JW Insider

There is definitely a principle of transparency that is lost even in some Western judicial systems. There is one type of case, which is often used as a case against such transparency in child sexual abuse cases. These are cases of incest. It is believed that irreparable harm is brought to the child victim if such cases were completely out in the open. Of course, as these cases go to criminal courts, the accusations become known anyway. For us, (Witnesses) it's also been a matter of learning that some sins are also crimes, even if we hadn't really treated them that way in the past.

I believe this is the general consensus of most major modern Bible commentaries. Even the expression "The Jews" as found in Acts is sometimes considered to mean the Jews who were now Jewish Christians. [believers still zealous for the Law, but unbelievers in "undeserved kindness" and Christian freedom from Law.]
Galatians 5:4 implies "apostasy" in the expression:
(ESV) You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. Interestingly, the only time the Bible uses the Greek word "apostasy" outside of the famous 2 Th 2:3, is in Acts 21:21 where Paul is the one being accused of apostasy from Judaism:
(Darby) And they have been informed concerning thee, that thou teachest all the Jews among the nations apostasy from Moses, saying that they should not circumcise their children, nor walk in the customs.  

They did as a whole, however the problem was the total misapplication of 1 Corinthians 6:5-7 by some elders. I personally know of an instance where the elder advised to keep the matter away from secular authorities lest it brought shame to Jehovah. That was the attitude of some in the 80's as far as I know. It was never the policy of the society on the whole though. I am so pleased we have a concise, transparent document now which informs not just the elders, but also the publishers and anyone else of how cases of child abuse should be handed. Every one can be on the same page now. I particularly like par. 10 because it makes a clear distinction between congregational matters and secular matters of the same same instances:
"Child abuse is a serious sin. If an alleged abuser is a member of the congregation, the elders
conduct a Scriptural investigation. This is a purely religious proceeding handled by elders according
to Scriptural instructions and is limited to the issue of membership as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. A
member of the congregation who is an unrepentant child abuser is expelled from the congregation and
is no longer considered one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (1 Corinthians 5:13) The elders’ handling of an
accusation of child abuse is not a replacement for the authorities’ handling of the matter.—Romans
13:1-4.
This is also good for instances where congregationally a perpetrator is not disfellowshipped because of lack of evidence or some other reason, but if the perpetrator is convicted of a crime by secular authorities, especially the crime of sexual abuse of children, then this notoriety may warrant disfelowshipping.
For those who haven't read  the document yet:
https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal-resources/information/packet-jw-scripturally-based-position-child-protection/

This is an interesting concept and has a bit more to it than it's context.
For the congregation, in the absence of an alternative, there is a 2 witness rule. Now the debate about what does or should constitute the 2 witnesses is being tested elsewhere.
But what is it to accomplish? That one judged as guilty as charged and unrepentant is excluded from the congregation. Pretty pathetic sanction when compared with the gravity of the crime wouldn't you say? Aw, the poor little molester's relatives won't talk to him no more What a shame.....not.
There are probably other crimes that could be similarly characterised. The congregation today only has a spiritual role and the sanctions against crime can only be handled in that context. Isn't that why Romans 13:4 says current secular governments serve as "God's minister", and "it is not without purpose that it bears the sword"?
There is no need for 2 witnesses to report an allegation of child abuse to the secular authorities, although the inconsistencies of requirements and conflicting legislation make it very prudent for legally-inexperienced congregation elders to seek legal advice in carrying out this action where it is not specifically mandated.
The congregation is simply neither authorised nor equipped to carry out the kind of investigation and victim support needed, or to try, and if found guilty, impose sanctions that God's secular minister has within their remit  at this time. And if God's secular minister finds such a perpetrator guilty of a crime of this nature, then we can trust that the finding is sufficient once the appeal process has been exhausted. The perpetrator, if found guilty, has carried out a henious crime and will likely find that the hands of Caesar are a lot rougher in the short term than the hands of Jehovah via the current congregational structure, to which stoning is no longer an option.
So it will always be true that Theocratically, we can trust that Jehovah's current arrangement, which allows for the secular authorities to execute judicial decisions, is always going to be better than our own. And, thankfully, they answer to him, not us, as how they are discharging their responsibility.

This might be partially true, but I have not seen the evidence that there is a direct link between JW investigations and the linking of child abuse with Witnesses. We now have a couple sources of some data that goes back quite a ways and lets us know the number of cases that were investigated each year as a percentage of the population of JWs in a particular place where the data comes from. Even though the data sometimes goes back several decades, I see a very sparse number of cases from the earliest decades, and they often don't show up at all unless it was part of an ongoing series of accusations for a person who shows up as still having accusations from more recent decades.
If the JWs had been investigating child abuse, and had rooted out two or three persons per decade from every congregation in the world, the total numbers would appear astronomical to those who merely want to spin an idea based on embarrassing numbers. (As the number of congregations rose, so would the total numbers rise proportionally in more recent decades.) Yet, the numbers themselves would be easy to explain in these terms. From the perspective of the investigations, the complaint is not the number itself, or even the proportion of accusations as compared with say Catholics (or colleges, or Olympic trainers, or ballet schools, or the Boy Scouts of America, etc.)
The focus of outsiders has almost always included a need to investigate the process of our investigations. Our process produces questions that make outsiders cringe. How was it that in Australia the number of cases of sexual abuse that the Watchtower had admitted were on the order of "thousands" and the number that ended up being reported to the police were on the order of "zero"? How was it that persons in positions of authority had sometimes been given a pass to work with children again, and even had multiple accusations of child sexual abuse on their record? How was it that "the two-witness rule" could sometimes result in children being told that they cannot ever mention the fact that their abuser had abused them without the threat that children themselves could be accused of slander? How was it that in at least one case the accused sexual abuser who would later admit that he had threatened further harm to the child if the child turned him in, was still told that they had to meet face-to-face with such an accuser? And even when they did, the child was told that practically nothing could be done against the abuser, even when the elders on the judicial committee believed the child?
I think you will find that these questions, in their own way, come up in many non-JW cases, too. But we have a "process" that sometimes has "demanded" (in effect) that a JW investigation will turn out this way.
We are definitely not the only ones with the problem of trying to save the reputation of an organization and, because of that, forgetting about fighting for justice with respect to our "orphans." That is a subtext of many of these crimes in many different types of organizations. When it appears to an elder on a committee that we have an opportunity to either protect Jehovah's name or allow it to be sullied if the case were to make it to the police (or press) then this tendency will easily translate into protecting the accused, instead of protecting the victim. We may even have a greater tendency toward making this mistake because we think the stakes are so much higher in protecting Jehovah's name, than those on the outside who are trying to protect, for example, the reputation of a teacher in a school.  

The greater world places huge emphasis on punishing child sexual abuse, but relatively little on preventing it, unless it is figured that the example of punishment IS preventing it, but that idea hasn't exactly worked out, has it?
It may be that the Dutch authorities will uncover information as did the Australian Royal Commission, that while there are instances of abuse not coming to the attention of the authorities, there is much less of it to begin with in the JW community. The reason abuse is linked with Jehovah's Witnesses is that they have a policy of investigating it, along with all other types of wrongdoing. Had they not done so, instances of abuse would still have happened, but they would usually not be associated with religious affiation, as is the case elsewhere. 
Any group maintaining that its influence leads to greater morality ought to take steps to see that this is, in fact, the case. Romans says "You, the one saying 'do not steal,' do you steal? You, the one saying, 'do not commit adultery,' do you commit adultery?' It will not do with God to bury your head in the sand. You must be proactive to search out and investigate reports as they occur. Who else did this other than Jehovah's Witnesses? 
When I wrote 'Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah's Witnesses Write Russia,' almost as an afterthought I included a Part II, outlining what about Witnesses Russian authorities found so objectionable, along with defenses for those accusations. Almost as an afterthought again, I included a 9000+ word chapter 12, 'Pedophiles.' It is an accusation that has never arisen in Russia, but it has proven hot elsewhere. That chapter becomes one of the most relevent chapters of the book as time moves on. It is free, and I link to it here:
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/815620
 

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.
 

I can't for the life of me see why this kind of topic should be presented in such a sinister and threatening manner.
At the worst, investigations could reveal nothing. 
At the best, evil people who have wormed their way into the congregation will be exposed and ousted. The naivety of those inadvertantly contributing will be shown up and addressed. Processes will be reviewed and refined. Hopefully, victims will be acknowledged and gain some real benefit from the whole experience (although, sadly, this is not guaranteeed).
Admittedly, there are implications in terms of financial costs, time and attention of a large number of people, emotional impact on victims and their associates, reputational issues around perpetrators exposure, issues around mishandling and injustice due to distorted exaggeration driven by the bias and prejudice of opposers and those easily swayed by opinion, and the inevitable media brouhaha.
But really, what's to fear or to lose? Nothing changes in the greater scheme of things, but the immediate benefits far outweigh the costs.
I mean I am sure Bro Rutherford's experience was unpleasant at the time, but what was lost? And what was gained?

Pretty much exactly what anyone else does. Listen to a talk and think about the deceased, the sadness of death in general, and the potential joy in the resurrection hope.

Even in discussions of religion and what we personally believe about God's judgment of others, no one should tell another person --in so many words-- that they are going to be judged adversely. Then again it's easy to creatively work around such judgmental words and still say much the same thing.
We don't say: "You are going to hell!" (or Gehenna, or the lake of fire, or eternal oblivion). But as long as we don't make a habit of prickly accusations we could easily get away with "You are going to find yourself ending up in a place different from what you expect." To the person being judged, however, the meaning is ultimately the same thing. Yet, there are so many factors to consider:
Is a person who may or may not be using their real name in a forum really ever making a personal attack on another person who may or may not be using their real name? A discussion forum is just a set of personal opinions, and a discussion forum that tends toward religious topics is just a set of personal opinions about sets of personal opinions. The whole point of religion is to stake a claim that our opinions and interpretations about things that are largely unfathomable can still somehow reach a level that we can call "knowledge."  Biblical religion, perhaps especially so, is known for trash-talking other religions, and therefore any person who takes on another version of Biblical religion probably already knows that he or she should expect the kinds of judgmental opinions that are so common. Here are some historical examples that make the point: Look at Elijah and the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18:27. Did Elijah really have to imply that Baal was making a bowel movement? ( Holladay’s Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon says the verb could be translated as “bowel movement.”) For that matter did Elijah really have to massacre the prophets of Baal in the way he did? Was it so necessary to fling expressions of dung on false idols as was done so often in the Bible, in ways so that the expression "dungy idol" comes across as if it were using the "s" word? Note that before the Bible had used many expressions about the ultimate eternal fate of people that it sometimes creatively reminds us that a person deserved to be no more than, for example, dog p**p, or bird p**p. (Jezebel eaten up by dogs for example.) Anyway, the more creative idea that TTH had somehow dodged a future cosmic disaster by "Witness" not actually being one of the anointed was clever "trash talk." It was no more offensive to me than was a now-deleted initial post by Allen which referred to a generic list of unspecified sins or offenses by "Witness" that was so long as to be of Biblical proportion and which would result in bloodguilt before God at the time of judgment. Sure it was harsh and not clever, but what of it? We deal with topics about our belief in harsh judgments. The Bible itself is full of them. I vote for more leeway and flexibility.
Besides, did you notice who really did have the world spinning the wrong way as their primary backdrop for the Monthly Broadcast at tv.jw.org for three months before it was corrected? I called it to their attention (as did others, I assume) after the very first monthly broadcast in October 2014, and the next two broadcasts still had the earth spinning in the wrong direction. They didn't fix it until January 2015, and since then all is right with the world for these last 43 broadcasts up through the very latest (July 2018).

Claims of irrationality have always been levelled against witnesses who have experienced Gods great gift. "And we are witnesses of these matters, and so is the holy spirit, which God has given to those obeying him as ruler" Acts 5:29.
Compare: " “He has gone out of his mind." "Mark 5:21
                   " “You are going out of your mind, Paul!" " Acts 26:24
 If you believe that Jesus would have followed the superstitious and insulting pattern set by religious leaders in Israel of excluding God's personal name from His own word, then I feel you may well be spiritually floundering in human tradition.
For example, to think that Jesus would have quoted from Ps.110:1and intentionally ommit to include his Father's personal name beggars the imagination, and indeed is an affront to the "Faithful and True Witness"!
Why, even The Catholic Living Bible (with Impramatur) includes a pronouncable version of the holy name of the True God at this verse, "Jehovah said to my Lord the Messenger, "Rule as my regent - I will subdue your enemies and make them bow low before you." Ps.110:1. Was this an addition to the text?
Then, sadly, they acquiesce to the weight of religious traditionalism and, with red letters, render Jesus's use of this verse as "God said to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet." Matt.23:44.
No, the restoration of God's name in a pronouncable and specific form is to do justice to the text, and to follow in the pattern of someone of far more worth than scholars with their inconsistency , someone who stated in prayer to his heavenly Father "I have made your name known" John 17:26.
(I have included this response to your reference to NWT restoration here as you raised it here, but, with respect, I think the discussion around the inclusion of God's name in Scripture belongs elsewhere as a topic.)

This is why I have stated before, biblical hermeneutics is key to study, research and understanding, to learn and take in knowledge of who God is and his purpose and will means, who is his Son and how does the Holy Spirit play a role to the Son and to anyone it has been bestowed upon.And no, these are not tirade's as you claim for it is deep understanding of the truth, example, John 14 and 16, as to what has been address, you learned something, you didn't even know about gender forms until I brought it up, yet you remain oblivious to this fact and repeat yourself like a broken record. As it was said by many, a day will come when people will realize what the mainstream Christians of today's Christendom have been teaching what is deemed incorrect, luckily, Textual Criticism, as with hermeneutics and several other things to bring forth the truth of scripture to life. It is very evident, like pages before, you will repeat yourself time and time again, at this point to what you will repeat, an answer to such will be reposted here via link, you have no foundation here. And I believe I have addressed everything regarding what the Holy Spirit is and what it is described as, with biblical verses as proof also, and as of yet this so called personhood or Godhood of this make believe doctrine regarding the Holy Spirit is nowhere to be found, nor does it know the day or the hour, and it has not manifested into a being or a person or physically convinced a child, as to what you Trinitarians tend to believe, for truth will always be truth, falsehood will always be falsehood, and those who speak truth always defend it.
Jesus wants his followers to teach and adhere to the truth, unlike you, I have been to areas that people want a full explanation to this, that or why this is, etc. Those who are students are always eager to learn, like children, the very example of which Jesus himself made clear of when he used children as an example when it comes to learning about God's Kingdom, as well as the truth - the very truth of which the mainstream cannot accept.
Unfortunately you have to care, for there are those who tech very differently and far form the truth than others. Such a faith derive from Millenarianism, they hold a view of Biblical Unitarianism, which is indeed true. The irony is, your biggest problem is such ones do not really hold a view of Jesus' pre-existence, but I do, hence why I stated denominational as well as non-denominational Unitarians tend to agree/disagree with each other, for Buzzard will not agree with my view of Jesus' pre-existence and I do not agree with his view that Jesus didn't pre-existed. Other than that, despite such ones of that I even refute, I do not remain ignorant of their views.
Christadelpians belief on Satan The Devil: Christadelphians believe that the Satan or Devil is not an independent spiritual being or fallen angel. Devil is viewed as the general principle of evil and inclination to sin which resides in humankind. They are convinced that, dependent on the context, the term Satan in Hebrew merely means "opponent" or "adversary" and is frequently applied to human beings. Accordingly, they do not define hell as a place of eternal torment for sinners, but as a state of eternal death respectively non-existence due to annihilation of body and mind.
Christadelpians belief on Pre-exustence: The Christadelphian denial of the pre-existence of Christ.
The list goes on, but anyone who studies religion will know the views of a Millenarian Christian (clearly not even a Unitarian group, as you claim), any man who knows the Christology knows who they are and their beliefs, it is not mystery nor is it a secret. It is also safe to mention here also that Millenarians are fore Traditions of Men. It is not hard to know of their Christology, but clearly, you cannot compare them to those who believe that the Devil is a Spirit Being that once held a position in Heaven, and or those who believe that Jesus had pre-existed before he was on earth or even given the name Jesus, so that is where your fault remains in, but it is no surprise of the James Whiting that is being done here.
Clearly it is known even before the Devil became Satan, he was among the Spirit Beings/Persons who were in heaven until he rebelled, thus becoming God's adversary, becoming the Devil, named Satan for Satan means accuser or adversary (as well as resister), as for Devil, meaning slanderer, being called that because he is the Chef and foremost slander and false accuser aka The Father of Lies. Satan eventually had his influence on some of the angels, thus they became demons, and Satan is the ruler of these wicked spirits, in addition to those who disobeyed God, an example would be how several angels had fancied women on earth, had sexual relations with said women and bore children, the Nephilim, that would later proven themselves to be violent and brutal towards others in such a violent time. Clearly demons can be cut off from having access to God's dwelling place, that is, Heaven, and eventually Satan himself was cast out and he was hurled (banished) out of Heaven like that of falling lighting out of the sky.
Clearly my views pertaining to scripture it is very evident and trying to equal me to that of a millenarian is a poor attempt and very silly, despite the fact that months before you already know of my applications of what the bible says and what it teaches when the dishonesty being spouted had been exposed in said topic. The very reason it is important to care because such things like this will push one to view the Devil as a mere threat, the Devil, an adversary of God is no mere threat for he can cause any imperfect man to stumble, be it the man does not know it or not, for being alone or doing knowing is a sin right there and it leaves one exposed to the Devil's attacks and the welcome of his demons, such we have to be very careful about, this goes for the falsehood that is of the mainstream, for the Devil cannot triumph over those who profess what is true and strive to do what is true. For anything that is liked, it is expected for him and his demons to show and during that time, we will have to be ready for it, for Jesus is a fine example, for when the Devil had tempted him, Jesus prevailed, when the Devil succeeded in getting Jesus killed, he has still failed for God has resurrected Jesus, for when the Devil goes after the church, followers of Jesus prevailed, ones like Paul, who removed those who defiled the church, namely Hymenaeus and Alexander, when the Devil pushes false truths, those who take the scripture with utmost seriousness, will defend it, when the Devil prevents those in countries to not know who God is or never seen a bible in their life, God, who wants to make his Word made known, enables such ones to learn about the truth of the Bible.
 
That being said, those who claim the Holy Spirit is a Person are only of the Trinitarian Camp, and only them, but truth shows us as to what the Holy Spirit actually is and what it can do when it is poured out.

Yes, I think by mentioning his brothers, he is referring to more than just a neighbor and I believe he likely meant all Christians in principle, but more specifically all anointed Christians. I think this is clear in Hebrews 2:10 - 3:1, where Christ's "brothers" are explicitly described as "partakers of the heavenly calling."
But that might only make it worse.
My point starts with the explanation of the Matthew 25 parable as it was given in the ka book (God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years - Has Approached). The explanation shifted from what Jesus said in the parable to a point about how the other sheep since 1935 have come to the aid of the anointed, and the point of the parable is shifted to a new meaning coming from a separate parable in Mark 9:40 and Matthew 10:45 focusing on the "drink of water" and the fact that it was only because these other sheep knew fully that it was Christ's brothers they came to assist by joining them because they had literally and physically been thrown in prison and had literally hungered and thirsted.
*** ka chap. 14 pp. 277-278 pars. 47-48 Earthly Subjects of the Kingdom of God ***
Rather, those whom the parable-teller Jesus designates as “sheep” and calls “righteous” do discriminate fearlessly. They intelligently and deliberately do good to Christ’s “brothers” because they recognize these to be such. They believe these “brothers” are imitating Jesus Christ and are doing the work that he commanded them to do. It is for this reason that their acts of assistance to Christ’s brothers have a special merit in his sight, for acts of that kind have a real Christian motivation. Such view of matters Jesus made clear to his apostles, when he said: “He that is not against us is for us. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink on the ground that you belong to Christ, I truly tell you, he will by no means lose his reward.” (Mark 9:40, 41) “And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water to drink because he is a disciple, I tell you truly, he will by no means lose his reward.”—Matthew 10:42.  The historical records reveal that during their work of preaching the good news of God’s kingdom and making disciples of people of all the nations down to the year 1935 C.E., and thereafter, Christ’s spiritual “brothers” have literally hungered and thirsted, they have needed clothing, they have been strangers and homeless, they have got sick and even been put in prison unjustly.  
Here's one from a 1995 Watchtower:
*** w95 10/15 pp. 25-26 pars. 9-12 What Future for the Sheep and the Goats? ***
Ever since Satan was cast down to earth, he has made the remnant a special object of his fury, bringing on them ridicule, torture, and death.—Revelation 12:17.  Is Jesus saying that everyone doing a small kindness to one of his brothers, such as offering a piece of bread or a glass of water, qualifies as one of these sheep? . . .  On the contrary, Jesus twice called the sheep “righteous ones.” (Matthew 25:37, 46) So the sheep must be ones who over a period of time have come to the aid of—actively supporting—Christ’s brothers and have exercised faith to the extent of receiving a righteous standing before God. Over the centuries, many such as Abraham have enjoyed a righteous standing. (James 2:21-23) Noah, Abraham, and other faithful ones count among the “other sheep” who will inherit life in Paradise under God’s Kingdom. In recent times millions more have taken up true worship as other sheep and have become “one flock” with the anointed. (John 10:16; Revelation 7:9) These with earthly hopes recognize Jesus’ brothers as ambassadors of the Kingdom and have therefore aided them—literally and spiritually. Jesus counts as done to him what the other sheep do for his brothers on earth. Such ones who are alive when he comes to judge the nations will be judged as sheep. If the other sheep are now preaching the good news with the anointed and aiding them, why would they ask: “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty, and give you something to drink?” (Matthew 25:37) There could be various reasons. This is a parable. *** w66 3/15 p. 192 Questions From Readers ***
Those among them who manifest a love for righteousness and who do good things for Christ’s brothers out of respect for the fact that they are his spiritual brothers or anointed disciples, are really showing a favorable disposition toward and support of the King Jesus Christ himself. (Matt. 25:34-40) If these persons continue to pursue such a course of action, they will receive lasting benefits, for theirs is the prospect of life everlasting in Jehovah’s promised new order of things. It's easy to see a lot of things to criticize in these articles quoted above.
For one thing the parable emphasizes the surprise and the lack of knowledge about why it is that these sheep are gaining a reward. But our current view requires moving away from this parable to a different parable to make it seem as though these "sheep" are 100% aware of who Christ's brothers are, and that they are doing this on purpose with full knowledge that they are helping Christ's brothers. Another thing is that there is no mention of preaching work in the parable, yet the primary method of fulfillment is preaching. (This preaching requires knowledge of the thing heard, and yet the parable highlights their lack of understanding about how, for example, Jesus separates sheep and goats.) Another is that Jesus spoke of a reward for simply showing small act of kindness with no evident expectation of a reward, but the proper fulfillment supposedly requires not just preaching in support of the anointed, but an ongoing course of action. "If these persons continue to pursue such a course of action, they will receive lasting benefits." The transition from coming to the assistance of anointed who were literally in prison, and literally hungry and thirsty had to be done carefully, because once it was no longer material support, the focus could not be on the food. The feeding of the "faithful and discreet slave" is the contradiction to the way in which Matthew 24:45 is read, where only the Governing Body feed others now. This illustration confuses that point by having the "other sheep" feeding the hungry Governing Body. Also note the inaccuracy of statements like: "Ever since Satan was cast down to earth, he has made the remnant a special object of his fury, bringing on them ridicule, torture, and death." If 1914 is true, then this statement may also have been true for another decade or so, when 8 persons went to prison from 1918-1919 and when some were ridiculed for believing in pyramids, and the failed prophecy of 1925. But since then, and even since the Nazi persecution in Germany, it was not primarily the remnant who have been the special object of his fury. The brunt of that has been heaped upon the other sheep.  More recently there have been some updates to the specifics of the understanding, but it's still a core parable for a discussion of who will be saved:
*** w15 3/15 pp. 25-26 par. 2 Loyally Supporting Christ’s Brothers ***
Jehovah’s people have long been intrigued by this illustration and rightly so, for in it Jesus speaks about the fate of people. He reveals why some will receive everlasting life while others will be cut off in death forever. Our lives depend on our understanding the truths Jesus conveyed and acting on them. With so much at stake, we should ask: How has Jehovah progressively clarified our understanding of this illustration? Why can we say that the illustration emphasizes the importance of the preaching work? Who is it that receives the commission to preach? And why is now the time to be loyal to “the King” and to those he calls “my brothers”? . . . The outcome hinges on how they have treated the remaining ones of Christ’s spirit-anointed brothers on earth. With the end of this system so close at hand, how grateful we are that Jehovah has progressively shed light on this illustration and on the related illustrations recorded in Matthew chapters 24 and 25. . . . The illustration of the sheep and the goats shows that the anointed would have help. Therefore, one of the primary ways that those judged to be sheep show kindness to Christ’s brothers is by supporting them in the preaching work. What, though, is involved in providing that support? Does it consist only of material backing and emotional comfort, or is more required? . . . . The growing number of prospective sheep count it a privilege to support Christ’s brothers not only in the preaching work but also in other practical ways. For example, they give financial contributions and help to build Kingdom Halls, Assembly Halls, and branch facilities, and they loyally obey those appointed by “the faithful and discreet slave” to take the lead. In the current understanding, the changes are mostly about the time when the judgment that distinguishes sheep from goats, which has now been moved to the future instead of saying it happens now as "goats" react badly to our preaching work. The other sheep coming to the aid of the anointed with food, water, clothing, and visitation in prison now refers primarily to the ongoing preaching work by the other sheep, and minimally to "material backing and emotional comfort." And of course, as most of us rarely see or work with any of the anointed, the focus has moved in a greater way to showing loyal obedience to the Governing Body, also known now as the "faithful and discreet slave" who claim to represent the anointed. The implication of all the recent articles is that Christ's brothers, the anointed, also show they are sheep by loyally obeying the Governing Body. But many specific statements are still mostly about the "other sheep" supporting the "faithful and discreet slave" (GB) through loyal obedience, preaching and donations of resources.
These are perfectly legitimate ways to show our appreciation, but it appears not be the scriptural meaning of this particular parable.

Just this morning in field service a long time faithful brother who was working with us mentioned the Jonah video (we have had our convention already, no spoilers here as most know there is a Jonah video) and that the people repented after the judgement message. He said he was wondering whether during the judgement message that we are going to declare, there will be people that will "repent" and maybe not even get baptized, but will be judged favorably and not be destroyed just like the Ninevites.....Our understanding has been, and is still current it appears, is that when we declare the judgement message after Babylon the Great is destroyed ("the hailstone message") it will be too late for anybody. It was brought out in the talk "proclamation of the hailstone message"  that according to Revelation 16:21, the people will blaspheme God, so no repentance there evidently. However, I wonder how the brothers can be so sure that this hailstone message will be an actual proclamation, and made by us?  We had a little trial run some years ago with the "false religion is nearing its end" tract and a few thought this was it. But obviously it wasn't. How can we be so sure that this is what Revelation 16 is talking about? because it seems to me that since an angel is pouring out the seven bowls of God's anger it would be a supernatural occasion, plus it sounds more like Armageddon already.
It could be said that the preaching work we do now is a judgement message like that of Jonah. But I see a distinct difference. We tell people the good news, and to repent as per what Jesus instructed us. With Jonah however there was no good news and no mention of repentance, he went there to tell the people Nineveh WILL be overthrown no ifs or buts.
When our message supposedly changes from that of good news to judgement, how is that not going to be similar to Jonah's message?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by saying more related as if there was an unbalanced emphasis somewhere. I think we are all pretty clear that an organisational membership alone is no sole criteria for God's approval. But it is clear from Scripture that purely motivated good works is not the sole criteria either.
I suppose to get the real balance would be to define the "world" that we are to be without spot from. This would be the same world founded with the children of Adam and Eve, born outside of Eden and outside of an approved relationship with Jehovah, conceived and born in sin. Additionally, this same" world" consitutes the human family ruled over by the one called Satan who is referred to elsewhere as the "ruler of the world". As it's "ruler", he dominates it's thinking, aims and objectives, practices, institutions and whatever else you can think of. Being that humans were made in God's image and endowed with conscience, Satan has always had a bit of a problem in getting all of them to do what he wants , particularly when they are  exposed to the will of Jehovah in one form or another. So he has had to rule for the most part in a deceptive, coercive, and oppressive manner. His additional hatred for all things related to Jehovah has led him to devise ways means of insulting or blasphemiing Jehovah with the knowing or ignorant complicity of both spirit and human creatures. However, as a right to rule issue is at the core of this  endeavour of Satan's, often beneficial results of varying degrees have been provided by his "world" as he has sought to harness the godly side of human nature in his deceptive attempt to dupe and win the support of conflicted mankind.
This "world" under his control has been sophisticated into all manner of systems by it's ruler, all manifesting the spirit that characterises it's originator, essentially one of rebellion against godly standards and purpose. It produces fruitage or behavioural characteristics rooted in the biblical descriptions of "works of the flesh" (activities driven by unbridled , sinful inclinations), and manifest in the deterioration of human relations descrbed as characterising the "last days" though of course not limited to that specific time period.
So that's the world to remain unspotted by. That obviously includes having the proper motivation for good works if they are to be approved by God.They can clearly be performed with wrong and corrupt "worldly" motivation, rendering them valueless to the "doer", even if many receive benefits from them.. But it also includes much more than a pure motive with a clue from the words of Paul at 2Cor 6:17 on this matter
So, as long as we are clear that community cleanness, as well as personal integrity, is essential in our having worship that is acceptable to the Father, all is well.  ?
 

That "succinct" answer is a perfect example of the "skirting" I referred to earlier:
Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Feel That They Are the Only People Who Will Be Saved?
    No. Many millions who lived in centuries past and who weren’t Jehovah’s Witnesses will have an opportunity for salvation. The Bible explains that in God’s promised new world, “there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) Additionally, many now living may yet begin to serve God, and they too will gain salvation. In any case, it’s not our job to judge who will or won’t be saved. That assignment rests squarely in Jesus’ hands.—John 5:22, 27. First of all the more generally correct answer is YES, not NO. The question was do Jehovah's Witnesses FEEL that they are the only people who will be saved? In my opinion, millions of them do feel exactly that way, whether or not this matches the official position. In cleaning out 50 years of my parents house for the last week I have read a lot of my deceased grandmother's correspondence with elders, pioneers, and good friends she had all over the world. I was struck by the way assemblies attended in many different nations were often summarized. These ranged from the 1950's up to about 2010. Included in so many of them were expressions like: "Isn't it great to be associated with the only people whom Jehovah will spare through this old system."
Also if we look at the exact wording of the succinct answer you referred to, notice that it never says that anyone other than Jehovah's Witnesses will be saved through Armageddon. The answer is given as "NO" for only two reasons. The first reason is because many non-JWs from centuries past will have an opportunity for salvation through the resurrection. Presumably they will become Jehovah's Witnesses during the 1,000 year reign as we also teach that we will teach them. I'm sure you have also heard convention speakers talking about how in the resurrection we will hear stories from faithful men and women of Bible times, but then we will have the opportunity to teach them what Jehovah has been doing with us.
The second reason for saying the answer is "NO" also speaks vaguely about who may survive Armageddon: "Additionally, many now living may yet begin to serve God." (It's the new motto for the old "Millions" campaign.) This also does not say specifically that any non-JWs may survive Armageddon. Most Witnesses apparently presume that this means that our preaching work may result in more non-JWs becoming JWs.
This brings up another point about the idea that something nearly miraculous is yet to be seen in countries like China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, India, etc. Expecting that something like this might have to happen first is counter to the idea that the end may come at any time like a thief in the night. The end could happen 5 minutes after you fall asleep tonight, or before I click "Submit Reply." But that couldn't be true if we need to see a miraculous new distribution of JWs around the world, first.

This is a truly fascinating study. Thanks very much for sharing it.
I noted this passage: 
"In short, the citizens of both Thasos and Rhodes took steps to ensure that the families of fallen warriors would suffer no loss either socially or economically. It should also be clear that these steps were taken out of self-interest, not for pure humanitarian reasons. State-sponsored care for orphaned sons and daughters, as well as for elderly parents, was designed to remove impediments to military service and to ensure a continuous supply of citizen-soldiers in the future." 
which is a remarkable confirmation of Proverbs 12:10 "But even the mercy of the wicked is cruel."
However, in all this there is scant reference to Jehovah himself, who really is the greatest example of one caring for orphans, over and above His delegation of that duty. There can be no more glaring example of need than the forced orphanage and  subsequent abuse and exploitation of the human family at the hands of the manslayer, Satan the Devil. Jehovah's provisions, culminating in the Ransom Sacrifice, amongst many things, provide a basis for restoring the orphaned family of Adam to their relationship with their heavenly father, rather in the spirit of 2Cor.6:18: "“‘And I will become a father to you, and you will become sons and daughters to me,’ says Jehovah, the Almighty.”"
There is no plausible excuse for the neglect of orphans and widows amongst those who claim to represent the true God, Jehovah as His Witnesses today, which is why the enjoinder at James 1:27 is, (borrowing from Prof. John T. Fitzgerald), so apodictical.
"The form of worship that is clean and undefiled from the standpoint of our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation, and to keep oneself without spot from the world."
However, the final clause in that verse, with it's wider implications,  must not be overlooked. ?
.

Appreciated your commentary here. I have read such things in commentaries but often tend to forget the specific ways that these "lawyers" were taking advantage of a widow's property. I tend to try to think of ways that they might have been trying to use Scripture to take advantage of a widow's property. 
I can't think of the name of it, but I have a small book I once photocopied about Early Christianity and the Widows. It mentioned the early Christian novelette: "Acts of Paul and Thecla" (see also 3/15/2018 WT QFR) that reminds us that there really must have been a problem with traveling elders who took advantage of widows and others in ways reminding us of these scriptural warnings.
(2 Timothy 3:6) 6 From among these arise men who slyly work their way into households and captivate weak women loaded down with sins,. . . (Titus 1:11) . . .because these very men keep on subverting entire households by teaching things they should not for the sake of dishonest gain. I noticed that an article here, linked below, ties the idea of a religious obligation in taking care of widows using both James 1:27 and 2 Tim 5:3-9, tying verse 4 more directly to verse 8 than we usually do: https://www.ajol.info/index.php/actat/article/viewFile/146038/135550
(1 Timothy 5:4-8) 4 But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let these learn first to practice godly devotion in their own household and to repay their parents and grandparents what is due them, for this is acceptable in God’s sight. . . .  8 Certainly if anyone does not provide for those who are his own, and especially for those who are members of his household, he has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith.  

@JW Insider @Shiwiii Seconded. Then we have things pertaining to those being resurrected, for the earth will give birth to the dead, as some translations would say, or simply put, the earth will let those powerless in death come to life. For some who do not believe in the "all good people go to heaven" doctrine, they grasp what their counterparts cannot, and that is what the new creation entails, in addition, we have those who have their hope in the resurrection itself in addition to eternal life, for the reason they believe in what the new creation will bring, that is the new heavens and earth, all things that has cause mankind to stumble and or commit vile things will cease, for we can look for those who do such acts, but they will not be there, they won't be to the east of you, nor will they be to the west, nowhere at all, as Psalms 37:10 states: In just a little while, the wicked will be no more; though you look carefully at his place, he will not be there.
For God's Kingdom itself will provide such, for God will act through for His chosen Messianic King to bring back those in out o the dead by a great multitude, and to some, what they really want is to see those who succumb to death and they know only God has the power to reverse that and will execute his promises when the time comes.
We do not know how things will play out exactly, but it is certain, the bible gives us a variety of evidence of what we are to expect should we come to understand what we read, that is, if we are to endure truly until the conclusion of things itself.

Didn't a trusted channel say last year "It has also been observed that fraudulent social media accounts and websites have been created in the name of the organisation, the Governing Body, and its individual members. However, no member of the Governing Body maintains a personal web page or a presence on any social media site"
 

@Shiwiii I appreciate the points and the thought you put into this. I do not believe that all these verses prove the same point. But I agree with something that @Space Merchant had said about how these promises about the earth which are also prevalent in the Hebrew Scriptures, are often tied into Jehovah's overall purpose. I don't actually know that we can state definitively what will become of the planet, and in what way the Bible means that God will reside with mankind. But the overall view presented in Watchtower publications makes a lot of sense of these verses in their totality.
Here we also have a scripture stating that the old Heavens is gone, dead, passed away. Could this be a restoration of the Heavens? What makes the heavens new is the new Kingdom, the new reign, the new order. We could say the same about the Earth. You make a statement showing that you also believe there is a new earth, possibly in some sense "physical," which the new Jerusalem comes down to.
The rendering of a verse in 2 Corinthians, below, matches the ideas of Rev 21 & 22. I don't see it necessary to imagine the literal existing heavens hissing away for the verses to be fulfilled. I suppose it's a matter of whether we understand the same things to be figurative or symbolic and which ones we see as literal.
I will live in them and move among them. 
I will be their God. 
They will be My people. 
'So, come away from them! 
Be separate!' says the Lord. (2 Cor. 6:16,17 SEB)

We should preach because we want people to share the joy that we share. We don't preach because we are making choices about who seems most worthy of becoming a JW. If that were true I think we would be looking into better ways to get to territories we can't currently reach very well or very often. Instead we repeatedly hit the easiest territories, and the most popular in my congregation appear to be the ones from which our average demographic is mirrored. Rarely do I see a Witness go out of their way to speak to a homeless man or people in shelters. "Old Folks Homes" (assisted living) are worked hap-hazardly. We are not the ones doing any of the saving. Our preaching, in fact, is much like the way the mouth naturally speaks out of the abundance of the heart. It's a joy to share good things with our neighbor. In another sense, it's a bit like prayer. Jehovah can read our thoughts constantly and there is no specific need for Jehovah to listen to a specific prayer to know who we are what we need how sincere we are in asking for forgiveness, etc. But just like with another human, we should find our relationship with Jehovah to be warmer and closer when we take the time and focus to speak about our petitions, supplications, and burdens. It's our chance to speak out of the abundance of our heart.

I believe that this concern is mainly because we have been taught directly or indirectly that, since we are the people of God, we are the only ones who are going to be saved. The answer in our web site: https://www.jw.org/es/testigos-de-jehová/preguntas-frecuentes/quiénes-se-salvarán/#?insight[search_id]=8560e19f-338c-4efb-bf59-5054f29e9164&insight[search_result_index]=0  is politically correct, but not  fully sincere. @JW Insider has already mention this.
Almost every Witness firmly believe the world (of people alienated from God) will perish. Why preach then, if other people supposedly be saved without our efforts?
Proof of this doctrine:
·        Those who were in the ark were saved, but nobody was. ·        Those who left Sodom were saved, not those who remained. ·        The world will be divided between sheep -saved- and goats -destroyed-. There will be no third class ·        Those who do not obey the good news will "burn" in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction (2Th 1;8-9) ·        Many others points  
But, let’s consider:
 
The goats will be judged according to their attitude to Jesu’s brothers. But what if in a particular place of the planet never the Bible has reached. Or in some mental institution. Would not it be unfair be judged as not supporter of Christ’s brother if this person never has ben in touch with any Chris’s brother, not even any JW’s? Some wicked will be “buried” for lack of obedience to the Good News. But what if they never heard the good news? Lot’s daughters are a weak model of morality if we’re going to be represented by them Yes, many brothers feel more comfortable thinking that Jehovah will produce an almost miraculous event so that the good news reaches every corner on Earth. Or that God will make the right people meet with Witnesses. And that is perfectly possible!
But, if He chooses to forgive those who have not had the opportunity to "be with us" (Mark 9:40) will anyone dare to criticize Him? Will someone say: if I get to know that God is going to save them too, I would not have preached so much? --Jonah 4: 2  I do not!
 
 

“Beware of the scribes ......They devour the houses of the widows...." Mark 12:38,40
The scribes were gaining monetary support from those ill-equipped to give it. One of their teachings was that the greatest act was to give money to a teacher. There is little to illuminate on what actually went on here but some historians have suggested encouragement for lavish gifts, mismanagement of the property of widows dedicating themselves to temple service, charging of exorbitant legal fees and expenses for estate management on behalf of widows. This was very much a man's world. Even sponging on hospitality has been suggested although the "devouring" description indicates a more sinister practice such as "squandering". This matches the activity of the Prodigal son in his squandering of his father's resources on fleshly pursuits (prostitutes). Luke 15:30.
In any event, this heinous practice cannot be over condemned. Jehovah provided amply for Israel in order to delegate to them the requirement to provide for widows. The scribes enriching themselves at the widow's expense and then showily making so called gifts out of their consequent surplus into the temple contribution box constitutes one of the most cynically, offensive actions any apostate religionist in Israel could have taken.
And yet that widow still trusted in Jehovah' s arrangement, despite the conduct of those entrusted with its stewardship. It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to see that functioning within an arrangement (organisation), regardless of it's divine origins and sanction would not serve as a guarantee of God's favour anymore than rejecting it on the basis of the behaviour of hypocrites within it. The widow still trusted in Jehovah and supported His organisation (arrangement) with all she had left. 

That is the logical conclusion of course. Unless we look at our preaching as an opportunity to express our faith and teach others like Jesus said we should. I suppose it is up to Jehovah how he handles the part where no one gets a chance to ever hear (such as India and China and other places like that) and I am confident he will handle it with love and justice. That is why I think (my opinion) that we (the org.) is being a little presumptuous  in saying that only Jehovah's Witnesses will be saved (specifically go through Armageddon) HOWEVER, it IS what the scriptures indicate. I am talking about non Christian religions, (which have billions of adherents!). And when the Bible talks about "doing good to Christ's brothers" (assuming he means other people, whether religious or not) then that would make the other parts of the scriptures where it is clearly stated that to be saved one must believe in Jesus, questionable. The only way around that would be if that scripture was applied after Armageddon where the people would be given a chance to be informed and then choose. The ones who would go through Armageddon would be ones who have had their hearts read and were seen as having potential of accepting Jesus. These are just my musings