JW Insider

One atheist was trying to illuminate me on the wonders of science. He pointed to quantum theory, that a tiny particle might disappear here and simultaneously reappear there. “On a large scale, it would be as though I appeared right in your living room out of nowhere,” he told me.
I replied that JW scientists knew all about this and had been working on the problem for some time, with obvious applications in the field ministry. 

Yes, I believe there have been a few. I don't want to give the impression that I think this happens often, or as much as so many ex-JWs and previously abused Witnesses seem to imagine. I have just recently read a couple of statements by activist ex-elders who have sat on judicial committees for several years in their congregations and never personally encountered a case or accusation of child sexual abuse. (I'm responding as if you said "on a repeated basis" rather than "on a regular basis" since the term "regular" is open to interpretation.)
I answer your question to the best of my ability however because I believe this is one of those terrible things that, if true, MUST be exposed so that more of us are alert to the potential extent of the problem. Things done in darkness must be brought to light, no matter the pain and embarrassment to the organization. After all, it's not the organization's fault that these men exist; they bring reproach upon themselves. It's this old belief that they are bringing reproach upon the organization that has led to *a few* amazing cover-ups by "organization men" who thought they were doing the right thing.
However, before responding, I just recently read through a private discussion from a person who says he is now ready to go to the police, now that he has completed collecting a lot of evidence and speaking with corroborating witnesses. (Not to his own abuse, but to other persons abused by the same elder.) He knows his case is strong, but he believes the status of the accused will make it difficult to get very far based on the way that other victims of the same accused have been treated. He already brought his case to the elders a few years ago, before the most recent reporting arrangements were consistent. So he wants to have done all the due-diligence before presenting his accusation to authorities.
Also, in general, I think the evidence is strong that the higher up a person is in the organization, the more he has been protected from scandal, because that scandal was thought to reflect so badly when it is someone known by all the Witnesses of a specific country or, at least once in the past, even internationally. That said, I only know about three cases, in three different countries, that would fit this criterion. Two of the accused brothers are now dead. I have been told about a few others that I am too skeptical to believe, although I might be ready to add a fourth name to my list. (A circuit overseer who was finally disfellowshipped for homosexual behaviour with JW and non-JW "young men" and who, according to his wife, continued with non-JW "young men" after he was DF'd.) The length of time it has taken for several elders' cases to finally be settled, after other accusers come forward, over a several-year period, is also circumstantial evidence that most elders never really knew how to handle such cases in years past. This lack of consistency can easily allow for "abuse-of-power" cases to be swept under the rug. But it doesn't prove that these types of cases were rampant.
Of course, there is a wide range of activity that has been lumped into the term child sexual abuse and some of this activity on the more violent end of the spectrum would be expected to produce immediate discipline. What were considered lesser crimes were more easily dismissed or rationalized away. But, of course, as this thread has pointed out, (in the past especially) many of the vulnerable persons in the congregation were never warned if the elders were assured that true repentance had taken place after a disciplinary period, no matter how bad the crime was.
I am very happy for the more explicit correction in the recent Watchtower that can help change the "culture" about where the reproach really lies.

I think I just got bored that there had been less scriptural discussion of late (not counting some notable exceptions here and there, however).
Nothing to get worked up over, but we do have an obligation to handle the word of God aright. And I don't think it is wrong to use the verse as a statement of something positive, because it is something very positive. In fact, to me, there is something very meaningful going on in this verse, and I hate to think we miss it by using the verse out of context.
In context, it is actually amazing that God's people are being asked to stop defending their land, stop defending the Davidic Kingdom and the Temple, but to just willingly leave with Babylonian captors, pray for Babylon to let you live a peaceful life as captives, get ready to stay a long time there, get married, plant fruit trees, have kids, and then await a time when you (or at least your children) can come back to the re-promised land and start fresh. Jehovah had something truly amazing in mind for those who were willing to listen to something that really made no rational sense to most of the people listening.
This probably didn't make much sense that an enemy who would be starving people to death in a siege on Jerusalem was going to be someone they should compromise with. It might even look like treason to their fellow Judean brethren. And yet, we have actual physical evidence among tens of thousands of neo-Babylonian documents that the Jews very quickly formed peaceful communities in Babylon. Jeremiah was right, even though it seemed to be against all the odds. Neither the upper or the lower classes generally believed him; other prophets were claiming something else. Jeremiah was imprisoned for such talk. All the while some Jews were fleeing to Egypt or in other directions for protection, or with the thought that they could regroup and fight Babylon. Jeremiah said they shouldn't do that either. The royal family was sure that it should defy Babylon and make its stand against it. The land was being decimated of all its people. At the time, who'd have thought that Jeremiah was giving good inspired advice?
If there is a "type-antitype" lesson here, it's probably not that we should compromise with some antitypical Babylon.  It's more likely that the point is that God's people today might have to be willing to give up our comfortable reliance on the physical, visible "Temple" and our authoritative "governors." God's people will have to understand that each one of us will stand spiritually on our own. We are temporary residents (alien residents) in a world that we should not get too attached to. We are not judged for what our earthly or spiritual "fathers" have done, but the law will be written on our own hearts. We won't be reliant on what our neighbors or brothers tell us about how to know Jehovah, for each of us will know Jehovah on our own. I think all those points are found in the next couple of chapters, especially Jeremiah 31:28-34:
(Jeremiah 31:28-34) 28 “And just as I watched over them to uproot, to pull down, to tear down, to destroy, and to do harm, so I will watch over them to build up and to plant,” declares Jehovah. 29 “In those days they will no longer say, ‘The fathers ate sour grapes, but the teeth of the sons were set on edge.’ 30 But then each one will die for his own error. Any man eating sour grapes will have his own teeth set on edge.” 31 “Look! The days are coming,” declares Jehovah, “when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, ‘my covenant that they broke, although I was their true master,’ declares Jehovah.” 33 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares Jehovah. “I will put my law within them, and in their heart I will write it. And I will become their God, and they will become my people.” 34 “And they will no longer teach each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know Jehovah!’ for they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them,” declares Jehovah. “For I will forgive their error, and I will no longer remember their sin.”

I think I just got bored that there had been less scriptural discussion of late (not counting some notable exceptions here and there, however).
Nothing to get worked up over, but we do have an obligation to handle the word of God aright. And I don't think it is wrong to use the verse as a statement of something positive, because it is something very positive. In fact, to me, there is something very meaningful going on in this verse, and I hate to think we miss it by using the verse out of context.
In context, it is actually amazing that God's people are being asked to stop defending their land, stop defending the Davidic Kingdom and the Temple, but to just willingly leave with Babylonian captors, pray for Babylon to let you live a peaceful life as captives, get ready to stay a long time there, get married, plant fruit trees, have kids, and then await a time when you (or at least your children) can come back to the re-promised land and start fresh. Jehovah had something truly amazing in mind for those who were willing to listen to something that really made no rational sense to most of the people listening.
This probably didn't make much sense that an enemy who would be starving people to death in a siege on Jerusalem was going to be someone they should compromise with. It might even look like treason to their fellow Judean brethren. And yet, we have actual physical evidence among tens of thousands of neo-Babylonian documents that the Jews very quickly formed peaceful communities in Babylon. Jeremiah was right, even though it seemed to be against all the odds. Neither the upper or the lower classes generally believed him; other prophets were claiming something else. Jeremiah was imprisoned for such talk. All the while some Jews were fleeing to Egypt or in other directions for protection, or with the thought that they could regroup and fight Babylon. Jeremiah said they shouldn't do that either. The royal family was sure that it should defy Babylon and make its stand against it. The land was being decimated of all its people. At the time, who'd have thought that Jeremiah was giving good inspired advice?
If there is a "type-antitype" lesson here, it's probably not that we should compromise with some antitypical Babylon.  It's more likely that the point is that God's people today might have to be willing to give up our comfortable reliance on the physical, visible "Temple" and our authoritative "governors." God's people will have to understand that each one of us will stand spiritually on our own. We are temporary residents (alien residents) in a world that we should not get too attached to. We are not judged for what our earthly or spiritual "fathers" have done, but the law will be written on our own hearts. We won't be reliant on what our neighbors or brothers tell us about how to know Jehovah, for each of us will know Jehovah on our own. I think all those points are found in the next couple of chapters, especially Jeremiah 31:28-34:
(Jeremiah 31:28-34) 28 “And just as I watched over them to uproot, to pull down, to tear down, to destroy, and to do harm, so I will watch over them to build up and to plant,” declares Jehovah. 29 “In those days they will no longer say, ‘The fathers ate sour grapes, but the teeth of the sons were set on edge.’ 30 But then each one will die for his own error. Any man eating sour grapes will have his own teeth set on edge.” 31 “Look! The days are coming,” declares Jehovah, “when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, ‘my covenant that they broke, although I was their true master,’ declares Jehovah.” 33 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares Jehovah. “I will put my law within them, and in their heart I will write it. And I will become their God, and they will become my people.” 34 “And they will no longer teach each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know Jehovah!’ for they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them,” declares Jehovah. “For I will forgive their error, and I will no longer remember their sin.”

You did not mention Pearlsandswine’s verse (Revelation 21:8) and I take it to mean that is the one you use.
With regard to Jeremiah 29:11, I guess this is true what you point out, and normally I would be on your side on this, but here i just can’t get too worked up over it. It is used essentially as an ice-breaker here. Call it not the primary application but a secondary one. The NT writers do it all the time (I think—I’ll have to ponder that one further) Don’t call it an anti-type, or you will get JTR going. But you can say ‘this reminds me of that.’ What is someone going to say—that it doesn’t? You get almost all of the upside and none of the downside of an ‘anti-type.’
While you were in sackcloth, you may not have noticed that someone pointed to a Religion News article (it may have been Outta Here) that Jer 29:11 was the new feel-good verse of our age, replacing John 3:14, which is now seen as too overbearing and insufficiently secular. He pointed to its use in Good News from God and speculated that we were the cause of it—that people had skimmed out that verse from the brochure and thrown away most of the rest.
As for Matthew 5:3, I am not one of those who say the NWT is great and all the other translations suck, but in this case I think it has hit a home run.
The really literal ones say “beggars of the spirit.” I sometimes tell the finicky ones that if you beg for something, it means that you know you need it, so “conscious of a spiritual need” is not such a bad rendering after all. In fact, it is almost the only readable one, because “poor in spirit” is incomprehensible  to most people.
See if you can shoot these down:
“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.  Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’  And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness.” Matthew 7:21-23 (The reason I like this verse is because some people are surprised to think it would be in the Bible. Jesus has been presented to them as someone who smiles over just about anything—it is almost impossible to get him riled—but if this verse is so, even some of those who say they are his followers he wants no part of.)
“Therefore, YOU men of heart, listen to me.Far be it from the [true] God to act wickedly,And the Almighty to act unjustly!” Job 34:10 (The reason I like this verse is because some people think that he does act wickedly. And some, seeing all the atrocities that go down today, come to think that there is not a true God, for otherwise he would have fixed those bad things.)
Once I have read the selected verse and commented as to why I read it, I tell the person that is all I wanted to do. The next move is up to them and they don’t have to make one. If their interest has been piqued—they have observations, comments, questions, I can stick around for a few moments, but if not, off I go. A very good way to respond if they say that they are in no rush is to start for them a video, giving them the ‘permission’ to hand it right back the moment they think it is dull.
One other advantage of this method—and it is a major one—is that you do not have to prepare. Just offer to read a verse on whatever, and tell why you read it. With any interest, go for a video. I well remember the days of intense preparation—mostly in order to interest the householder in something that his/her mind was a million miles away from (the first or second householder often played the lab rat while I was working the bugs out), and I find this is so much more stress-free. (In the book, I said that Tom Pearlsandswine was especially attracted by this advantage, because he has never prepared for anything in his life.)
It works almost too well. Recently at the offer to read a verse, a college student invited me into his apartment. (It was a pig-sty, as is common for that age-group, as was once common with me, and might still be were it not for the ever-vigilant Sister Harley, who joins a dozen other full-time servants to toil half a day to remove a quarter pound of dirt from the Assembly Hall to remind me that my more relaxed standards of tidiness don’t stand a snowball’s chance in you-know-where of ever prevailing.) I went through the verse, (and he didn’t even call me out about wanting to make peace with Babylon) the Good News video, the table of contents from that brochure, which he scanned and asked if there was one about the afterlife. I pointed him to the one and he read it right there and then. Seeing he was doing so, I told him he could ask about whatever or just read it while I shut up, which was perhaps the best thing. 
I also told him that since he was in college, that meant he was smart, but most people are not so smart or in college and—well, that the brochure was written at a very simple grade level and he must not get stumbled at that. Think of it as an outline, I said, just sufficient to ‘glue’ the scriptures together, any one of which could be expanded upon at length. “We could make it the size of a phone book if we wanted, [an illustration that is rapidly becoming obsolete—in fact, it probably is already] ] but most people like things simple,” I told him.
When something with the ipad was uncooperative due to my ignorance, I simply handed it to him and told him to make it behave (which he did without difficulty).  I routinely do this, confident that they know the tech aspect of my tools better than me.
This is so easy that I find myself making sure I do not take unfair advantage. With the self-possession that comes with age, one can easily manipulate someone smart but inexperienced, and it is very important not to do that, or give the appearance of doing that. (advertising routinely does this, it is built upon this, and I often think that if there was any sincerity of the anti-cultists at all—if they truly wanted to do anything other than shoot down meaningful religion—that they would call for a ban on it) I offer to set up some return visits right then and there,  but I also give him the option that I know he will probably take—and this fellow did—of getting in touch with me after he thinks about it. He has the contact card, and info on how to get in touch with me if he wants,, he knows of the website and the online study sessions, which do not ask for any registration and I will never know if he does it or not. The ball is in his court always. Should I call back, (actually I did not really frame it that I would on this call and I sort of wish that I had) it will only be to let him call the shots—show him what we have to offer, but always leaving him in the driver’s seat.
I usually mention the language feature of the jw.org website—that at present, it includes just shy of 1000 languages, and that is not to boast but simply to prove one’s seriousness about the assignment. People speak many of them, not just one, so if you are serious about reaching people with a message, of course you will have such a tool. There is no excuse not to. I like to mention that if you combine Apple and Google and Wikipedia, it still comes not remotely close to the number of languages of jw.org, which is by far the largest in the world.
I almost reproved him for being a little too trusting of strangers. Without his asking, I told him my motivation for doing what we do, by showing him Matthew 24:14, with the brief explanation that the present reality of 200 sovereign nations always squabbling and shoving at one another was not God’s idea and that he would one day replace it via his kingdom and if one believes such a thing, one comes to realize that he ought not just sit on the information but also tell it to others.
This is a pretty lengthy diatribe. Sorry. I get carried away. I am not one of those who think that all awareness of spiritual need has pretty well dried up. Instead, I think it is huge and pent up. One other college student said as I was leaving after about 10 minutes—15 at most—and I have never had anyone say this to me: “Oh, and thanks for the guidance.”
 
 

I can out-nit-pick you any day of the week. Not if it is about something in which you actually have to know something, such as the subjects that you used to bring up during your reign of terror, but on something like this.....
Those silhouetted presentations that we see? Rarely do I like any of them.Sometimes I ask myself what in the world are they thinking? That is not to say that they are wrong. But I so seldom see them work in the field that I just can’t get too enthusiastic.
If I am the companion at the door, I do not act even close to what is portrayed at the demos. I stand back a few steps, stare alternately off into space, and seemingly am hardly paying attention. I do this because otherwise it is two against one—ganging up on the householder, many of them will think. There are many circumstances that will vary this, gender and age-difference, for example, but I do not crowd the householder if I am the 2nd person (or even the first).
If one was going to charge JWs with being a cult, (not that anyone here ever would) the strange choreography of some of these presentations strike me as exactly what they might offer as Exhibit A. They come across to me as somewhat weird. “Mr. Companion, would you read such-and-such for me?” “Yes, of course, Mr. Taking-the-Lead” “Thank you for that, Mr. Companion.” If someone asks me to read without clearing it with me beforehand, I decline. If someone does try to clear it with me beforehand, I decline at that time (unless there is some overriding reason for it) I am just there to get the person out of a jam or to put in my two cents if it truly seems necessary.
Even in training a new one, I would not be comfortable doing it as I see demonstrated. When I trained Alex for the first time in the ministry, I took several doors while he just watched. Walking up the next driveway, we saw there was a young man in the garage working on his motorcycle. Since Alex also rode, I floated that maybe he would like to take this door. I wasn’t even serious about it—it was just a light suggestion. But Alex began speaking to him!
He covered a few verses that he remembered and overall did very well, but then he began to taper off and hesitate—it was his first door, after all. The kid said, “Don’t stop now! This is really interesting!” What was with THAT?! Nobody had given ME the time of day up to that point!
Even with young children, I have not done it as on the videos but have said “If you want to take a door, I will introduce you. This is mostly for me, not they, since if a waist-high child does all the talking from the start, I fear the householder will look at me as though to say “Cat got your tongue, dummy?”
Willy, also in Tom Irregardless and Me, soon said that he didn’t want to be introduced. (My own kids had said it too) So I said that he could introduce me, or take all the doors himself. That is how it had gone all morning, save for a few awkward situations that I handled. As long as he remained comfortable, it had remained his turn. Sometimes a householder would say something to me, and I would reply (within reason) “Sorry—it’s his turn.”
 
 

I have avoided my old habit of fault-finding for quite a while, but this one just brought up the need for some good, old-fashioned nit-picking again. One thing I like to avoid is the use of a scripture that appears so removed from context that we look like proof text cherry-pickers. I know the average householder is not going to notice at all, but it still seems like a stretch to use Jeremiah 29 as an "all encompassing verse." Here's why:
In context, Jeremiah is saying that his fellow Jewish countrymen just have to give in to Babylon (in effect, they must now compromise with Babylon and pray for Babylon and whatever city they end up in) and let themselves be taken willingly to Babylon as captives.  He says that if you allow Babylon to take you, you can try to do the best you can while you are living there and, because the entire Babylonian Empire is only supposed to last for 70 years max, and at least 13 or 14 of those years are already used up. (The 14 years detail is not part of our doctrine, but is clear from the Hebrew of Jeremiah 10:25; 28:17, 29:10, etc.) So, Jeremiah says that you are going to be a long time in Babylon, so if you just give in, by building houses, planting fruit trees, and getting married and having children in Babylon, you might even personally have a chance to come back to this nation, when Babylon's time is up. 
So, in context, Jeremiah is saying that this is a situation where people are lying to you, but if you follow Jehovah's thinking, there is a good solution by compromising with Babylon. But Jehovah's thinking also includes the thought that if you decide to listen to prophets like Hananiah, or decide to defend Israel/Judah, or defend the Temple, or defend the Davidic kingdom, or even listen to certain misguided prophets already in Babylon. For these Jehovah's thinking is as follows:
(Jeremiah 29:1“For this is what Jehovah says to the king sitting on the throne of David and to all the people dwelling in this city, your brothers who have not gone with you into exile, 17 ‘This is what Jehovah of armies says: “Here I am sending against them the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, and I will make them like rotten figs that are so bad they cannot be eaten.”’
18 “‘And I will pursue them with the sword, with famine, and with pestilence, and I will make them an object of horror to all the kingdoms of the earth, and a curse, and an object of astonishment, something to whistle at, and a reproach among all the nations to which I disperse them, 19 because they have not listened to my words that I sent to them with my servants the prophets,’ declares Jehovah, ‘sending them again and again.’
“‘But you have not listened,’ declares Jehovah.
20 “Therefore, hear the word of Jehovah, all you exiled people, whom I have sent away from Jerusalem to Babylon. 21 This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says. . . , ‘Here I am giving them into the hand of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon, and he will strike them down before your eyes. 22 And what happens to them will become a curse spoken by all the exiles of Judah in Babylon: “May Jehovah make you like Zed·e·kiʹah and like Aʹhab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire!” . . .
“‘“I am the One who knows, and I am a witness,” declares Jehovah.’”
. . . 28 For he [Jeremiah] even sent to us at Babylon, saying: “It will be a long time! Build houses and live in them. Plant gardens and eat their fruit,—”’”’”
In other words this is not an all encompassing verse about how Jehovah is not ready to rake us over, or that he is thinking good thoughts toward us. It's about a specific set of circumstances when he is about to rake a lot of people over, and is thinking to make a curse out of those who won't listen to Jehovah. In this case, Jehovah wanted his people to stop defending Judea and Jerusalem and their Davidic kingdom. He would only protect them if they "compromised" with the enemy and prayed for that enemy, at least until its 70 years was up.
I wouldn't be as nit-picky about your use of Matthew 5:3 because I'm sure we all have the right idea on this one. But there is something to note here:
Very few people know this verse as one that says anything about being conscious of something, especially not conscious of a spiritual need. In Greek, the verse just says, happy are those who are poor in spirit (the same words that would mean  depressed or broken hearted or those with a "broken spirit." Most translations correctly say something like "poor in spirit" which aligns with parallel expressions in context about those who are meek, merciful, or mournful. Our NWT translation is more likely an interpretation rather than a translation here. If it were in an obscure place like Jeremiah it might be different, but a lot of people know the "beatitudes" from the Sermon on the Mount, and this could give them the impression we have changed the Bible to fit our beliefs.
There are plenty of good replacement scriptures, however, which I'm sure you already know.

We have got a great way to minimise our Not-At-Homes. We've been doing it for years:

Not Homes.mp4

I have avoided my old habit of fault-finding for quite a while, but this one just brought up the need for some good, old-fashioned nit-picking again. One thing I like to avoid is the use of a scripture that appears so removed from context that we look like proof text cherry-pickers. I know the average householder is not going to notice at all, but it still seems like a stretch to use Jeremiah 29 as an "all encompassing verse." Here's why:
In context, Jeremiah is saying that his fellow Jewish countrymen just have to give in to Babylon (in effect, they must now compromise with Babylon and pray for Babylon and whatever city they end up in) and let themselves be taken willingly to Babylon as captives.  He says that if you allow Babylon to take you, you can try to do the best you can while you are living there and, because the entire Babylonian Empire is only supposed to last for 70 years max, and at least 13 or 14 of those years are already used up. (The 14 years detail is not part of our doctrine, but is clear from the Hebrew of Jeremiah 10:25; 28:17, 29:10, etc.) So, Jeremiah says that you are going to be a long time in Babylon, so if you just give in, by building houses, planting fruit trees, and getting married and having children in Babylon, you might even personally have a chance to come back to this nation, when Babylon's time is up. 
So, in context, Jeremiah is saying that this is a situation where people are lying to you, but if you follow Jehovah's thinking, there is a good solution by compromising with Babylon. But Jehovah's thinking also includes the thought that if you decide to listen to prophets like Hananiah, or decide to defend Israel/Judah, or defend the Temple, or defend the Davidic kingdom, or even listen to certain misguided prophets already in Babylon. For these Jehovah's thinking is as follows:
(Jeremiah 29:1“For this is what Jehovah says to the king sitting on the throne of David and to all the people dwelling in this city, your brothers who have not gone with you into exile, 17 ‘This is what Jehovah of armies says: “Here I am sending against them the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, and I will make them like rotten figs that are so bad they cannot be eaten.”’
18 “‘And I will pursue them with the sword, with famine, and with pestilence, and I will make them an object of horror to all the kingdoms of the earth, and a curse, and an object of astonishment, something to whistle at, and a reproach among all the nations to which I disperse them, 19 because they have not listened to my words that I sent to them with my servants the prophets,’ declares Jehovah, ‘sending them again and again.’
“‘But you have not listened,’ declares Jehovah.
20 “Therefore, hear the word of Jehovah, all you exiled people, whom I have sent away from Jerusalem to Babylon. 21 This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says. . . , ‘Here I am giving them into the hand of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon, and he will strike them down before your eyes. 22 And what happens to them will become a curse spoken by all the exiles of Judah in Babylon: “May Jehovah make you like Zed·e·kiʹah and like Aʹhab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire!” . . .
“‘“I am the One who knows, and I am a witness,” declares Jehovah.’”
. . . 28 For he [Jeremiah] even sent to us at Babylon, saying: “It will be a long time! Build houses and live in them. Plant gardens and eat their fruit,—”’”’”
In other words this is not an all encompassing verse about how Jehovah is not ready to rake us over, or that he is thinking good thoughts toward us. It's about a specific set of circumstances when he is about to rake a lot of people over, and is thinking to make a curse out of those who won't listen to Jehovah. In this case, Jehovah wanted his people to stop defending Judea and Jerusalem and their Davidic kingdom. He would only protect them if they "compromised" with the enemy and prayed for that enemy, at least until its 70 years was up.
I wouldn't be as nit-picky about your use of Matthew 5:3 because I'm sure we all have the right idea on this one. But there is something to note here:
Very few people know this verse as one that says anything about being conscious of something, especially not conscious of a spiritual need. In Greek, the verse just says, happy are those who are poor in spirit (the same words that would mean  depressed or broken hearted or those with a "broken spirit." Most translations correctly say something like "poor in spirit" which aligns with parallel expressions in context about those who are meek, merciful, or mournful. Our NWT translation is more likely an interpretation rather than a translation here. If it were in an obscure place like Jeremiah it might be different, but a lot of people know the "beatitudes" from the Sermon on the Mount, and this could give them the impression we have changed the Bible to fit our beliefs.
There are plenty of good replacement scriptures, however, which I'm sure you already know.

I have avoided my old habit of fault-finding for quite a while, but this one just brought up the need for some good, old-fashioned nit-picking again. One thing I like to avoid is the use of a scripture that appears so removed from context that we look like proof text cherry-pickers. I know the average householder is not going to notice at all, but it still seems like a stretch to use Jeremiah 29 as an "all encompassing verse." Here's why:
In context, Jeremiah is saying that his fellow Jewish countrymen just have to give in to Babylon (in effect, they must now compromise with Babylon and pray for Babylon and whatever city they end up in) and let themselves be taken willingly to Babylon as captives.  He says that if you allow Babylon to take you, you can try to do the best you can while you are living there and, because the entire Babylonian Empire is only supposed to last for 70 years max, and at least 13 or 14 of those years are already used up. (The 14 years detail is not part of our doctrine, but is clear from the Hebrew of Jeremiah 10:25; 28:17, 29:10, etc.) So, Jeremiah says that you are going to be a long time in Babylon, so if you just give in, by building houses, planting fruit trees, and getting married and having children in Babylon, you might even personally have a chance to come back to this nation, when Babylon's time is up. 
So, in context, Jeremiah is saying that this is a situation where people are lying to you, but if you follow Jehovah's thinking, there is a good solution by compromising with Babylon. But Jehovah's thinking also includes the thought that if you decide to listen to prophets like Hananiah, or decide to defend Israel/Judah, or defend the Temple, or defend the Davidic kingdom, or even listen to certain misguided prophets already in Babylon. For these Jehovah's thinking is as follows:
(Jeremiah 29:1“For this is what Jehovah says to the king sitting on the throne of David and to all the people dwelling in this city, your brothers who have not gone with you into exile, 17 ‘This is what Jehovah of armies says: “Here I am sending against them the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, and I will make them like rotten figs that are so bad they cannot be eaten.”’
18 “‘And I will pursue them with the sword, with famine, and with pestilence, and I will make them an object of horror to all the kingdoms of the earth, and a curse, and an object of astonishment, something to whistle at, and a reproach among all the nations to which I disperse them, 19 because they have not listened to my words that I sent to them with my servants the prophets,’ declares Jehovah, ‘sending them again and again.’
“‘But you have not listened,’ declares Jehovah.
20 “Therefore, hear the word of Jehovah, all you exiled people, whom I have sent away from Jerusalem to Babylon. 21 This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says. . . , ‘Here I am giving them into the hand of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon, and he will strike them down before your eyes. 22 And what happens to them will become a curse spoken by all the exiles of Judah in Babylon: “May Jehovah make you like Zed·e·kiʹah and like Aʹhab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire!” . . .
“‘“I am the One who knows, and I am a witness,” declares Jehovah.’”
. . . 28 For he [Jeremiah] even sent to us at Babylon, saying: “It will be a long time! Build houses and live in them. Plant gardens and eat their fruit,—”’”’”
In other words this is not an all encompassing verse about how Jehovah is not ready to rake us over, or that he is thinking good thoughts toward us. It's about a specific set of circumstances when he is about to rake a lot of people over, and is thinking to make a curse out of those who won't listen to Jehovah. In this case, Jehovah wanted his people to stop defending Judea and Jerusalem and their Davidic kingdom. He would only protect them if they "compromised" with the enemy and prayed for that enemy, at least until its 70 years was up.
I wouldn't be as nit-picky about your use of Matthew 5:3 because I'm sure we all have the right idea on this one. But there is something to note here:
Very few people know this verse as one that says anything about being conscious of something, especially not conscious of a spiritual need. In Greek, the verse just says, happy are those who are poor in spirit (the same words that would mean  depressed or broken hearted or those with a "broken spirit." Most translations correctly say something like "poor in spirit" which aligns with parallel expressions in context about those who are meek, merciful, or mournful. Our NWT translation is more likely an interpretation rather than a translation here. If it were in an obscure place like Jeremiah it might be different, but a lot of people know the "beatitudes" from the Sermon on the Mount, and this could give them the impression we have changed the Bible to fit our beliefs.
There are plenty of good replacement scriptures, however, which I'm sure you already know.

All one need to do blow this silly thing out of the water is to read the relevant portion of the JW downloadable child abuse policy.
11. If it is determined that one guilty of child sexual abuse is repentant and will remain in the congregation, restrictions are imposed on the individual’s congregation activities. The individual will be specifically admonished by the elders not to be alone in the company of children, not to cultivate friendships with children, or display any affection for children. In addition, elders will inform parents of minors within the congregation of the need to monitor their children’s interaction with the individ- ual. {Bolded mine]
https://download-a.akamaihd.net/files/media_publication/4a/cpt_E.pdf
In the special case of child sexual abuse, these are the steps that go above and beyond handling other forms of wrongdoing.
Why doesn’t Alexandra James refer to this? Why doesn’t John know it? No one has been more prolific at leveling charges as he, and he swallows every word of her accusations. Why does Srecko give it a Gold Star Thank You? All he and John have to do is to read the JW published policy to see that she is wrong.
One would think the organization’s published child abuse policy would be the very first thing consulted. Instead, they never read it at all, or else they do and immediately seek to bury it.
Will Mr. Rook give himself a downvote for overlooking this most obvious proof that the complaint he slobbers all over is bogus?
It is clear that Ms James spends too much time pouring over confidential material that she has pilfered and insufficient time reading what is right under her nose.
 

From her sickbed, Rachael de Vienne stirred herself to tell me, through her daughter, that I was wrong. It was just on a tiny supporting fact of a book I was working on and I had only put the fact in so as to give her book a plug. I wasn’t even wrong on the fact—I was wrong on the inference I took from it, she said. I wasn’t even wrong on that, in my opinion. But that’s just it—it was my opinion. ‘Keep your opinions separate from the facts,’ she would have said. ‘There is nothing wrong with drawing inferences, conclusions, and educated guesses. Just label them as such.’ THAT is the kind of historian she was. Sigh—I changed the passage just to suit her, and it probably didn’t. 
She wouldn’t review my first book, either, or any of the other ones, though I just asked her to do the first, Tom Irregardless and Me. I mean, I had written a nice review for her book. Finally, with some nagging, she said that she might review mine and asked how I intended to submit it. ‘It’s not done that way,’ she retorted, when I told her. Tweeting with a co-blogger about it, as though on a private phone connection and not a social media platform broadcast to the whole wide world, the co-blogger told her that he wasn’t going to review it, either—‘the first chapter is about Prince, and then in places it is a little “preachy”—not pure fact at all.’ It was too much. I tweeted: “YOU GET ON THAT KEYBOARD AND REVIEW IT RIGHT NOW!” but then had second thoughts and deleted the tweet. See what sort of historians she hung out with?
During her final few months, she interspersed regular tweets with some detailing her illness, at times getting quite graphic, caring not about revealing the personal humiliation you must experience as your own body is betraying you. Imagine—chronicling your own suffering that way—true to her calling to the last. See what sort of an historian she was?
The book that she co-authored with the unwieldy title—as though to make clear that it is scholarly and not a specimen of pop writing—A Separate Identity—Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion’s Watchtower: 1870-1887’: I admit, I skimmed it. Not through lack of interest—you will never find a more thorough history of non-mainstream events—but through lack of time. I wanted to write a decent and coherent review. I agreed with her (explicitly labeled) speculation that the the reason the Watchtower Society received her completed book without comment after being semi-cooperative in providing source material is that “they are incurious as to their own history.” Yeah. I agree. They are. So am I—I mean, I (and they) am not uninterested—it is just that I am interested in other things more. The ‘Society’ is not rooted in anything, I don’t think. They are progressive. They move on. 
Separate Identity is the not the only book that she wrote, and I look forward to curling up to it and others when (more likely if) I ever find the time, because it is excellent, universally praised, except occasionally by some hothead Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves because it does not adhere to the party line—it goes where it goes without regard to who has later been christened hero or villain. 
She co-authored a book about Nelson Barbour, too, and this should interest me even more because I once lived about a hundred yards from where he did (also a hundred years). I had written a blog post about Barbour, a well-known “get-outer” preacher of the late 1800s that Charles Taze Russell for a time partnered with, and I observed that there must have been some relationship between he and a well-known Rochester Presbyterian preacher of the same surname, whose wife Elizabeth is listed as ‘excommunicated and expunged’ or words to that effect. Rachael told me that I was wrong on that, too—the two families were entirely separate. 
I am not even sure that she liked me, really, but we followed each other on Twitter, and she would occasionally respond to my tweets and even more occasionally initiate some to me. My non-religious semi-serious historical work she let pass with minimal comment. Maybe she was more like my 7th grade social studies teacher, who made everyone literally start every essay paragraph with the phrase in parentheses: “who, what, where, why, how,” so that we would learn to write with substance, and who would say things like ‘Don’t write “In my opinion.” Of course it’s your opinion—you wrote it!’ This doesn’t entirely square with Rachael’s urging, which just goes to show why you mull over all input, but each one must ultimately develop his or her own style.
I always liked it that she found such great comfort from her family, to offset her many years of illness—lifelong, it seems. I miss her. Here is her obit, and the blog lives on in other hands, I believe. You will never find a more rigorous example of niche history, digging up letters, notes, minutia and photos 100 years old.
https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2019/03/our-princess.html
Let’s end with a review of Separate Identity that says it all. It is reproduced at truthhistory.
“Histories of the early Watch Tower movement tend to fall into two extremes, hagiography and polemic. This is because they are usually written from a range of widely differing theological perspectives, not that of a strict historian. Additionally, they tend to concentrate on the figure of Charles Taze Russell to the virtual exclusion of his contemporaries. This volume redresses that balance, written by two historians with an almost fanatical attention to detail as demonstrated by the voluminous footnotes. They appear to strive hard to keep any personal views out of the picture and go where the evidence takes them. The result is a detailed, even-handed history of Russell and his contemporaries - crucially in the context of their times. Many writers on this subject seem to try and graft 21st century attitudes onto 19th century people, not recognising that the beliefs of Russell and others in the second half of the nineteenth century were often far more mainstream than a modern reader might imagine. Even if one has no direct interest in Russell and what came later from his ministry, several groups today count people like Henry Grew, George Storrs, and John Thomas in their antecedents. These men all feature in this book and, certainly in the case of Storrs, you are unlikely to find as much detailed information on his life and work anywhere else. The writers have previously published a volume on Nelson Barbour: The Millennium’s Forgotten Prophet. That too is well worth reading, although the present volume (that takes history up to 1879) is a stand-alone book.”

Very sad to hear of your loss Mr Schulz. I have read the entire available content of truthhistory with fascination and a degree of awe at its detail. I am delighted I was able to contribute even a tiny speck regarding my friend Ruth Fenwick (née. Ling). I really appreciate your expert dispatching of the various early day myths  so delighted in by critics of the movement. I wish you had the time to cast the same discerning eye over some of the fanciful tales told in these later times. Your (and Rachael's) disciplined and rational approach has been an education to me.
I am eagerly awaiting the publication of your next volume of Separate Identity, and wish you every success in your endeavours, despite the loss of your co-worker.

(Micah 4:13) 13 Get up and thresh, O daughter of Zion; For I will change your horns into iron, And I will change your hooves into copper, And you will pulverize many peoples. You will devote their dishonest profit to Jehovah, And their resources to the true Lord of the whole earth.”
Any questions?

I rest my case, then.

I used to have an Osborne 01 Computer I paid 2,000 dollars for.
It was "transportable". and weighed 27 pounds with a white on green screen 5 inches diagonally.
The entire CP/M operating system was 16K
NOT MEGS, Kilobytes.

Ah those memories. I bought an Apple IIe back in 82 or so for too much money even though I bought it used. I used it with a modem to submit my programs to the "mainframe" at school. My first work "PC" was also an Osborne, that looked much like the above picture, but it was running an early MS-DOS by then rather than CP/M. I bought it from my boss, and it was not something to take on trips. Took it to Boston once or twice. A luggable, they called it. In 1985 my job at ADLittle/Trump bought me one of the first HP laptops.

Ad copy: Fish tend to avoid it because it slows down the current . . .
Translation: The biggest problem is the way it kills so many fish who come up to it because it slows down the current (and might even jam up the turbine, turning it into dam of rotting fish). . . 
Still, if they can solve that problem with a non-capturing convex rather than a concave mesh screen, for example, it might be an excellent source of off-the-grid power.

I rest my case, then.

Way over the top there, James, don't you think?

I rest my case, then.

You probably know that there were infamous cases of immorality that Paul referred to in his letters even to the very Corinthian congregations that Paul himself had "planted." So it doesn't seem reasonable that if the GB had acted as Paul was saying that Child Abuse / Pedophilia would somehow no longer be a problem.
No, I don't see it as just collateral damage. But when the Org sees it as a problem, I do think it's necessary for its leaders to do all they can to remove it, and "progress" in processes and procedures that can be seen to help eliminate it.
I had said that "the core of the religion itself is one that does perhaps the best job of all religions in fighting the machinations of the Devil" to which you replied:
You are asking how it can be logical I guess that someone can be right on some things and not on others. I think you probably already know of many examples. Isaac Newton was right on a surprising number of things, but was wrong on some things, too, and only partially right on many things that he could not have been fully aware of at the time, so that he is still considered right for all practical purposes on many of those things. Aristotle, Pythagoras, St. Augustine, Jerome, Attilla the Hun, Martin Luther, Charles Taze Russell, probably even Hitler were both right on things and wrong on things. We remember them for their overall value or detriment to people or societies.
Misinformation reaches us from liars, but usually from people who truly believe the misinformation, even if it does NOT suit their own purposes. Can you imagine that Rutherford really thought he was lying when he predicted that the "Old Testament" princes like Abraham and David would come back in 1925? If so, he was preparing to be made fun of, to be seen as a fool. He evidently even admitted that he had made an a** of himself, according to the Watchtower. That doesn't strike me as trying to suit his own purposes.
Just as with Rutherford, I can't see how it "suits themselves." It's because of misinformation that they have believed for the same reason that we have believed it. GB are chosen not because of their ability to question, but because of their "loyalty." In other words, they are chosen for their reputation of not questioning. But when they get into that position, they realize that questions do come at them that are difficult to answer. Except for the "generation" fiasco, I think most changes since around 2000 or so have been for the better. And the only reason for the "generation" fiasco is the inability to question 1914. It seems like just too much of a coincidence.
It took a while, but I think they've almost gone as far as they can as of the most recent Watchtower article that covers this topic. It's now just a matter of fully implementing the processes that have been put in place. There is still a matter of compensating for the past, and this is a difficult issue to be discussed elsewhere, I hope.
I think we agree completely on shunning. I have no doubt at all that we have been implementing the shunning practice in an unchristian, unscriptural, and unloving manner. I can see our practice as OK from an "OT" perspective, but not at all from a "NT" perspective. If I get in complete trouble with the Org, it will be because I refuse to shun beyond what is written in the scriptures. I am more concerned about being in trouble with Jehovah than with humans in an organization. And even then, if I am shunned, it does not mean that I will shun in return. As far as it depends upon us, we should work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith.
No. Very serious. I think that moral cleanliness is preached correctly, even though we see that there are exceptions to how it is practiced. Many Witnesses lead double lives. Many are involved in adultery, fornication, child sexual abuse, spousal abuse, violence against children, cheating, lying, drugs, etc. But most aren't, and most appreciate the value and reminders we get from the platform. Most of us appreciate the association of like-minded persons who also wish to remain clean. I have heard persons say that they wish they could only hire Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses, one time from a person who didn't know I was a Witness. I know of worldly persons who have come into the congregation to try to find a wife from among JWs, based on admiration of their morals. I would never claim we are more moral than any other group of people. But I think we have the best advantage in terms of an overall call to morality that includes not only personal morality, but a realization that we should not even be tainted by immorality of commercial greed, nationalistic murderous wars, etc.
Sure. It might turn out to be a temporary sacrifice for some of us. Some of us might have found ways to question and avoid any consequences. If enough Witnesses perform their Christian duty, however, even a mass of disfellowshippings will automatically produce changes. Open questioning of doctrines at Bethel became common as early as 1974 when it was obvious that 1975 would not likely turn out as Fred Franz had been repeatedly hinting at, even though he didn't predict "1975." (He only predicted what must happen before the 1970's were complete, because of 1975.) Questions became open at Bethel tables, and around Bethel "water coolers" until a crackdown began happening in mid-1978 through 1979. People got dismissed and disfellowshipped in large numbers, but this also resulted in a backlash and exposure of the witch hunting and star-chamber methods. I think the Internet itself is already resulting in a flood of questions all over again that are proving very valuable. It is these that have been been driving many of the new (and better) doctrinal changes since 2000.  

I saw an example of that after Outta Here made a complaint about a post with profanity and I saw a lesser example of his (Ryan's) profanity in the past. I hate to see profanity here too, especially because it pushes people away who might otherwise add something more valuable here.
But there is a big difference between profanity against an ideology and directing profanity at a specific person. For example, you are well aware, I'm sure, that that "Allen Smith" was banned after repeated warnings not about profanities but about wild, raging rants that were directed at specific people. Allen acted the part of a cyber-bully. He was not just judgmental but was threatening. Personally I felt badly for persons who might have felt bullied and threatened, but I also considered that all the persons who participated here had already seen many examples from him, that ranged from pathetic to deranged. Therefore, it was likely understood that his threats were not actually meaningful and they therefore carried more "entertainment" value than anything else.
This is why I was against banning Allen, because I thought it more likely that his readers here were mature enough to see through him. For those who didn't want to be entertained in such a way, they could personally block him. I also thought that some of his ad hominem attacks (against the person instead of attempting to respond to an argument) actually strengthened the other person's argument with Allen inadvertently admitting that he could think of no actual response to the evidence itself.
It was only after the warnings that he would be banned that Allen started using profanities. Allen's surprising profanities may have helped some other people think they understand why he was banned, but they were not the real reason. The real reason was always the bullying, in my opinion. 

That's a very revealing statement about where you would love to live, but it would certainly explain a Lot (and Lot's wife, even more so).

That experience could be used at the next convention. Of course, it could be for other reasons. I know some Witnesses here who don't want other Witnesses doing their lawns and landscaping out of concern for privacy among the friends, or just to avoid business dealings and potential misunderstandings. We also had a brother in our congregation who ran a gas station only a quarter mile from the KH, and he was so taken advantage of that an announcement had to be made from the platform that brothers should pay their debts and not expect credit when doing business with fellow Witnesses.