JW Insider

(bear in mind, for some reason my response tends to be all bold randomly half way through)
Indeed, the scriptures does inform us of many prophets of whom God had communicated with in many ways and occasions (Hebrews 1:1), however in the Torah (Hebrew Old Testament), God speaks of the one who is coming, this specific Prophet who has not been known to the people yet, the very one who He, God, will put his words in this Prophet’s mouth. This same prophet is sent by God, and speaks of what is to come regarding the final day, for God has spoken to us in a Son (Hebrews 1:2)
Now in the Torah we will go to Deuteronomy, more specifically, Deuteronomy 18:15-19, with the focus being more on verse 18.
A New Prophet like Moses
(15) “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen— (16) just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’ (17) And the Lord said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken. (18) I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. (19) And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. Cross-references: Exodus 34:28, Numbers 12:3, Matthew 4:1, 2, 11:29, John 5:46
Now, there is no question, that Moses was indeed the meekest of men on the face of the earth during his time, but there would be one who is like him, a new prophet who is said to be like Moses himself, the very prophet who will also act as an in-between for God and men, for these men will speak to those of mankind.
The Word that God had put in this prophet’s mouth is in regards of the promise of what the Kingdom will bring that of Salvation and revealing God’s Purpose and Will and what that implies.
This prophet is indeed the one sent by God, the flesh/man, born of a woman into the Law, named Jesus, for we know of this when Mary had been visited by Gabriel, an Angel of God, Joseph, Son of David, was also informed of this news via dream for he was suspect about Mary’s pregnancy as well as what he knows about what the Law of the Land is all about (Matthew 1:20-23, 25, Luke 1:31-33, 35, 2:21). Moreover, Christ Jesus, was indeed the one Prophet that even Moses had spoken of.
We also have to take into account of what Jesus says on John 5:45-47,  which can be pointed back to Deuteronomy in the Torah:
Witnesses to Jesus
(45) Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. (46) For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. (47) But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” So it is no surprise that we see the example in John chapter 4, for we know that the Samaritans, who follow the Torah with hardcore intent, awaited the Prophet, for we know this by the conversation Jesus had with the Samaritan woman, and eventually the reaction of the Samaritan people themselves.
John 6:14 - When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!”  
What you fail to see is that God the Father refer to all his children as gods, godlike ones, those in Heaven as well as those on Earth – gods/godlike ones (elohims and or deities ), in addition to what the passages says about sons of The Most High.
We know this for what we see in Psalms 82:1-6
Rescue the Weak and Needy
A Psalm of Asaph.
(1) God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: (2) “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah (3) Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. (4) Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” (5) They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. (6) I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; Here we find out that:
[A] These godlike ones are in the midst of God the Father and God himself refers to such ones as gods/godlike ones. Verse 1 literally reads out God (El) takes His stands in the assembly of the gods (Elohim); He judges among the gods (Elohim).
Since all bene elohims are of Elohim, El Shaddai, and come into existence because of elohim, these sons of God are elohims, deities, gods, etc (whatever floats your boat)
Sons of God, the gods/godlike ones is a reference to us, those of us of mankind, and judges, and to focused on the scriptures itself, it is also a reference to human judges of Israel.
Therefore, even the Archangel, being of God, is indeed a god, godlike one, and while on earth, this applies also, for it is read that the Christ himself even quoted what was written about the Law
John 10:34, 35 – (34) Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? (35) If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— The Law of that Jesus spoke of, the one that is written is of the Hebrew Old Testament, the verse described above, Psalms 82:6, in addition, Jesus is known to speak of the entire Hebrew Scriptures, not just The Law of Moses alone, the same can be said of John 12:34 and 15:25 in regards to Jesus speaking of what is written.
We also see what Apostle Paul had said in 1 Corinthians 8:5
For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— At Exodus 21:6; 22:8-9, the judges were called gods (elohim). However, some translations obscure this fact by translating elohim as judges while others have translated the word as God which violates the context of the passage itself. The main purpose here in this passage is that these judges represented God. So if an Israelite came before this human judge, Elohim, they were then appearing before God Himself not because these judges were God Himself but because these human authorities were God's representatives and or a Spokesman and as His representatives they were exercising His authority in His name. As such, these human judges were Elohim, that is, gods. We can also see Exodus 4:16, Moses was told that he was to serve as God to both Aaroan and to Pharaoh.
So it is no surprise that even the Jews know of such a Law that exists even to this day.
Now as for Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. small quote: Hebrews often name their babies in praise to some attribute of God at work in their life.
We see in the scriptures, as well as evidence via the practices and customs of the Jews, that such names are given to people, as well as places, and these names don't mean that these people are places are therefore God. It also show us that the one who is the Christ, The Messiah, would bear this name because he represents the Eternal Father and is the Mighty God's wonderful counsel since it was God who set things in motion, i.e. The one to raised up the Messiah to carry out His purpose and will. In short, YHWH of Hosts makes it all happen.
Very soon I will make a Bible Discussion on this verse when I get through some verses in John, Acts and Corinthians.
As for Princes (Nobles, Kings, Lords, Leaders) If you read onward in the book of Daniel, Daniel was being specific of who the Great Prince actually is, we cannot choose one point and forget the other when trying to piece together context of a passage and or belief.
You do not get the point, God’s Spoken Word in the very beginning, Moses did not exist, nor did any spark of life on the nothingness of the earth’s earliest state for the earth was formless and void – literally. Darkness consumed the formless earth as well as its deep watery seas. After reading the verse 2 verses of Genesis, look at what the next verse, 3, and onward, “And God said” etc. etc. etc. and the cause of what he had said and the result, for instance, the Bible in the beginning said the earth was literally shrouded in Darkness, God simply spoke about light and there you have it or perhaps the living creatures that roam the earth, dwell in the depths of the sea and fly in the heavens.
It is very obvious and known by many that the Word by which God created all things in Genesis was His spoken Word. The Scriptures tell us that the Genesis creation was accomplished by means of God's SPOKEN Word, so I do not see how you missed that in John’s Introduction of the gospel.
As for the man named Jesus, in his pre-existence, he was with his Father during the Genesis Act of Creation, for God had made things through him, which is very clear in the Bible, in chapter 1 of Genesis, verse 26, God was clearly with His Son when they made man, molded in both likeness and image, the very reasons why the cross-references are clear (Prov 8:30, John 1:3, Colossians 1:16).
The same sense as a Father works through His Son to teach him how to craft and or teach, make him a better man, it is the same sense with God and his only-begotten Son, the very reason the Bible says God takes delight in His Son and that Jesus himself was with his Father, marveling at his works and what God the Father had done.
That being said, God's Spoken Word is in full display in regards to creation as seen in the very first chapter of the Bible (The Genesis Act of Creation).
You do realize I am not talking about Bible translation, the category of Bible readers I am referring to is individuals who read but do not accept fully of what the Bible says and or lacks to apply context. Now, if we are going to talk about Biblical errors vs. the NWT, I guess we can start with the hypocrisy shown by mainstream Christendom who attack Jehovah’s Witness, in addition to literally 99% of the attack being directed to Non-Trinitarians as well as Muslims to read the Bible, sure we can get into that for its been a decade since I have researched and spoke of Bible translations, inspired and uninspired verses, forgeries, etc. as well as why real Christians and even Muslims accept what the Oldest source says, which does not include Acts 8:37 and a dozen of other verses compared to the mainstream who accepts verses like Acts 8:37 and the other ones, the same people who attack others for removed Bible verses that have already been exposed to be 100% uninspired.
For this is a quote regarding the attack on JWs regarding Acts 7:59 and John 3:16:
It is disturbing that many Trinitarians have the nerve to whine and complain, and rant and rave, about the Jehovah's Witnesses doing this type of thing in their New World Translation and then turn right around and hypocritically approve of the very same type of thing in the KJV translation. If you have a KJV translation, the word "God" should be in italics (or brackets) and the KJV translators do inform their readers that words in italics (or brackets) were not present in the original Greek manuscripts. However, the Jehovah's Witnesses make their readers equally aware but for some reason Trinitarian apologists don't seem to think the Witnesses have been granted the same approval for such insertions as the KJV Trinitarians have been granted. It is blatantly misleading to add this word here, especially in view of the fact that many readers may overlook the italics convention, or do not even know about it, or blindly trust the translators to be giving them good information. The fact that this word is there in print, without any merit whatsoever, confuses and misleads the reader. It is an appalling example of adding to the Bible where it is obviously unwarranted and a device implemented only to promote a Trinitarian agenda. One truly wonders how anyone who approves of such things can suppose they are doing God a favor by distorting the very words he inspired and thereby misrepresent Him and so such things in His name.
End quote (mind you, this quote came from a man who is very neutral with JWs, moreover, he follows no denomination, just adheres to the Bible, but has common ground with those who actually has and or strives to be close to what is true)
But if you want to post a New World Translation errors that you claim, so be it, all I can say any claim you make is solely from a Trinitarian point of view and has been refuted by many, many, people over the years who know of the oldest source. You'll have to make another thread for that though.
Yes, if we are talking about the one who professes God’s Word, the flesh that is The Word, of course he had pre-existed, came to earth welcomed by some, hated by others and eventually killed, God took him out of the pangs of death on the 3rd day, exalted him as soon as he ascended then yes.
Indeed, Jesus was up there, but he could not do as much in the presence of his Father, like rebuking Satan when it came to Moses corpse, to what Satan had in store, that I do not want to know, but God’s Son did not want to overstep authority of which he did not have. Only later on, after being risen, God’s Son, now sitting at His right hand, the one given authority and power after being raised out of death, etc.
God did make Jesus Lord, the Bible says so Acts 2:36, God was the one who also made Jesus the Christ, the same Christ that many awaited for, in ancient times and now present day.
Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”
Such has taken place in the period of Jesus’ death via crucifixion and onward to His resurrection, and what took place when Jesus ascended to heaven after his final meet up with his followers? God exalted him, placed Jesus at his right hand for Jesus, being His only-begotten, became man and represented the Father, spoke of him and what God’s Kingdom will bring for mankind in the future as seen in his ministry from Matthew-John, died for our sins and enabling the New Covenant for he had tasted death for us, and was actually dead until God himself brought the Christ back to life, glorified, appearing like a Spirit, mainly to his followers who ran into him later on, as well as Thomas who didn’t believe Jesus had risen, etc.
Yes, Jesus is indeed above the angels, but you forget what the term Archangel means. Also we should not also forget that there is but one who is the Leader of God’s Army, the same Army that battled with Satan and his demons.
For example, God’s chosen one is not just a King, but a mighty warrior, a leader, noblemen who takes charge. The Bible says that Michael and his angels battled with the dragon as seen in Revelation 12:7 as well as describing the same battle, but saying Jesus, seen in Revelation 19:14-16. Would be kind of silly to say and or think Satan had been battled twice, kicked out of Heaven twice when the Bible makes it clear the battle was only one time and the leader of the demons and the leader of God’s Army were the ones in conflict.
There is one army leader that God position to lead the angels into combat, eventually  H’Armageddon, the same one who cast out Satan from Heaven in a confrontation we only read about, but in reality must have been long and quite brutal.
No, Jesus was no longer human when he ascended into Heaven, and last I check flesh cannot enter the Spirit Realm that is Heaven that is absurd; you do not hear much about Michael until the action is revealed in Revelations.
As for the next response, that is fairly easy, because the one who has been anointed by God, the one who is the firstborn out of the dead and the first of the fruits – is the Messianic King, God’s chosen one.
Yes, it says Jesus, but you forget that God sent Gabriel to inform Mary to name the child Jesus, clearly in his pre-existence his name was not Jesus at all until he was in the womb of Mary. That passage also didn’t say Immanuel, and yet we can freely speak of this name in the same sense that we speak of Jesus, but not of Jesus’ pre-existing name, Michael.
 Technically it is seen this way, the Son of God, the only-begotten, was with His Father and clearly didn’t want to overstep his authority in the presence of his Father mainly with the whole Moses’ corpse situation. When sent to earth he was given the name Jesus (Yehoshua/Yeshua) as well as Immanuel (Emmanuel), as well as being called the Horn of Salvation. Jesus eventually became the Christ/Messiah, who was the Prophet of whom was spoken of the Old Testament, similarly, Jesus himself also made this known when he read the Scroll of Isaiah. Eventually he was accused and had been killed via crucifixion, risen on the 3rd day by God the Father, eventually ascending into heaven assuming his role by his Father, with his position and has been made Lord, exalted, given the name above every other name, as well as authority and power. With that, God will judge through his Son and resurrect people by a great multitude, as for the wicked, God’s chosen one will come to exact judgment with God’s Army, and he will be carrying a Sword, coming in the name of his Father. The list goes on but I this is just brief.
The only reason people cannot see Jesus is Michael is for one thing, Angel. But the hypocrisy is they say Jesus is a messenger who represents God (Shaliah Principle/Angelic Agency) aka Malak. In addition, they see clearly in scripture even Paul refers to Jesus as an Angel.
But many hold this view of Michael/Jesus, however, some seem to be closer to what the connection is vs those who do not, the most absurd of some belief is saying Michael is God, which is false.
If you think of it as such, what you say about him being born as a King, that is understandable, for it further proves the point of Jesus’ position when he pre-existed, as a human, when risen, returned to haven and onward.

I agree. Underestimating the position and role of Jesus  is definitely a hazard for those who seek to combat the attempts made by those who seek to overestimate it. The Scriptures were simply not written for that purpose, as stated by John the apostle: 
"But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and because of believing, you may have life by means of his name." John 20:31

Never heard about it. The gym had just been put down in the old Squibb bulidings (25 Columbia Heights) and I always meant to get down there and never saw it except when volunteering for overnight guard duty, when we had to walk through all the buildings and turn a key at various points to punch a sort of time card. I only walked through the gym when the lights were out and wouldn't have noticed the mirrors. I don't remember hardly any brothers who went down there for the bowling, basketball and weightlifting. There just wasn't a lot of time for that sort of thing. I heard that you had to pick up the bowling pins and reset them yourself manually. I remember one brother telling me that age 19 to age 25 were the perfect years for weightlifting, but he was skrawny and I doubt he did much himself.

This is a very legitimate way to read John 1:1, although it is not the way we read it as JWs. It would not make much difference if it were read this way. I see a possible small problem with the way we read it, but it doesn't mean we are reading it wrong. I think the main thing that some Witnesses do (which is not the intention of the verse) is making a big emphasis on the words "A god," and then saying, SEE?!?!?! -- It only says "A" god, therefore Jesus can't be THE [Almighty] God. This is a true statement, based on other scriptures. But this scripture is going as far as possible to RAISE the level of divinity and near "universal" authority by which Christians should understand Jesus -- and it's a misuse of the intention of the verse to use it to prove he is LESS. It is only by Jesus that we can begin to understand the full range of the power and authority of the Father. Jesus therefore allows us to "SEE" God. 
I know it's a little off topic for this discussion, so I'll wait until another John 1:1 discussion.

Look at the picture in the March 2017 Watchtower (Study Edition). I've attached it below, but the whole article is also here:
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-march-2017/give-honor-to-whom-it-is-due/
Since 1995, all WT references to the "24 elders" have also included an explanation that they represent the full anticipated number of the 144,000 in their heavenly, resurrected to heaven. (Sometimes this is stated as if it means, only the current number of already resurrected members of the 144,000 at any given time, even during the time when a significant portion of them are still on earth.) Although the exact meaning is a bit hard to pin down, sometimes, the WT has even drawn chronological conclusions about the 24 elders as of 1935, for example. But we can get to that later, if anyone is interested. 
For the first time in 20 years, the Watchtower has mentioned the "24 elders" and never specifically said in the article that they represent the 144,000. The article not only mentions them in the text, but shows a picture of them, asks the reader to look at the picture, and also merely combines them with other heavenly creatures (myriads of angels and the 4 living creatures) in a second, less direct reference. It's an unusual amount of attention drawn to the "24 elders" without any reference to their meaning.
This might not mean anything, of course, but this latest WT reference would nearly mark a decade since the Watchtower specifically mentioned the "24 elders" at all! (And the last two mentions about a decade ago were really brought up only because of a convoluted bit of circular reasoning to try to show that the first resurrection most probably started before 1935 because one of these elders in Revelation asked John who the "great crowd" was. This supposedly showed that one of these spirit creatures must have been communicating from beyond the veil with Brother Rutherford, or persons close to him, before 1935.)
*** w07 1/1 p. 28 par. 11 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
What, then, can we deduce from the fact that one of the 24 elders identifies the great crowd to John? It seems that resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the communicating of divine truths today. Why is that important? Because the correct identity of the great crowd was revealed to God’s anointed servants on earth in 1935. If one of the 24 elders was used to convey that important truth, he would have had to be resurrected to heaven by 1935 at the latest. That would indicate that the first resurrection began sometime between 1914 and 1935.
The idea that Rutherford was communicating with the spirit of someone who had died might feel a bit uncomfortable, and perhaps that is even a factor in a potential change -- if there is a potential change, that is. 
One could also argue from these most recent WT references that there is no change, because the wording is precise enough to allow for the current doctrine to remain. However, it might also have been true in the past that certain doctrines changed because someone asked (or tested out) whether there was a level of concern, or if there had been a lot of questions about it -- especially the questions that come in to the Service Department from Circuit Overseers and elders with reference to disfellowshipping. We have seen, for example, changes to doctrines about blood products in vaccines, organ transplants, [un]acceptable blood fractions, private sexual practices within the confines of marriage, working for a company associated with false religion or a branch of the military, certain types of voting, etc. Many doctrines related to such subjects were stated one way, then dropped from discussion for several years and then sometimes restated in an ambiguous way. The idea might have been to test whether the ambiguous statements resulted in any questions or concerns. If there were no concerns, then the doctrine could be dealt with later. Not all of these were about serious disfellowshipping matters.
I saw this happen with a brother I worked for at Bethel who wanted to "float a trial balloon" about a doctrine he had once championed claiming that the heart was the actual, physical seat of emotion and desire. He said he could try out a talk in Europe where he had served as a Branch Overseer and see if it raised questions over there, and if the concerns seemed important enough to deal with, or if they could be safely ignored. He had an idea about the meaning of "this generation" that he tested out this way on European audiences, too. Brother F.W.Franz was also known for being able to give talks about several subjects in a very ambiguous manner which evidently helped test out their usefulness for a doctrinal article. He did this in talks on "1975," "the Governing Body," and even one in 1978 on the figurative meaning of "fat" and the "liver" when mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures.
So that's the background to this particular conjecture -- and that's all it is, conjecture.
The wording that refers to the "24 elders" strikes me as an interesting, if ambiguous, replacement of the usual description and explanation. Note how the term "exalted creatures" replaces the term "24 elders" below. (I have also attached the scripture reference that wasn't spelled out in the article, although you can click on the link.)
Exalted creatures in the heavenly realm lift their voices in praise to Jehovah, “the One who lives forever and ever.” They declare: “You are worthy, Jehovah our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because  of your will they came into existence and were created.”—Rev. 4:9-11.
(Revelation 4:9-11) 9 Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanksgiving to the One seated on the throne, the One who lives forever and ever, 10 the 24 elders fall down before the One seated on the throne and worship the One who lives forever and ever, and they cast their crowns before the throne, saying: 11 “You are worthy, Jehovah our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they came into existence and were created.”
Do you not feel moved to join with myriads of heavenly creatures in proclaiming: “The Lamb who was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.”—Rev. 5:12.
(Revelation 5:11, 12) 11 And I saw, and I heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, 12 and they were saying with a loud voice: “The Lamb who was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.”
Think of congregation elders, circuit overseers, Branch Committee members, and the members of the Governing Body. Our brothers and sisters in the first century had high regard for those appointed to take the lead, and we feel similarly today. We do not idolize well-known representatives of the Christian congregation or react in their presence as if angels were standing nearby.
---- end of quotes ---
That highlighted phrase about angels might seem very out of place because nothing explains it in the context. It might refer to a paragraph that was edited out of this issue. I'm guessing that it was probably a reference to a point that made it into the previous February 2017 Study edition. The connection is vague because this point is not expanded upon very much in either issue.
 And Jehovah told him: “Lead the people to the place about which I have spoken to you. Look! My angel will go ahead of you.” (Ex. 32:34) The Bible does not report that the Israelites saw a materialized angel perform those duties. However, the way Moses instructed and guided the people made it clear that he had superhuman help. . . .  Nevertheless, despite the imperfections of these men, the Israelites were expected to follow their lead. Jehovah was supporting those men with his superhuman agents. Yes, Jehovah was leading his people.
However, the rejection of the idea that something like "angels" are standing nearby could also come from an idea that has been stated out loud by people who see the GB in person. It's a common phrase heard by visiting tours at Bethel who appreciate the value of the work and say something like "you can just tell that the angels are standing nearby." Even a couple of the JW Broadcasting broadcasts have come very close to presenting phrases like this when a building project, or Bible-printing project is spoken of and the speaker adds, in effect, 'you could just see the hand of Jehovah in all this.' [2015 JWB] Or, 'you just know the angels were looking on in delight.' [2014 convention experience].
It was also a joke about my grandmother's driving. She once made a left turn onto the railroad tracks, and her survival was attributed to the fact that "an angel must be riding alongside her." Another elder answered, "No angel would dare ride along with her, Brother ..."
But there is a slight chance, too, that the omission is purposeful, and is tied to the removal of angelic beings from the picture. The idea that any of the 24 elders were in direct contact with Rutherford, or persons around him in the past, might now be seen as a dangerous teaching. This could be a first step toward removing that picture from our teachings.
 

If that is supposed to be "up-building" it is the worst meme I have ever seen.
Sorry, that's all the "props" it deserves.
At any moment it appears that "me" will be crushed by anxienty and depression, because the supports are supposedly as flimsy-looking as those in the picture.

This is a very legitimate way to read John 1:1, although it is not the way we read it as JWs. It would not make much difference if it were read this way. I see a possible small problem with the way we read it, but it doesn't mean we are reading it wrong. I think the main thing that some Witnesses do (which is not the intention of the verse) is making a big emphasis on the words "A god," and then saying, SEE?!?!?! -- It only says "A" god, therefore Jesus can't be THE [Almighty] God. This is a true statement, based on other scriptures. But this scripture is going as far as possible to RAISE the level of divinity and near "universal" authority by which Christians should understand Jesus -- and it's a misuse of the intention of the verse to use it to prove he is LESS. It is only by Jesus that we can begin to understand the full range of the power and authority of the Father. Jesus therefore allows us to "SEE" God. 
I know it's a little off topic for this discussion, so I'll wait until another John 1:1 discussion.

This is a very legitimate way to read John 1:1, although it is not the way we read it as JWs. It would not make much difference if it were read this way. I see a possible small problem with the way we read it, but it doesn't mean we are reading it wrong. I think the main thing that some Witnesses do (which is not the intention of the verse) is making a big emphasis on the words "A god," and then saying, SEE?!?!?! -- It only says "A" god, therefore Jesus can't be THE [Almighty] God. This is a true statement, based on other scriptures. But this scripture is going as far as possible to RAISE the level of divinity and near "universal" authority by which Christians should understand Jesus -- and it's a misuse of the intention of the verse to use it to prove he is LESS. It is only by Jesus that we can begin to understand the full range of the power and authority of the Father. Jesus therefore allows us to "SEE" God. 
I know it's a little off topic for this discussion, so I'll wait until another John 1:1 discussion.

I agree with this idea, too. And as you mentioned a few other possibilities in your preceding paragraph, the few things that might change in the greater scheme of things could result in some longer-lasting benefits, too. As you said:
And there are also longer-term benefits when any of the "evil" people (perpetrators or deliberate enablers) were in positions of responsibility, as is often the case, or when persons, through a misplaced sense of priorities or naivety, inadvertently contribute (enablers) are put on a correct path. As you said:
I really appreciated that your comment was thoughtful and covered a lot of bases.
 

With reference to reference #11 from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915 edition is in Google Books. 1933 edition link, below.), the subject is developed here, with hints as to the reasoning already available in apocryphal writings, where Ascension of Isaiah, for example had referred to him as "mediator" and "intercessor":
(11) "The archangel" (Jude 1:9). Probably also the unnamed archangel of 1Th 4:16is Michael. In the Old Testament he is mentioned by name only in Daniel. He is "one of the chief princes" (Da 10:13), the "prince" of Israel (Da 10:21), "the great prince" (Da 12:1); perhaps also "the prince of the host" (Da 8:11). In all these passages Michael appears as the heavenly patron and champion of Israel; as the watchful guardian of the people of God against all foes earthly or devilish. In the uncanonical apocalyptic writings, however, Jewish angelology is further developed. In them Michael frequently appears and excretes functions similar to those which are ascribed to him in Daniel. He is the first of the "four presences that stand before God"--Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Uriel or Phanuel (En 9:1; 40:9). In other apocryphal books and even elsewhere in En, the number of archangels is given as 7 (En 20:1-7; Tobit 12:15; compare also Re 8:2). Among the many characterizations of Michael the following may be noted: He is "the merciful and long-suffering" (En 40:9; 68:2,3), "the mediator and intercessor" (Ascension of Isaiah, Latin version 9:23; Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Le 5:1-19; Da 6:1-28). It is he who opposed the Devil in a dispute concerning Moses' body (Jude 1:9). This passage, according to most modern authorities, is derived from the apocryphal Assumption of Moses (see Charles' edition, 105-10). It is Michael also who leads the angelic armies in the war in heaven against "the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan" (Re 12:7 ff). According to Charles, the supplanting of the "child" by the archangel is an indication of the Jewish origin of this part of the book.
The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Re 12:1-17, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel (for a full discussion see Hengstenberg, Offenbarung, I, 611-22, and an interesting survey in English by Dr. Douglas in Fairbairn's BD).
I would have added that Jesus is referred to as "Prince," in Prophecy (Isaiah 9:6), Parable (Luke 19:11-13) and in Narrative (Acts 3:15) and using the same Greek word, Satan is called the "Prince" of this world, who is to be cast out (John 16:11, Revelation 12:1-12).
The mention of "Fairbairn's BD" is Patrick Fairbairn's 6 -Volume Bible Dictionary. The Bible Encyclopedia, above, forgets to tell us where in the volumes this is, however. Probably under the entry for "Michael." I think that Fairbairn, if consistent, probably held the view he expressed in 1859 in "Introduction to the Exegetical Study of Scriptures in the New Testament," p. 233-236 where he says that all these evidences of the previous 3 pages "confirm the identification of Michael with Christ." (p.236)

With reference to reference #11 from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915 edition is in Google Books. 1933 edition link, below.), the subject is developed here, with hints as to the reasoning already available in apocryphal writings, where Ascension of Isaiah, for example had referred to him as "mediator" and "intercessor":
(11) "The archangel" (Jude 1:9). Probably also the unnamed archangel of 1Th 4:16is Michael. In the Old Testament he is mentioned by name only in Daniel. He is "one of the chief princes" (Da 10:13), the "prince" of Israel (Da 10:21), "the great prince" (Da 12:1); perhaps also "the prince of the host" (Da 8:11). In all these passages Michael appears as the heavenly patron and champion of Israel; as the watchful guardian of the people of God against all foes earthly or devilish. In the uncanonical apocalyptic writings, however, Jewish angelology is further developed. In them Michael frequently appears and excretes functions similar to those which are ascribed to him in Daniel. He is the first of the "four presences that stand before God"--Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Uriel or Phanuel (En 9:1; 40:9). In other apocryphal books and even elsewhere in En, the number of archangels is given as 7 (En 20:1-7; Tobit 12:15; compare also Re 8:2). Among the many characterizations of Michael the following may be noted: He is "the merciful and long-suffering" (En 40:9; 68:2,3), "the mediator and intercessor" (Ascension of Isaiah, Latin version 9:23; Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Le 5:1-19; Da 6:1-28). It is he who opposed the Devil in a dispute concerning Moses' body (Jude 1:9). This passage, according to most modern authorities, is derived from the apocryphal Assumption of Moses (see Charles' edition, 105-10). It is Michael also who leads the angelic armies in the war in heaven against "the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan" (Re 12:7 ff). According to Charles, the supplanting of the "child" by the archangel is an indication of the Jewish origin of this part of the book.
The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Re 12:1-17, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel (for a full discussion see Hengstenberg, Offenbarung, I, 611-22, and an interesting survey in English by Dr. Douglas in Fairbairn's BD).
I would have added that Jesus is referred to as "Prince," in Prophecy (Isaiah 9:6), Parable (Luke 19:11-13) and in Narrative (Acts 3:15) and using the same Greek word, Satan is called the "Prince" of this world, who is to be cast out (John 16:11, Revelation 12:1-12).
The mention of "Fairbairn's BD" is Patrick Fairbairn's 6 -Volume Bible Dictionary. The Bible Encyclopedia, above, forgets to tell us where in the volumes this is, however. Probably under the entry for "Michael." I think that Fairbairn, if consistent, probably held the view he expressed in 1859 in "Introduction to the Exegetical Study of Scriptures in the New Testament," p. 233-236 where he says that all these evidences of the previous 3 pages "confirm the identification of Michael with Christ." (p.236)

Based on 1 Thess 4, etc., it certainly makes sense, and it's not surprising that several groups had already come up with this belief. I think a good place to start is to check out the references in Wikipedia, from the point where the topic of Michael as Christ comes up, right up to the mention of the position held by Jehovah's Witnesses. The rest of this post is just a copy and paste from Wikipedia:
Citing Hengstenberg, John A. Lees, in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, states: "The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the 'child' and the archangel in Rev 12:1-17, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel."[11] Charles Haddon Spurgeon[52][53] stated that Jesus is Michael “the only Archangel”,[54] and that he is God the Son, and co-equal to the Father.[52] In Spurgeon’s view, "archangel" means "head of the angels" rather than "head angel," and is a title similar to "Leader of the host." (Daniel 8:11)[55][56][not in citation given] Within Anglicanism, the controversial bishop Robert Clayton (died 1758) proposed that Michael was the Logos and Gabriel the Holy Spirit.[57]Controversy over Clayton's views led the government to order his prosecution, but he died before his scheduled examination.[58][59]  . . .
Seventh-day Adventists[edit]
See also: Seventh-day Adventist, beliefs about Michael and Pre-existence of Christ   Le Grand Saint Michel, by Raphael (Raffaello Sanzio), Archangel Michael defeating evil Seventh-day Adventists, being of the Protestant heritage, lineage and faith, believe that Michael is another name for the eternal Son of the Father, the Heavenly Christ, and another name for the Word-of-God (as in John 1) before he became incarnate as Jesus. "Archangel" (meaning "Chief of the Angels", "highest messenger") was the leadership position as held by the Word-of-God as Michael while among the angels. According to Adventist theology, Michael was considered the "eternal Word", and not a created being or created angel, and the one by whom all things were created. The Word was then born incarnate as Jesus.[60] Seventh-day Adventists believe the name "Michael" is significant in showing who he is, just as "Immanuel" (which means "God with us") is about who Jesus is. They believe that name "Michael" signifies "one who is God" and that as the "Archangel" or "chief or head of the angels" he led the angels and thus the statement in Revelation 12:7-9 identifies Jesus as Michael.[61] Seventh-day Adventists believe that "Michael" is but one of the many titles applied to the Son of God, the second person of the Godhead. According to Adventists, such a view does not in any way conflict with the belief in his full deity and eternal preexistence, nor does it in the least disparage his person and work.[62] In support of the Seventh-day Adventist belief, Michael is also identified by them as being the very commander of Heavenly legions of the hosts of the LORD, God's invincible army, which helped Joshua son of Nun to lead Israel in to conquering Jericho [Joshua 5:14 - "And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant?"] In the Seventh-day Adventist view, the statement in some translations of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God" identifies Jesus as Archangel, which is Michael.[63] (Other translations have "For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God.")[64]And the Seventh-day Adventists believe that John 5:25-29 also confirms that Jesus and Michael are the same.[63]  
11 ^ John A. Lees, "Michael" in James Orr (editor), ''The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia''(Eerdmans 1939)". Internationalstandardbible.com. 2007-07-06. Retrieved 2012-12-27. 52 ^ Jump up to:a b The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) - With slight revisions by C. H. Spurgeon Archived 2010-04-07 at the Wayback Machine. - spurgeon.org - Phillip R. Johnson - 2001 - Retrieved 12 September 2014. Jump up53 ^ Morning and Evening - Charles Haddon Spurgeon - Devotionals by Spurgeon Sermons - Spurgeon Sermons with C.H. Spurgeon - Retrieved 12 September 2014. Jump up54 ^ The Angelic Life - Charles Haddon Spurgeon - Sermon No. 842. Jump up55 ^ Grace Abounding in a Believer's Life by Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Robert Hall and Lance Wubbels 1996 ISBN 1883002095 page 54 Jump up56 ^ Weapon The Blood of the Lamb, the Conquering Weapon - Charles Haddon Spurgeon - Sermon No. 2043. Jump up57 ^ Robert Clayton, An Essay on Spirit 1751 Jump up58 ^ Dictionary of National Biography: Clayton, Robert Jump up. . . Jump up60 ^ Seventh Day Adventists: What do they believe? by Val Waldeck Pilgrim Publications (April 5, 2005) page 16 Jump up61 ^ "The Remnant". Adventist World. Archived from the original on 2012-07-24. Retrieved 2011-12-05. Jump up62 ^ Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington, D.C., 1957. Chapter 8 "Christ, and Michael the Archangel". 63 ^ Jump up to:a b Bible readings for the home by 7th Day Adventists. London. 1949. p. 266. [if you get blue arrow icons over some of the references, just select/highlight and they will be easy to read, or go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_(archangel) ]

I don't think anyone can work on that kind of contextual commentary and continue to believe in the kinds of numerology and non-sense (in my opinion) required to uphold our specific eschatological beliefs. Therefore, anyone who is put on such an assignment is likely going to be fired as soon as they touch the book of Daniel or anything Jesus, Paul or Peter said about the Parousia.
There were hopes that, after Fred Franz died, the "type-antitype" calculus would disappear, and after Franz died, Brother Schroeder stuck his neck out and pushed for its disappearance calling it presumptuous. (He had also been on the very opposite end of this controversy for many years, and was behind the pushing out of all the brothers who worked on the Aid Book.) If you listen to the 2014 Gilead talk by Brother Splane you will notice that he quotes Brother Schroeder as a primary source explaining why and how we no longer rely on type-antitype explanations from parables and Bible narratives that are not already explicitly explained this way in other parts of the Bible. (With the exception that we still need the one making the faithful and discreet slave a "type" representing the Governing Body, and Daniel 4 where Neb is a type representing the Messianic kingdom, of course.). Schroeder had long been dead, when Brother Splane quotes him. Of course, the brothers who worked on the Aid Book had already dropped that kind of presumptuous thinking by the time the Aid Book was published in 1971.
Even in the 1990's and 2000's two brothers with the apparent qualifications to work on such a project were kicked out of Bethel very quickly after they started in Writing. I didn't know these brothers, however, and can't vouch for the Bethel stories surrounding them.

For myself, I have a few litmus tests for the accuracy and honesty of a Bible commentary. These are much like the way most of us will immediately check John 1:1 when we find a new Bible translation.
I have found a commentary that I have only read so far with reference to two short Bible books. It appears to have been written by one or more JWs or ex-JWs. It is referenced as a "site of interest" from a site which is usually critical of JW.org. I am guessing that it was written by one of the brothers (might be an ex-brother) who worked on both the Aid/Insight book and very similar commentary-type material at Bethel and who was working on exactly the kind of Bible commentary for the Society that you speak about.
The site I found it from says it was by "brothers" (plural) but the site itself mentions only one brother on the home page, and elsewhere refers to himself in the singular:
These renderings of Hebrew and Greek and Bible translations in other languages into English serve mainly for comparison purposes. In no way are my efforts intended to slight or detract from the conscientious labors of other translators and writers whose abilities and understanding of the ancient languages are far superior to mine. I know of only two brothers who left Bethel from Writing after completing their work on the Aid Book and Bible commentaries who were kicked out for not believing in 1914, but who were not disfellowshipped. (in other words, not R.Franz or E.Dunlap) Only one of them, I think, had the ability and head-start to have been able to accomplish this kind of commentary. After he was kicked out of Bethel, he was still given a special pioneer stipend and was still asked by Brother Lyman Swingle (definitely) and then Lloyd Barry (possibly) to continue working on research and projects for the Writing Department over the next several years. His best friend at Bethel, who also worked on the Aid book and commentary material had an excellent grasp of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac. They made a great collaboration team at Bethel, but I have no idea if they are both still working together. I think the latter was either disfellowshipped or faded away.
I was in contact with the person who I think wrote this commentary for several years after he left Bethel, but he has either moved to another country or has decided to fade into anonymity. He has left no information about himself or his whereabouts on the Internet or any social media as far as I can see.
The site itself has "awful" navigation. If you go to the Home page: https://wernerbiblecommentary.org/?q= you can't even tell it's a Bible commentary. But if you click on the links to Jeremiah, for example, under What's New, then you will also see links to these 40+ Bible books. So far I can only recommend the ones I have read, but at least the style will be familiar to you, and you won't have to filter out the references to hell, Gehenna, Trinity, soul, spirit, etc., as you read. I think he did an excellent job on the parts of Romans I have read, and I will read Galatians next.
Bible Commentaries
Job Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Solomon Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Commentary on Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi Acts Comments on Romans Comments on 1 and 2 Corinthians Galatians Comments on Ephesians Comments on Philippians Comments on Colossians Comments on the letters to the Thessalonians Comments on the letters to Timothy and Titus Comments on the letter to Philemon Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude

I don't think anyone can work on that kind of contextual commentary and continue to believe in the kinds of numerology and non-sense (in my opinion) required to uphold our specific eschatological beliefs. Therefore, anyone who is put on such an assignment is likely going to be fired as soon as they touch the book of Daniel or anything Jesus, Paul or Peter said about the Parousia.
There were hopes that, after Fred Franz died, the "type-antitype" calculus would disappear, and after Franz died, Brother Schroeder stuck his neck out and pushed for its disappearance calling it presumptuous. (He had also been on the very opposite end of this controversy for many years, and was behind the pushing out of all the brothers who worked on the Aid Book.) If you listen to the 2014 Gilead talk by Brother Splane you will notice that he quotes Brother Schroeder as a primary source explaining why and how we no longer rely on type-antitype explanations from parables and Bible narratives that are not already explicitly explained this way in other parts of the Bible. (With the exception that we still need the one making the faithful and discreet slave a "type" representing the Governing Body, and Daniel 4 where Neb is a type representing the Messianic kingdom, of course.). Schroeder had long been dead, when Brother Splane quotes him. Of course, the brothers who worked on the Aid Book had already dropped that kind of presumptuous thinking by the time the Aid Book was published in 1971.
Even in the 1990's and 2000's two brothers with the apparent qualifications to work on such a project were kicked out of Bethel very quickly after they started in Writing. I didn't know these brothers, however, and can't vouch for the Bethel stories surrounding them.

A lot of repeats for both. You get a quick sense by the different dates and different states where something is reported. But I only did a spot check.
It's also interesting to consider that, when based on similar criteria, Jehovah's Witnesses are now about the same size as the Presbyterian Church, which is something I added later to the post above.
According to PEW research, more than twice that number identify as JWs (2.8 Million), which might be based on Memorial attendance, it being the last religion they associated with, etc. This would make JWs a larger religion than Presbyterians.
@TrueTomHarley I hope you are not considering the idea that these search results prove that you are 30 times more likely to find abuse in the Presbyterian Church than among JWs.

For myself, I have a few litmus tests for the accuracy and honesty of a Bible commentary. These are much like the way most of us will immediately check John 1:1 when we find a new Bible translation.
I have found a commentary that I have only read so far with reference to two short Bible books. It appears to have been written by one or more JWs or ex-JWs. It is referenced as a "site of interest" from a site which is usually critical of JW.org. I am guessing that it was written by one of the brothers (might be an ex-brother) who worked on both the Aid/Insight book and very similar commentary-type material at Bethel and who was working on exactly the kind of Bible commentary for the Society that you speak about.
The site I found it from says it was by "brothers" (plural) but the site itself mentions only one brother on the home page, and elsewhere refers to himself in the singular:
These renderings of Hebrew and Greek and Bible translations in other languages into English serve mainly for comparison purposes. In no way are my efforts intended to slight or detract from the conscientious labors of other translators and writers whose abilities and understanding of the ancient languages are far superior to mine. I know of only two brothers who left Bethel from Writing after completing their work on the Aid Book and Bible commentaries who were kicked out for not believing in 1914, but who were not disfellowshipped. (in other words, not R.Franz or E.Dunlap) Only one of them, I think, had the ability and head-start to have been able to accomplish this kind of commentary. After he was kicked out of Bethel, he was still given a special pioneer stipend and was still asked by Brother Lyman Swingle (definitely) and then Lloyd Barry (possibly) to continue working on research and projects for the Writing Department over the next several years. His best friend at Bethel, who also worked on the Aid book and commentary material had an excellent grasp of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac. They made a great collaboration team at Bethel, but I have no idea if they are both still working together. I think the latter was either disfellowshipped or faded away.
I was in contact with the person who I think wrote this commentary for several years after he left Bethel, but he has either moved to another country or has decided to fade into anonymity. He has left no information about himself or his whereabouts on the Internet or any social media as far as I can see.
The site itself has "awful" navigation. If you go to the Home page: https://wernerbiblecommentary.org/?q= you can't even tell it's a Bible commentary. But if you click on the links to Jeremiah, for example, under What's New, then you will also see links to these 40+ Bible books. So far I can only recommend the ones I have read, but at least the style will be familiar to you, and you won't have to filter out the references to hell, Gehenna, Trinity, soul, spirit, etc., as you read. I think he did an excellent job on the parts of Romans I have read, and I will read Galatians next.
Bible Commentaries
Job Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Solomon Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Commentary on Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi Acts Comments on Romans Comments on 1 and 2 Corinthians Galatians Comments on Ephesians Comments on Philippians Comments on Colossians Comments on the letters to the Thessalonians Comments on the letters to Timothy and Titus Comments on the letter to Philemon Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude

Sorry if I was a bit unclear. My point was that, regardless of the downs experienced by Jehovah's people on earth, like the incarceration and reputation maligning of the GB in 1918, and regardless of the reasons or blame for those negative events,  the current child abuse crisis will make no difference whatsoever to the successful outworking of Jehovah's purpose, (which includes mankind), "the greater scheme of things". 
We can see that, despite the dire situation and bleak prospects for the IBSA if viewed from a prison cell in 1918, the outworking of events in connection with Jehovah's people on earth in the 100 years since Rutherford's incarceration likely eclipses even the most optimistic "vision" that any of the GB members may have had from their prison cells at that time albeit based on the Bible indications that the good news WILL be preached worldwide, regardlss of any weapons formed against it. What has taken place since then:
the worldwide expansion of the preaching activity and the response to it, the development of Bible knowledge and understanding the development of the organisation, the publishing infrastructure, the expansion into a range of media channels, the quality of the published information both in content and appearance, the court victories in the field of human rights, the defiance of secular dictatorial bodies, the enduring and surviving of secular attempts to suppress etc, etc has demonstrated that the success of Jehovah's people in carying out Jehovah's will on earth, has continued regardless of external attempts to suppress, malign, interfere, and despite it's being directed by imperfect humans with the inevitable wrong turns, dead ends,  false alarms, that such direction at times has resulted in. 
I suppose I could have used a picture of Adam and Eve being expelled from the Garden of Eden instead of the Rutherford mug shot. On a greater scale, there was a pretty hopleless situation for Jehovah's people on earth. There actually weren't any!! And that was the fault of those who once were! Yet in "the greater scheme of things", Jehovah was not phased. His way of working out matters includes many negative experiences for those who worshipped Him, regardless of an anlaysis of blame and reason. But, good has come from every situation experienced (for those who remain faithful), and notably, good on occasion has been administered by those who did not worship Jehovah, and were not a part of His people at the time.
My point was that the current Child Sexual Abuse issue will be the same as past crises for Jehovah's people. It will be resolved, successfully, and regardless of how and who is involved in this, it will make no difference to the outworking of Jehovah's purpose, and, microcosmically, will benefit all involved.
That's why I welcome any intervention, from any source, to resolve such a matter, whilst abhorring those who stoop to such a level of crime, regardless of their protestations of remorse. Let Caesar use his sword, in this case!
 

No. I mistook this to mean mostly the latter, although I suppose I was probably reading it more like "in the long run" based on how you compared it with "immediate benefits" (in 'the short run'). That's also because you also used an example that reminded me of "the overall progress of those who worship Him here on earth" which had apparently applied Rutherford's earthly experience to both to "the greater scheme of things" and the "immediate benefits."
Of course, I was pretty sure you were not referring to the loss of his health which had been blamed on the penitentiary, and Brother Martin's related purchase of a San Diego residence in order to accommodate those health issues.
I was also thinking that TTH should change the expression "the greater world" to "the greater scheme of things." It's a good replacement for "system of things."

I have a subscription to newspapers.com and just decided to do a quick search on Presbyterian church child sexual abuse. But even without a subscription you can do this search and at least see that the newspapers in their library produce this result:
View all 112,267 matches for Presbyterian Sexual Abuse I did the exact same search on Jehovah's Witnesses Sexual Abuse and got this:
View all 3,787 matches for Jehovah's Witnesses Sexual Abuse Per Google there are now about the same number of Jehovah's Witnesses in the USA as Presbyterians: 1,415,053 active members (2017) -- Presbyterian Church (compared with about 1,200,000 Jehovah's Witnesses).
But I also found this relevant write-up from a Google Search on the same:
https://religionnews.com/2014/06/20/denomination-confronts-child-sexual-abuse-positive-step-forward/
I'm reposting larger than usual excerpts from that article below about a Presbyterian acknowledgment, process and procedure to deal with child sexual abuse, apparently from about 2013 or 2014:
There are some days when I am thrilled to report positive developments within the Protestant world about the slow but steady shift taking place on issues relating to child sexual abuse.  Just a few years ago, there was very little private or public discourse within most Protestant circles about abuse within the Church. Besides the ignored cries of survivors and a few advocates, public acknowledgment and dialogue on this subject was off limits.  As a result, children continued to be at risk in our churches and survivors continued to be silenced through blame and false pity. In the past year, I have encountered more and more folks who are beginning to realize that the Church has been largely silent — and this silence has had excruciatingly dark and grave consequences for countless individuals and for the very soul of the Church.  Through some amazing (and many very painful) set of circumstances, I believe a growing number within the Protestant community are finally beginning to realize that there is an epidemic of child sexual abuse within the Church and that silence and inaction are unacceptable. . . .
This acknowledgment was demonstrated this past week when the entire General Assembly (annual meeting of pastors) of the theologically conservative Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) unanimously and publicly adopted Overture 6 – perhaps the most robust statement on child protection adopted by any Christian denomination.  . . . This statement doesn’t pull any punches.  Not only does it acknowledge that child sexual abuse is an epidemic in our culture, it concludes that the silence of the church renders it complicit before God.  It urges all church leaders to use their influence to protect children, including preaching and teaching against child sexual abuse and exposing those who abuse.  It is also significant that this resolution implores the church to compassionately support survivors. Perhaps the most important and unique aspect of this adopted resolution is its call for action. It directs the various departments of the denomination to review their policies and practices related to the protection of children and the response to abuse disclosures.  They are also directed to develop future plans on how to help educate the denomination on issues related to child sexual abuse.  In order to prevent these denomination transforming tasks from disappearing into oblivion, this resolution requires a full report at next year’s meeting. Don’t get me wrong, we still have a very long way to go in the Christian world when it comes to protecting the vulnerable and embracing the hurting.  I was reminded of this when I read the results of a newly released survey that found 74% of faith leaders underestimate the level of sexual and domestic violence experienced within their congregations.  . . .  This same Christian organization hired a friend of the leader to conduct a “thorough review process” of the abuse allegations and concluded that God still desires to use this individual “for His work in the Kingdom of God.”

This reasoning just hurts to read. Are we supposed to just take their word for it that they have the "correct identity" of the great crowd? Isn't it odd that only an exclusive group have access to this divine insight? Where's the proof?

60. And don't get me going about the Methodists.

Yes, indeed. I'm very happy about this too.
I've seen this happen for other types of abuse (1983, 1995, 2005), but have never personally seen it happen in a case involving child sex abuse. My father (in the 1970's) was part of a judicial committee that had to try to get a Witness disfellowshipped as fast as possible when police picked him up for a crime that would ultimately result in jail then prison time and, of course, some very bad press. The goal was to make sure that by the time the papers might have picked up on the fact that he was associated with our congregation, we could honestly say that he was a former Witness. This directive came directly from Harley Miller, who as head of the Service Department in those days, was sometimes considered to be "the Society." Elders at the time would actually joke that when someone said, "The Society says this or that" on policy, that they meant "Harley Miller says this or that" on policy.
My father complied because the person really had sort of slipped out of the purview of the congregation and had been known for drunkenness and running (riding) with a questionable crowd of worldly people, some of whom had been in trouble for robbery, B&E, etc. Had they bothered to follow up with him at earlier junctures they might have disfellowshipped him then too. I brought this up as a question at Bethel in '76 and was told that there "many" cases like this. But Harley Miller is now considered to have been very "old school" and harsh in his tactics. While he was the running the service department however, I could see a potential counter-claim to what you say here:
Another reason that could call this claim into question is that I have it from a reliable (Witness) source that the Society had already paid out "millions of dollars" long before Barbara Anderson went on that 20/20 program to expose a sexual abuse problem among the Witnesses. A primary goal, I'm told, was to pay for silence among victims.

I agree with the sentiment. I have been fooled by "reliable sources" in the past. And even the most reliable source might only be repeating something because they heard it from one or more reliable sources, which might themselves turn out to have placed unwarranted trust in unreliable sources. Or our reliable source may have misunderstood their reliable sources at any weak link in the chain. 'Let God be true though every man be proved a liar.'
It bears repeating that everything stated here is a kind of opinion, even if we state it as if it is a proven fact. Even common sense deductions don't always hold up. Even "proven facts" don't always hold up.
There are rules of evidence, logic and reason that make some deductions better than others, but that doesn't mean the conclusions are necessarily more correct than others.

Well, I think it is no more than common sense. If someone abuses a child and both happen to be Presbyterian, will that connection ever make media reports? If it happens right there in the church, yes, or if it is in some church-sponsored retreat. But if it happens in pure social settings, when is the connection made? In Witness cases, however, the connection is always made. Most cases are in settings having nothing to do with the Kingdom Hall, yet the proactive organization investigates wrong conduct regardless of where it occurs.
 
Yes. Would that they would also consider that Jehovah's Witnesses were virtually alone in making them during the time period in question.
When Star Fleet command feels it necessary to discipline Capt James T Kirk    (not Rook) and crew, they take into account that he was "boldly going where no one has gone before."
There is no question that victims have suffered and do suffer. It is legally enabled and it is a consequence of "innocent until proven guilty.' "Innocent untli proven guilty" could be, and increasingly is, spun as "protecting the accused, rather than protecting the victim." 
In fact, the bad guy does not always get nabbed, preferable though that outcome would be.
When the offense is vile enough, people say: "To hell with evidence ... we want to see someone behind bars.' Some prosecutors even seek to make names for themself, sending people up on evidence they know is sketchy. The 'justice' that JTR worships yields to this influence all the time. That is why countless innocent persons are now being released from prison now through DNA evidence, a circumstance that he had no answer to, so he declared it spectacularly irrelevant.
I am pleased, as are you and Anna, that our organization has revised some procedings to greater approach absolute justice, elusive though that quality is in any dealings human. And yes, it is accomplished, it appears, though prodding of the greater world. And no, it does not satisfy them, because in the case of those who despise Jehovah's Witnesses, it does not remove the real source of the problem: Jehovah's Witnesses.