filed: October 3rd, 2000
Note that this very similar case from 2000 refers to 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), which has amendments but actually goes back to 1910. In the 1940s the version already had statements that could easily be applied to the Internet:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2422
Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. (b)
Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.   ---------- A 2002 book discusses "Grooming" in excruciating details in its many stages:             Protecting Your Children From Sexual Predators By Leigh Baker
 

I think you are wrong here. I think that there are fewer apostasy disfellowshippings than you think, so the net effect can't be determined. Also, among JWs, there is a great appreciation for the good that comes out of association with others of like faith in the brotherhood. I'm sure you think this is irrelevant, but it would override any effect a few more or a few less disfellowshippings. 
In fact, I think the effect could be opposite. Membership roles might even increase as persons who had been pushed away would feel more comfortable associating again where they can now feel more supported, even if it weaknesses in their faith that caused their doctrinal deviations. It does not mean that less DFings would necessarily be right, because there are many who are only interested in disruption, chaos, contentions, and causing trouble and discomfort. These ones are not conducive to the comfort and encouragement of the brotherhood, and they should go.
It might produce a more flexible theology as it sounds like there would be less enforcement of deviations. But it would take a while for most JWs to be comfortable with the idea of any kind of deviations, anyway. For the most part we already have a high appreciation of what has been given to us through the organization. This is even true of those of us who recognize the GB as elders handling some specific necessary ministries, and do not think of them as the "governors of our faith" or the exact equivalent of the FDS.
When it comes to deviations of current doctrine, even "overlapping generations" would probably take some time to go, because no one has offered a consistent acceptable replacement yet. Witnesses are generally very comfortable with their leadership. We actually appreciate the humility it takes to remind us that they are imperfect and will make mistakes and that not all the food will be perfect. It would be considered even more discreet to stop DFing for certain kinds of apostasy.
Of course, the Bible already gives us a guide that shows there are also very serious kinds of apostasy, and therefore we would always expect nearly complete and unanimous approval about some disfellowshipping for apostasy.

I like that you included some of the articles from the Awake! and mentioned that persons associated with the WTS sometimes could and should have been more aware and more careful. This is often very true, and parents should be very alert to potential child abuse. On the front lines, as it were. Also they know the personality of the child, assuming they are involved with them, and communicating with them. If something is wrong a parent who is in close daily communication with their children will often sense when something is off. Of course, during the ages when children are often abused, they are often going through personality changes that are difficult for parents to navigate with them.
Also, I noticed you made a big point out of the specific term "grooming" as if the Awake! had used this term before it was ever used in "the law." You said:
And you highlighted the timeline where you indicated that the Awake! had been discussing this in 2004 and 2007, implying that the law didn't catch up to the Awake! until 2009.
There are a few points to consider:
1. The Watchtower publications are not using the term in a legal sense, they are only copying the way in which the word had recently been used in worldly news reports, publications and newspapers. 
2. There is nothing special about the term, since it's merely the equivalent of various descriptions of the way a predator might prepare a victim and make them feel more and more comfortable in a situation where they will be further victimized. A single term that involved a range of activities is a time-saver, and can help communicate the need for a law, or help to effectively communicate the guilt of a person who is involved in activities that might otherwise not be prosecuted on their own. It's only when they can be seen as part of a pattern that the predator uses to escalate opportunities to find and create victims that they are seen as prosecutable.
3. The argument that knowledge of the term should make parents and guardians more aware, can backfire back onto the elders or other leaders of congregation activities, when they, as leaders and teachers, should even be more aware of everything printed in the publications, even those publications like the Awake!, that are not studied in a congregational setting. You are potentially arguing that elders are potentially more guilty for creating and permitting situations when grooming can take place.
Going to point number one, we find a description of the grooming process in discussions of child sexual abuse going back to the 1970's and probably before. The actual term "grooming" shows up in the 1980's, about 20 years before the Awake! used it.
The Oxford English Dictionary includes this definition of grooming:
Of a paedophile: to befriend or influence (a child), now esp. via the Internet, in preparation for future sexual abuse.
   1985 Chicago Tribune 28 May v. 8/2 These ‘friendly molesters’ become acquainted with their targeted victim‥, gaining their trust while secretly grooming the child as a sexual partner.    1996 A. Mullender Rethinking Domest. Violence vii. 200 Children have been ‘groomed’ by their abusers to associate abuse with apparently harmless topics that can continue to be mentioned in letters and cards.    2005 Big Issue 3 Jan. 18/2 While ‘stranger danger’ does exist—like internet chat-rooms where abusers groom children—sexual abuse often involves people intimate to the family or even within the family.
Legally, you can also see that the "idea" of prosecuting for "preparation and influence" goes back to discussions of predators in the AOL chat rooms of 1999. The following site points to a legal precedent from 2011 in footnote 3. But that footnote looks at sets of precedents from before:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/child_law/resources/child_law_practiceonline/child_law_practice/vol-34/november-2015/understanding-sexual-grooming-in-child-abuse-cases/
Footnote 3 points to https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/218946/united-states-v-chambers/
That 2011 precedent was based primarily on a 2006 ruling (over a much earlier precedent, see the end of the post), which already did everything except use the actual term "grooming":
18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), which makes it a crime to use interstate commerce to attempt or to knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce any individual under the age of eighteen to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any individual can be charged with a criminal offense.
The idea that activities in these preparatory steps might seem not to be serious enough on their own for prosecution was taken care of with:
United States v. Rovetuso, 768 F.2d 809, 821 (7th Cir.1985)
And further research tying it all back to what was now called "grooming" went back to 1998:
Grooming refers to deliberate actions taken by a defendant to expose a child to sexual material; the ultimate goal of grooming is the formation of an emotional connection with the child and a reduction of the child's inhibitions in order to prepare the child for sexual activity. Doe v. Liberatore, 478 F. Supp. 2d 742, 749-50 (M.D.Pa.2007); Sana Loue, "Legal and Epidemiological Aspects of Child Maltreatment," 19 J. Legal Med. 471, 479 (1998).
-------------
United States v. Robert Owen Bailey, 228 F.3d 637 (6th Cir. 2000)
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Filed: October 3rd, 2000
Note that this very similar case from 2000 refers to 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), which has amendments but actually goes back to 1910. In the 1940s the version already had statements that could easily be applied to the Internet:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2422
Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. (b)
Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.   ---------- A 2002 book discusses "Grooming" in excruciating details in its many stages:             Protecting Your Children From Sexual Predators By Leigh Baker
 

On this forum, we have seen this critique a few times. It was clearly claimed by @JOHN BUTLER, who sadly was "DF'd" from the forum. It is similar to what has been said by @4Jah2me more recently, and @Witness, too.
The idea is that if Jesus had in mind an ongoing feeding program from an appointed "faithful and discreet slave" where these teachers of the kingdom would teach things both old and new, then they should be inspired in the sense of having something like a "double portion of Jehovah's spirit." This does not mean "inspired" in the same sense as "apostolic succession" but aliases associated with @AllenSmith-38 have argued for something very close to "apostolic succession" or at least "apostolic precedence."
I think that TTH's blog was actually dealing with a real question about an idea that the GB should really be inspired, even infallible, and that they should produce "perfect" food, which of course, they don't claim to do.

This is too juvenile. If you appoint someone who turns out to be a clunker, you say, “Guess that wasn’t so inspired after all,” and let that be the end of it. I wrote it up here:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/08/the-loaded-words-infallible-inspired-and-perfect.html
There are people here who are like children that learn that there is no Santa Claus, and so they resolve to never ever celebrate Christmas again. Adults, however, do not cease celebrating for this reason—they fall back to the “greater meaning” of Christmas, and so forth. They realize that Christmas is much bigger than Santa Claus—he is something only for children.
Indeed, if the only problem with Christmas was that there is no Santa Claus, then we would be celebrating the day, some of us. Some would. Some wouldn’t.
In this case, the “no Santa Claus” is learning that the GB is made up of men who can make mistakes. Most never doubted that in the first place. But those who did and who truly love God and the core beliefs that identify Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jehovah’s Witnesses alone manage to make the adjustment without undo fuss, if only by reiterating the words of Peter: “To whom else shall we go?” Who else thinks the thoughts and does the deeds of Jehovah’s Witnesses?

I would have liked to merge this with my reply above, but had to go away and do something. Anyway, as I've already shown, I did not side step your question but I answered directly that I do not think God would appoint a man such as Greenlees:
 
Like I said:
The process by which holy spirit "appoints" is through that scripture. Since JWS believe the Bible is inspired of God by means of holy spirit, then if one works along with the scriptures, one is working along with the holy spirit. Obviously in the case under discussion, holy spirit could not have appointed this man because unbeknown to those making the decision, he did not qualify. Which also answers your other question:
Obviously it was not God but men who were fooled.
Obviously. However I very much doubt that someone would have purposefully employed a pedophile.
I am sure she has, and hopefully she has given that list to the Police.
Sure
I don't know much about him, only from what you and JWI said.
That's hardly and inspiration for reform.  I have seen them. Full of loaded language and sensationalism. However, the ARC was a different kettle of fish.
 
I am sure there have been coverups. But I am sure you know cases are very complex. I have read two court transcripts (two different cases) each several thousand pages long. So I know what I am talking about.
That's good. Children need protecting.
No, I did not say it was a lie. It's you, you are not comprehending the process. Those days of tongues of fire are long gone, with all the other outward manifestations of miracles etc.