JW Insider

Yikes! I said nothing about "proof" in either a situation of nations slinging accusations, nor did I even say that sexual abuse can be proven by hidden info that only trained experts can recognize. Proof (and by that I suppose you mean incontrovertible or overwhelming evidence) is rarely a part of sexual abuse allegations, except in extreme circumstances (multiple eyewitnesses, rape kits, video, DNA). Usually, a predator leaves only victims who he (or she) believes will never come forward to complain. (Most young victims don't complain until many years later -- based on fear, threat, "guilt," lack of understanding, lack of trust in any confidants.) But he often leaves circumstantial evidence based on patterns of grooming the victim(s), patterns of characteristics among the types of victims chosen, patterns of controlling the victims, patterns in the methods to gain time alone with victims. These become things to watch out for when trying to protect our children from suspected predators, too. But predators evolve their methods and may try dozens of "patterns."
There is nothing that can re-define child abuse "proof."
No. They need to understand such situations better for nearly the opposite reason. So they can understand the complexities, and know why they are not relying upon themselves to make legal and criminal determinations. Also, they can have more empathy for all involved, and realize that the perpetrator is going to be an expert liar, and will appear completely innocent. They should also realize that the victim will, more often than not, appear to be a complete liar, appear "guilty" of something, with inconsistencies in the story, his or her memories, timelines, etc. They may appear hateful and spiteful and unchristian, while the perpetrator may appear godly and humble and caring and concerned. They should realize what I said above about the unlikelihood of "proof" of any kind.

This is actually a valid musing. I see the outrage regarding the child abuse issue as an evidence of one of the last sparks of morality in a dying and corrupt civilisation. 
This issue has extraodinary emotive power in many circles. Despite the prevalence of institutionalised wholesale abuse in the form of abortion; confused censorship; inadequate, inconsistent legislation; resistance to proper investigation; recruiting of child-soldiers; human trafficking; inequitable access to food, medicine, education, and whatever else one cares to list, there's nothing so attention grabbing as accusations of child abuse and/or the suggestion that such depraved and appalling behaviour should be tolerated and allowed anywhere.
In the light of the Scripture's presentation of Christians as prime targets of a spiritual enemy, with toxic influence far more dangerous than Novichock, why should we think their institutions would be immune to infiltration by that most insidiously deceptive of all criminals, the child abuser? Or why would individuals within their ranks be any less susceptible to the torrent of living-room piped,  immoral effluent found on the internet? Even a most conservative estimator of this content, Dr. Ogi Ogas, commented "Fourteen per cent of searches and 4% of websites devoted to sex really are very significant numbers, when you stop to ponder it." And then of course , in birth itself there is no religious discrimination in it's apportioning of genetic malfunction.
But that spiritual enemy is expert at fanning sparks of humanity into flames of bigotry and intolerance as he aims his fiery missiles into the unwary and unguarded hearts of hapless men. By means of this issue, he reduces rational, decent humans into prejudiced, unreasonable witch-hunters, clawing at each others throats, trading accusation and insult, deflecting attention to any one but the real enemy, whilst his worm-like minions advance unchecked, the cries of his victims continue, as if unheard.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/18/cases-of-child-sexual-abuse-up-31-says-nspcc
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/services-and-resources/research-and-resources/statistics/
http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/media-room/media-kit/national-statistics-child-abuse
https://www.statista.com/statistics/639375/number-of-child-abuse-cases-in-the-us/

I see the same thing, and it's usually overkill. It's often not limited to just wanting to have a serious discussion about process and practice and doctrinal issues. Some is out of anger at the organization, obviously, and therefore includes typical spite from ex-JWs. Some is out of the iconoclastic desire to tear down something that is essentially good but they perceive it as claiming itself to be "perfect." But there is little chance of this being discussed thoroughly among JWs in a congregational setting, or in a monthly broadcast. There is little chance that JW.ORG will ever include a comments section. So this is still about as good a place as any I know to discuss it with others who might wish to put some depth and thought into fixing it.
Perhaps it does. And perhaps your point is true.  But a scale can balance rotten fish with rotten vegetables. It would still be good to know if the counterpoint is valid.

Allen, Your point should be the same as mine, and it would be a shame (literally) if it is isn't. I understand as well as anyone why you think that a knee-jerk reaction to protect the reputation of the organization is so important. I've been there myself. And sometimes that reaction is correct and on-track. But there are times when justice is more important than protecting a reputation. When we put ourselves on the side of justice we are defending Jehovah's reputation, and this is better for the organization, too, in the long run. There are times when unrighteousness should be exposed. It is short-sighted to think that we are defending Jehovah's name by covering up what is bad. 
So, my point is that the problem is bad, because every instance of child abuse is bad -- even if our statistics are better than someone else's. If you don't think the problem is bad, then I don't trust that you are are doing everything you can to reduce the problem. We should advocate for children. We should advocate for justice. And we need to do more about this reputation we have earned, as an organization, for trying to hide the extent of the problem. It makes us look like we would prefer ignoring or hiding the problem rather than admit that the problem is bad.
I don't think your insult has any basis. You say that people like me threw incorrect information out there without first understanding secular law. I can't speak for what others know or don't know about secular law, but I saw no instances where your insult applied to anything I said on the subject. I don't recall anything JTR said on this subject, but I do recall several of the things Anna said, and I don't think either of us stated anything incorrect or conflicting with respect to secular law. Both of us, as I recall, discussed the value of Brother Jackson requesting a legal change with respect to a consistent requirement for reporting, in all cases, which would resolve a large portion of the inconsistencies. As I recall, we both discussed this long before you yourself mentioned that you also agree with Brother Jackson's recommendation as a resolution for many issues.
If you really think I said something incorrect, I welcome the correction. But with you it's usually just bluster, obfuscation, vagueness, and braggadocio. I hope this isn't more of the same.
I don't condemn the Watchtower for inaction. I have long stated that the Watchtower Society has made many excellent changes with respect to these crimes in the past decade especially, and even some good changes to policy and procedure in the last two years. Perhaps you think you are trying to impress an audience who doesn't know any better when you make up false things about people you don't seem to want to get along with. If you have facts, that's great, but please leave aside all the acting and histrionics.
There are not many way to make sense of that statement of yours. The trouble seems to lie in your attempt to fit too many untruths in a single sentence without thinking clearly about the issue. To be clear I am not excusing anything. I am "blatantly" trying to get to truth of the "90% claim." If you have any facts to add, great! As you can see, you probably weren't thinking clearly at all when you said I was "condemning the use of other religious statistics." I was the one who just recommended the use of other religious statistics for comparison.
If you don't like this topic, Allen, you are free to avoid it, but please don't fill it with untruths for your own purposes.

Child molestation occurs in many large organizations--religious, governmental, and academic--that in itself is not a red flag. When it continues unabated, that's when there's a problem.
It is clear that the JW organization has an ongoing problem with child abuse. When confronted on this issue, the org had the opportunity to make positive reforms and reevaluate its policies. Instead, the org staunchly defended the policies that have created the problems in the first place. They've used the two-witness Bible principle as a crutch for their inaction through the years--a fact they're very proud of in the JW Broadcast. There is this smugness among the JW leadership, as if Jehovah God approves of elder inaction that gives predators a free pass to continue preying on children. The ego and lack of accountability by those taking the lead is alarming. I'm not sure how they reconcile all this exposure with their own conscience. In situations like this, where proactive action is vital, there is actually a laissez-faire attitude by the org. Why? It is the moral obligation of the elders to protect the flock: not only the victim but other potential victims. This is not like other sins--this is predatory and hurts others. To drag your feet isn't an option.
The secular authorities can be an important resource to elders in investigating and uncovering abuse (a capability that the elders lack), but the org emphasizes an avoidance of police involvement as much as possible. Why is this? Why the mistrust of authorities? This is something JWs must ponder. Where are the org's priorities? Saving face or protecting their own?
The org has made itself a martyr to worldly entities that dare question their abuse policies. Their policies have created actual victims to abuse, but the org has twisted it to make itself the victim! And that's the way "in" JWs perceive these inquiries--as attacks by Satan. Has the Watchtower "addressed" this issue to its adherents as another board member suggested? No. It continues to proport itself as a spiritual paradise and ethically superior to any other organization on earth. These inquiries like the ARC are nothing of substance--nothing more than Satan's attacks on the true religion. So information is being heavily distorted by the org to its adherents--another alarming reality. Because child molestation is a huge problem in the org, and its policies play a part in it. But JWs are ignorant to this and are consequently put in a dangerous position. It is our responsibility to seek the TRUTH...if it wasn't for independent research I wouldn't have know about the ARC or Candace Conti or any of the lawsuits. We can't accept the distorted reality the org is selling.

Allen, Your point should be the same as mine, and it would be a shame (literally) if it is isn't. I understand as well as anyone why you think that a knee-jerk reaction to protect the reputation of the organization is so important. I've been there myself. And sometimes that reaction is correct and on-track. But there are times when justice is more important than protecting a reputation. When we put ourselves on the side of justice we are defending Jehovah's reputation, and this is better for the organization, too, in the long run. There are times when unrighteousness should be exposed. It is short-sighted to think that we are defending Jehovah's name by covering up what is bad. 
So, my point is that the problem is bad, because every instance of child abuse is bad -- even if our statistics are better than someone else's. If you don't think the problem is bad, then I don't trust that you are are doing everything you can to reduce the problem. We should advocate for children. We should advocate for justice. And we need to do more about this reputation we have earned, as an organization, for trying to hide the extent of the problem. It makes us look like we would prefer ignoring or hiding the problem rather than admit that the problem is bad.
I don't think your insult has any basis. You say that people like me threw incorrect information out there without first understanding secular law. I can't speak for what others know or don't know about secular law, but I saw no instances where your insult applied to anything I said on the subject. I don't recall anything JTR said on this subject, but I do recall several of the things Anna said, and I don't think either of us stated anything incorrect or conflicting with respect to secular law. Both of us, as I recall, discussed the value of Brother Jackson requesting a legal change with respect to a consistent requirement for reporting, in all cases, which would resolve a large portion of the inconsistencies. As I recall, we both discussed this long before you yourself mentioned that you also agree with Brother Jackson's recommendation as a resolution for many issues.
If you really think I said something incorrect, I welcome the correction. But with you it's usually just bluster, obfuscation, vagueness, and braggadocio. I hope this isn't more of the same.
I don't condemn the Watchtower for inaction. I have long stated that the Watchtower Society has made many excellent changes with respect to these crimes in the past decade especially, and even some good changes to policy and procedure in the last two years. Perhaps you think you are trying to impress an audience who doesn't know any better when you make up false things about people you don't seem to want to get along with. If you have facts, that's great, but please leave aside all the acting and histrionics.
There are not many way to make sense of that statement of yours. The trouble seems to lie in your attempt to fit too many untruths in a single sentence without thinking clearly about the issue. To be clear I am not excusing anything. I am "blatantly" trying to get to truth of the "90% claim." If you have any facts to add, great! As you can see, you probably weren't thinking clearly at all when you said I was "condemning the use of other religious statistics." I was the one who just recommended the use of other religious statistics for comparison.
If you don't like this topic, Allen, you are free to avoid it, but please don't fill it with untruths for your own purposes.

Under another topic which was unrelated to child abuse issues, the claim was put forward (again) that JWs may have only a tenth of the problem that others have with child abuse. As TTH put it recently:
TTH has stated this multiple times and in various ways now, also stating that JWs have found "a solution that cuts occurrences by 90%." TTH didn't start this idea, it was in another persons post, which may have based it on some very questionable numbers that came out of the Australian Royal Commission.
I don't know if anyone can give an accurate accounting statistically, but if we are going to make such statements it's a good idea to start somewhere to see why they are being used. I will first present some numbers which appear to contradict the claim, and anyone who has anything different should, of course, join in if they think it's important to figure it out more accurately.
In past months, I reported on the outrageous numbers that have been reported against the Catholic Church institutions, including their schools, where 7% of all Catholic priests have been accused of child abuse. Of course this represents an average in various diocese and institutions, where it might run as low as 0% in some, and as high as 25% in others. Even a high percentage of Catholic nuns in one institution had been accused of child sexual abuse. The nuns had a relatively small percentage when compared to another institution where the rate of accused priests and "Brothers" reached nearly 40%. It was a Catholic institution that was set up to care for children with mental disabilities. [The term "Brothers" in this context is a title which doesn't have the generic meaning it has among JWs.]  The BBC interviewed several people who seriously stated that the Catholic Church should be charged with running a "criminal" organization.
I think it is probably obvious to all of us that such levels of child abuse among the highest levels of church institutional leaders cannot be compared with the Witnesses, where the problem is not nearly so bad. There are also issues of comparing Catholic leaders such as bishops, priests and deacons and the counting of all problems among the entire congregations of JWs, not just elders and ministerial servants ("deacons"). But this doesn't mean the problem is not bad.
I'll start throwing out some quotes I've read about what the ARC reported about JWs, the Uniting Church, and the Catholic Church. [The Uniting Church is a kind of conglomerate of Presbyterian/Methodist/Congregationalist churches in Australia.]
You may need a subscription to this Australian paper "The Australian" or an account with a university or newspapers.com to see the entire content of the article that shows up in Google as follows for MEDIA WATCH DOG Friday March 17, 2017 :
 
  ----quotation-------
Here’s some news which the ABC and Fairfax Media do not regard as fit-to-print. Over the past four decades, a child in Australia was much more likely to suffer sexual abuse at a school or institution run by the Uniting Church than at a school or institution run by the Catholic Church.
The ABC and Fairfax Media – along with The Guardian and The Saturday Paper – have given extensive coverage to allegations against the Catholic Church made at the Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The ABC’s Samantha Donovan and Philippa McDonald and Louise Milligan along with Fairfax Media’s Rachel Browne and Joanne McCarthy have been perhaps the most outspoken of the journalists regularly reporting the Royal Commission in so far as the crimes of pedophile Catholic priests and brothers have been concerned.
The ABC and Fairfax Media gave considerable coverage to the statement by Counsel Assisting Gail Furness SC on 6 February 2017 that 4445 people alleged instances of child sexual abuse within Catholic schools or institutions up until 2015. Most media focused on the statement by Ms Furness that “7 per cent of priests were alleged perpetrators”.
However, virtually no media attention was given to Ms Furness’s subsequent clarification on 16 February 2017, with reference to the Catholic Church:
In other words, within the Catholic Church the vast majority of allegations of pedophilia were made with respect to alleged crimes in the period 1950 to 1989 with close to a third of all allegations relating to the decade of the 1970s. That is, most of the allegations relate to instances of close to four decades ago and are historical crimes.
In what was called the “Catholic Wrap”, Royal Commission chairman Justice Peter McClellan devoted 15 entire days to examining the Catholic Church. Hearings were held between 6 February 2017 and 26 February 2017.
On Friday 10 March 2017, the Royal Commission devoted only half a day each to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Uniting Church of Australia. Yet the evidence suggests that, on a per capita basis, there were more pedophiles in each church combined than in the Catholic Church – especially in the 1990s and subsequent decades. . . .
The statistics available to the Royal Commission with respect to the Uniting Church cover the period from 1977 to the present. That is, unlike the Catholic Church and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the allegations do not relate to a period going back to 1950.
There were 2504 instances or allegations of child sexual abuse made in the Uniting Church in the period 1977 to 2017 compared with 4445 instances in the Catholic Church covering the period 1950 to 2015. Yet the Uniting Church is about a fifth of the size of the Catholic Church. And its data covers four decades whereas the Catholic Church’s data covers over six decades. Moreover, evidence available to the Royal Commission indicates that virtually all offending by Catholic priests took place before 1990. Not so, apparently, with the Uniting Church.
On this evidence, child sexual assaults in the Uniting Church have been more prevalent than in the Catholic Church – especially in the years since 1990. This despite the fact that the Uniting Church has married male priests and female priests. There is no celibacy requirement within the Uniting Church and no sacrament of confession (in which the Royal Commission has taken a special interest concerning the Catholic Church).
Yet you would not be aware of any of this if you followed only the reporting of the Royal Commission by the ABC, Fairfax Media, The Guardian and The Saturday Paper. It seems the likes of Samantha Donovan, Philippa McDonald, Louise Milligan, Joanne McCarthy and Rachel Browne did not come back from lunch on Friday 10 February and simply missed the coverage of sexual child abuse in the Uniting Church in the four decades since 1977.
---end of quotation-----
I downloaded that Excel spreadsheet from the ARC (once posted here) that gave limited information about each of the JW cases, and should note that even cases that went back to the 1970's were evidently not there because there was any regular record-keeping by JWs going back that far. They could have been included when a case recorded decades later was found to be applicable to an instance or accusation from a much earlier date.

Under another topic which was unrelated to child abuse issues, the claim was put forward (again) that JWs may have only a tenth of the problem that others have with child abuse. As TTH put it recently:
TTH has stated this multiple times and in various ways now, also stating that JWs have found "a solution that cuts occurrences by 90%." TTH didn't start this idea, it was in another persons post, which may have based it on some very questionable numbers that came out of the Australian Royal Commission.
I don't know if anyone can give an accurate accounting statistically, but if we are going to make such statements it's a good idea to start somewhere to see why they are being used. I will first present some numbers which appear to contradict the claim, and anyone who has anything different should, of course, join in if they think it's important to figure it out more accurately.
In past months, I reported on the outrageous numbers that have been reported against the Catholic Church institutions, including their schools, where 7% of all Catholic priests have been accused of child abuse. Of course this represents an average in various diocese and institutions, where it might run as low as 0% in some, and as high as 25% in others. Even a high percentage of Catholic nuns in one institution had been accused of child sexual abuse. The nuns had a relatively small percentage when compared to another institution where the rate of accused priests and "Brothers" reached nearly 40%. It was a Catholic institution that was set up to care for children with mental disabilities. [The term "Brothers" in this context is a title which doesn't have the generic meaning it has among JWs.]  The BBC interviewed several people who seriously stated that the Catholic Church should be charged with running a "criminal" organization.
I think it is probably obvious to all of us that such levels of child abuse among the highest levels of church institutional leaders cannot be compared with the Witnesses, where the problem is not nearly so bad. There are also issues of comparing Catholic leaders such as bishops, priests and deacons and the counting of all problems among the entire congregations of JWs, not just elders and ministerial servants ("deacons"). But this doesn't mean the problem is not bad.
I'll start throwing out some quotes I've read about what the ARC reported about JWs, the Uniting Church, and the Catholic Church. [The Uniting Church is a kind of conglomerate of Presbyterian/Methodist/Congregationalist churches in Australia.]
You may need a subscription to this Australian paper "The Australian" or an account with a university or newspapers.com to see the entire content of the article that shows up in Google as follows for MEDIA WATCH DOG Friday March 17, 2017 :
 
  ----quotation-------
Here’s some news which the ABC and Fairfax Media do not regard as fit-to-print. Over the past four decades, a child in Australia was much more likely to suffer sexual abuse at a school or institution run by the Uniting Church than at a school or institution run by the Catholic Church.
The ABC and Fairfax Media – along with The Guardian and The Saturday Paper – have given extensive coverage to allegations against the Catholic Church made at the Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The ABC’s Samantha Donovan and Philippa McDonald and Louise Milligan along with Fairfax Media’s Rachel Browne and Joanne McCarthy have been perhaps the most outspoken of the journalists regularly reporting the Royal Commission in so far as the crimes of pedophile Catholic priests and brothers have been concerned.
The ABC and Fairfax Media gave considerable coverage to the statement by Counsel Assisting Gail Furness SC on 6 February 2017 that 4445 people alleged instances of child sexual abuse within Catholic schools or institutions up until 2015. Most media focused on the statement by Ms Furness that “7 per cent of priests were alleged perpetrators”.
However, virtually no media attention was given to Ms Furness’s subsequent clarification on 16 February 2017, with reference to the Catholic Church:
In other words, within the Catholic Church the vast majority of allegations of pedophilia were made with respect to alleged crimes in the period 1950 to 1989 with close to a third of all allegations relating to the decade of the 1970s. That is, most of the allegations relate to instances of close to four decades ago and are historical crimes.
In what was called the “Catholic Wrap”, Royal Commission chairman Justice Peter McClellan devoted 15 entire days to examining the Catholic Church. Hearings were held between 6 February 2017 and 26 February 2017.
On Friday 10 March 2017, the Royal Commission devoted only half a day each to the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Uniting Church of Australia. Yet the evidence suggests that, on a per capita basis, there were more pedophiles in each church combined than in the Catholic Church – especially in the 1990s and subsequent decades. . . .
The statistics available to the Royal Commission with respect to the Uniting Church cover the period from 1977 to the present. That is, unlike the Catholic Church and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the allegations do not relate to a period going back to 1950.
There were 2504 instances or allegations of child sexual abuse made in the Uniting Church in the period 1977 to 2017 compared with 4445 instances in the Catholic Church covering the period 1950 to 2015. Yet the Uniting Church is about a fifth of the size of the Catholic Church. And its data covers four decades whereas the Catholic Church’s data covers over six decades. Moreover, evidence available to the Royal Commission indicates that virtually all offending by Catholic priests took place before 1990. Not so, apparently, with the Uniting Church.
On this evidence, child sexual assaults in the Uniting Church have been more prevalent than in the Catholic Church – especially in the years since 1990. This despite the fact that the Uniting Church has married male priests and female priests. There is no celibacy requirement within the Uniting Church and no sacrament of confession (in which the Royal Commission has taken a special interest concerning the Catholic Church).
Yet you would not be aware of any of this if you followed only the reporting of the Royal Commission by the ABC, Fairfax Media, The Guardian and The Saturday Paper. It seems the likes of Samantha Donovan, Philippa McDonald, Louise Milligan, Joanne McCarthy and Rachel Browne did not come back from lunch on Friday 10 February and simply missed the coverage of sexual child abuse in the Uniting Church in the four decades since 1977.
---end of quotation-----
I downloaded that Excel spreadsheet from the ARC (once posted here) that gave limited information about each of the JW cases, and should note that even cases that went back to the 1970's were evidently not there because there was any regular record-keeping by JWs going back that far. They could have been included when a case recorded decades later was found to be applicable to an instance or accusation from a much earlier date.

True, for the blind tends to lead the blind and have monetary gain that does not contribute to anything regarding God, the Great Commission, etc. As for obedience, those entrusted to lead tend to be Shepherd, and only those who are true to their role are to guide people by means of scripture - and who is chosen and who these people are is between God and them, for God is capable of anointing and putting those in place to be as guides while others assume God has place them to lead when they in turn teach a false doctrine.
Perhaps because they are among the 8 out of the hundreds who are still out there for such persons of such a position is between them and God, so the who part is already obvious - for the chosen one and or anointed can be seen by their faith and works, despite being imperfect human beings.
We know this by reading, Romans 8:13-17, John. 1:9-13, James. 1:17-18, 2 Corinthians 5:17, etc. verses that cross-reference to the ones mention
For those who are chosen is only known by their works and faith and by Holy Spirit upon them, of how they are chosen, it is between them and God the Father.
That being said, what should raise question is how many are alive still, and how many have deceased and been rewarded position of priesthood - but the majority of concern for many Christians who are not blind, is how many are alive for even in the end time tribulations only few of the chosen ones are to remain, and 144,000 isn't a big number, so anything goes between now and however among of days, months, years, etc left.
As I was told at a younger age, end times and tribulation will happen suddenly, I use to have dreams of what it would be like, what would take place, how the people would react, how violent people can get when things start to break and fall apart as if the world shut down, for at the time I thought of it taking place when I was still a boy, and then Harmageddon where everything concludes.

It isn't rubbish. If you've been around the block a few times as some may have, in my case the numerous debates I have seen as well as in person ones will say the same thing, hence better to be close to what is true than far from it.
As for the war, I agree with you, for in the past (now even) Catholics, Christians and Muslims have been going at it back in ancient times, mainly Christians and Muslims, with the Christians being front and center alongside the Catholics. Some have no other choice but to fight, others were pretty much persuaded to fight as they were being threaten.
As for today, there is a large amount of Christians who are for politics and war while another group is against it and will not partake, some Christians however, feel that it is their duty to defend for it is the only choice - then comes the question: would a Christian take a life of another Christian, who is also pushed to or persuaded to defend his or her country from outside forces, who also have Christians on their side?
An example would be the Seventh Day Adventist, for they are more likely the type of Christians, like some of the mainstream ones, to go at it with others.
All in all, we are not to be the type of people to take part in these things, I have already read in depth about what happen to the Christians in Syria and Christians who were for that madness, as with other things, should be very ashamed of themselves.
This is an example of what Christian Nationalist who are in support of also taking lives via cold blooded murder thinking it is worth it and for the greater good.
 
On the other side of the spectrum, there are Christians who are against such things and like always, they are attacked, ridiculed and bashed for it. We are not suppose to take arms, go overseas to kill others, especially if it is innocence getting in the way of gunfire.In addition, because of the action of allies, some Christians, mainly in the Middle East, were forced, having no other choice, to break their faith in order to defend themselves because of the damage their so called allies have caused in the country.
All in all, it is a tough world for a real Christian, you will be branded as a man or a woman not for his or her country for not going to war or helping out in it, you will be called a fanatic for believing in God, you will be called a false prophet and a cultist for not believing in the Trinity, if you are a race other than white you will be told that the bible is not for you because you are not the same color and or race as them, you will be prey to politics and government, all things of that nature.
Another thing is Christians who are for war and politics do not know the damage they have caused and or they are unaware of what following such things contribute to, Libya, Syria, Jerusalem, they are fools to think what was done there was a just thing to do.
In the end, Christians who live by scripture will always be targeted, and it will get progressively worse as the days go by for there is something big in the works that should not be ignored and should make one very vigilant of what is taking place and what is to take place.
It is times like this we need to be very careful and watchful of things.
 
 

I don't like to draw the line at just well loved and "special" animals. I can't wait for all the roaches and spiders and ticks and fleas who have ever died to also come back. After all, there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.

I don't like to draw the line at just well loved and "special" animals. I can't wait for all the roaches and spiders and ticks and fleas who have ever died to also come back. After all, there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.

I think you have a pretty good sense of the continuing effect based on specific examples, although there are others, too. Unfortunately an effect that might be more pervasive, but less tangible, is an overall sense of trustworthiness of spiritual direction. This one thing shouldn't be a big factor, but I wonder if this specific issue, for example, hasn't weighed on the minds of even the current GB, who have only recently decided to admit explicitly that the spiritual food and decisions they make are sometimes rotten or wrong, respectively, or that they might even depend on others for spiritual direction. The creation of too rigid a legalistic hierarchy produces:
followers who won't think enough for themselves, on the one hand, and could also tend to produce those who believe that 100% conformity to Jehovah's requirements is not all that important, from another perspective. (Based on this sense that it must not have mattered that much to Jehovah if all marriages are clean in his eyes, as long as the current incorrect rules of the WTS were followed at the time.) I can't guess at the number of "cases," of course, but I know of one specific case I dealt with in my previous congregation, and one in my current. I can't extrapolate from a couple of anecdotal examples, but I can't imagine that I know of the only two examples in the whole world, either. What if there is one in every congregation? What if the examples that come to the surface are only a small representation of the examples that never come to the surface?
Referring more to the second bullet point above, I can speak to a noticeable lack of interest in the spiritual direction received among a large swath of active Witnesses that I don't recall as much in times past. Perhaps it's just my projected nostalgia speaking here, though. I think you, for example, are likely one of those who take a stronger interest in the details of each of our doctrines -- sometimes even their historical development, up to a point. I see very little of that now.  In some ways I see it being even more discouraged. Taking an interest in commenting upon our doctrines, except with catechism-style answers to canned questions, is looked down upon -- even as if to say: "How dare anyone have the presumptuousness to comment upon doctrines that are already spelled out for us." Yet, that attitude of speaking up out of an overriding interest in our spiritual relationship with Jehovah, is no doubt what pushed the correction in thinking on this very subject in the original post.

I don't like to draw the line at just well loved and "special" animals. I can't wait for all the roaches and spiders and ticks and fleas who have ever died to also come back. After all, there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.

I think you have a pretty good sense of the continuing effect based on specific examples, although there are others, too. Unfortunately an effect that might be more pervasive, but less tangible, is an overall sense of trustworthiness of spiritual direction. This one thing shouldn't be a big factor, but I wonder if this specific issue, for example, hasn't weighed on the minds of even the current GB, who have only recently decided to admit explicitly that the spiritual food and decisions they make are sometimes rotten or wrong, respectively, or that they might even depend on others for spiritual direction. The creation of too rigid a legalistic hierarchy produces:
followers who won't think enough for themselves, on the one hand, and could also tend to produce those who believe that 100% conformity to Jehovah's requirements is not all that important, from another perspective. (Based on this sense that it must not have mattered that much to Jehovah if all marriages are clean in his eyes, as long as the current incorrect rules of the WTS were followed at the time.) I can't guess at the number of "cases," of course, but I know of one specific case I dealt with in my previous congregation, and one in my current. I can't extrapolate from a couple of anecdotal examples, but I can't imagine that I know of the only two examples in the whole world, either. What if there is one in every congregation? What if the examples that come to the surface are only a small representation of the examples that never come to the surface?
Referring more to the second bullet point above, I can speak to a noticeable lack of interest in the spiritual direction received among a large swath of active Witnesses that I don't recall as much in times past. Perhaps it's just my projected nostalgia speaking here, though. I think you, for example, are likely one of those who take a stronger interest in the details of each of our doctrines -- sometimes even their historical development, up to a point. I see very little of that now.  In some ways I see it being even more discouraged. Taking an interest in commenting upon our doctrines, except with catechism-style answers to canned questions, is looked down upon -- even as if to say: "How dare anyone have the presumptuousness to comment upon doctrines that are already spelled out for us." Yet, that attitude of speaking up out of an overriding interest in our spiritual relationship with Jehovah, is no doubt what pushed the correction in thinking on this very subject in the original post.

I don't like to draw the line at just well loved and "special" animals. I can't wait for all the roaches and spiders and ticks and fleas who have ever died to also come back. After all, there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.

I don't think so. Which guy do you mean?
Having said that, it really doesn't matter. If you leave a record of loyalty to Jehovah, slapping back hard at villainous reasonings, and even people when they make themselves synonomous with them, also not chit-chatting with determined enemies of the truth as though they were chums, yet not saying vile things yourself, and even showing some kindness and empathy wherever the situation might warrent it, I'm not sure how you can go wrong, even if the guy is phony.
There was someone here who said he was a brother coping with homosexual tendencies some time ago. He painted himself very distraught. I think he said he had contemplated suicide at one time. I spoke with him at some length, as did several others here. But I always thought he could be just putting us on. It doesn't matter. If you sketch a character convincingly enough, you provide good opportunity for dealing with such a character, whether you are real or not.
It's not like I feel I'm being Perry Mason here, you know. Nothing here is real, necessarily. Real or not, people provide a good opportunity to develope communication skills appropriate to both friend and foe.
If you mean John, I don't think I've been gullible. Why would you think I have been? But even if I have, it hardly matters. I certainly mess with people's minds enough when I determine they are up to no good. If I am to stay here I must have that liberty. If someone turns the tables on me now and again, why should I complain? But I don't think it of John. He struck me as genuine, though you never know.
 

@Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης,
I do not know any specifics of your particular situation or the situation in your congregation. No matter what the case, Jehovah knows your heart, and no humans or organization actually holds the final word of judgment. What I can say is that I'm aware of why there was a time when we once announced the reasons for disfellowshipping or disassociation. Then it turned into "conduct unbecoming a Christian" or "so-and-so no longer wishes to be associated . . . " often with a related talk given within a week or so, designed to remind the congregation of the need to remain morally clean, and the specific worldly or immoral elements the congregation had shown vulnerability to were usually emphasized. 
It should be obvious why this has changed. We do not wish to embarrass the person over a specific wrong or reason that they may later wish the congregation had no specific knowledge about. Most persons disfellowshipped are somewhere in a process of repentance. The elders do not believe the process is ever perfect, but they especially do not want to create a situation where a person might regret having everyone else know what weaknesses they overcame. There are issues of fairness and justice to consider when a congregation may know all about one party in a wrongdoing but nothing about a second party to the same wrongdoing.
I don't think I need to spell out all the ways that one person may be hurt more deeply due to the unfairness of allowing a different level of information for two different persons where the wrongdoing may have been equal. The other side of that coin, is the case where two persons were involved in the same wrongdoing, but one person was much guiltier than the other, yet the announcement sounds pretty much the same for both. The best solution has appeared to be the minimization of all announcements, allowing persons to keep more privacy and dignity.
Perhaps in your case, you wish to "give a witness" about why you are choosing to disassociate. Because you have been a Witness, your motivation is understandable, but you are asking for an opportunity to explain yourself in ways that might be considered detrimental to the spiritual well-being of the congregation. The elders are there to take care of the spiritual interests of the whole congregation. Most persons do not join a Christian congregation to get a sermon from someone who disagrees with the teachings that they joined to hear more about. You don't go to a meeting to have your belief system torn down, but to be built up. If you feel you have important points to make, why not write a book, or write to elders, or branch personnel, or go on the Internet, so that the congregation in general will have a choice as to what kind of information they risk exposing themselves to.
 
 

I looked at several of your posts and some of them appear to take outdated issues, or overblown issues, and treat them as if they are currently having a direct effect on people. I think Melinda Mills pointed out that you were making an issue out of a prior incorrect view on the exact definition of porneia. But this issue would usually only have been of a practical concern for a few months before the wrong idea was corrected. (Edited to add: the issue arising from an improper understanding had been there for many years, but I'm told that it was rarely invoked, and a big issue was only being made out this for a few months, and that it was the very raising of the issue that also helped raise concerns about changing the practice.) Similar issue with being disfellowshipped over transplanted organs. I had specifically asked a person who would have known about all the decisions about disfellowshipping over that issue, and he told me it only happened a couple of times. (There is a tendency to be lenient when a person is suffering and might die from a rejection anyway. Also there was a strong belief in those days that even if a blood transfusion was not necessary for an organ transplant, that you had to agree to the possibility of accepting one, which is still a serious offense.)
At any rate, what is the rush to disassociate? Can you not find love in the brotherhood? Do you personally have to think of humans as your "mediators"? I believe there is room for a lot more diversity of thought, as long as you can keep a clean conscience, and avoid causing divisions by insisting on a view that others find unacceptable. Over time, many of the views that opposers have held, have finally been accepted. We are not here strictly for a set of doctrines, we are here to find opportunities to love and care for our friends, relatives, family, and extend that same love to those related to us in the faith (our spiritual brothers and sisters). 
 

@Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης,
I do not know any specifics of your particular situation or the situation in your congregation. No matter what the case, Jehovah knows your heart, and no humans or organization actually holds the final word of judgment. What I can say is that I'm aware of why there was a time when we once announced the reasons for disfellowshipping or disassociation. Then it turned into "conduct unbecoming a Christian" or "so-and-so no longer wishes to be associated . . . " often with a related talk given within a week or so, designed to remind the congregation of the need to remain morally clean, and the specific worldly or immoral elements the congregation had shown vulnerability to were usually emphasized. 
It should be obvious why this has changed. We do not wish to embarrass the person over a specific wrong or reason that they may later wish the congregation had no specific knowledge about. Most persons disfellowshipped are somewhere in a process of repentance. The elders do not believe the process is ever perfect, but they especially do not want to create a situation where a person might regret having everyone else know what weaknesses they overcame. There are issues of fairness and justice to consider when a congregation may know all about one party in a wrongdoing but nothing about a second party to the same wrongdoing.
I don't think I need to spell out all the ways that one person may be hurt more deeply due to the unfairness of allowing a different level of information for two different persons where the wrongdoing may have been equal. The other side of that coin, is the case where two persons were involved in the same wrongdoing, but one person was much guiltier than the other, yet the announcement sounds pretty much the same for both. The best solution has appeared to be the minimization of all announcements, allowing persons to keep more privacy and dignity.
Perhaps in your case, you wish to "give a witness" about why you are choosing to disassociate. Because you have been a Witness, your motivation is understandable, but you are asking for an opportunity to explain yourself in ways that might be considered detrimental to the spiritual well-being of the congregation. The elders are there to take care of the spiritual interests of the whole congregation. Most persons do not join a Christian congregation to get a sermon from someone who disagrees with the teachings that they joined to hear more about. You don't go to a meeting to have your belief system torn down, but to be built up. If you feel you have important points to make, why not write a book, or write to elders, or branch personnel, or go on the Internet, so that the congregation in general will have a choice as to what kind of information they risk exposing themselves to.
 
 

I'm not into the videos. But I love to talk to people, and I'll take any excuse. I can't do quirky, of course, because a few of the friends know that I'm not in full agreement with some of the less important* doctrines, and therefore a chance report that I'm being flippant in service wouldn't be good. (*Less important to me, I mean, as they might be plenty important to others.) I always try to play to our strengths, such as getting their opinion on why, in general, any Christian might be outside talking about their religion in the first place -- and then moving on to our specific reason for being out this time. If people sense you like what you are doing they are more willing to engage in a natural way. I'm retired and therefore more relaxed, but that isn't really it. I don't ask for commitments of any kind, but always let them know that a lot of people have questions about what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and that we are always willing to spend time and even sit down and explain our beliefs in detail with anyone who has questions, and I let them know that I'd listen to their ideas, too. At least indirectly, everyone gets offered a home Bible study. It was kind of a cheat, but I learned very early on in my pre-Bethel days of regular pioneering that you get in your hours a lot easier with 10 to 12 Bible studies a month. 
Of course, this month, I've been out with Witnesses (most of them auxiliary pioneers) who struggle even to get to their 30-hour goal. Two or three good Bible students would make it impossible NOT to get 30 hours. (For those who don't know it, 30 is the goal for auxiliary pioneers during the Memorial month, and the month of a Circuit Overseer visit, too.)

You have no idea how avant garde I am about counting hours. It is almost to the point that if I say my goal was 30 or 50, I write down that figure at the end of the month, and I mentally review my activity - if I have any sense of 'cheating' on the figures, I don't do it again. I witness routinely in a crazy variety of times, places, and methods, and if I have to track everything it will drive me nuts.
My sense is that things will go this way eventually. We all know situations where it seems someone is overly concerned about hours, or where 'hours' can actually interfere with a productive ministry, as you just mentioned, or steering people away from productive times just because you can't accumulate too many hours there. 
It gets silly. It is not a bad idea, for it does make possible an overall cumulative report, which is a good thing, but if people start to obsess over time - how does that help anything. My report is .00000000001% (or so) of the total. If I deliberately lied through my teeth, it would not register. 

John, if I ever was to find myself on the outside looking in due to what I thought was primarily 'politics', I would continue to come to meetings, and take in the instruction that is to found nowhere else, while I waited for the bruhaha to pass. Seriously. There is no reason you cannot.
I have thought about it. Here I am on a site where villains traverse freely and there is abundant counsel not to hang out with them. It is counsel, not law, and I do not consider myself 'associating' with them, but things can be misunderstood and every so often some 'zealous-for-no-rivalry' person overacts. I don't think it is very likely at all, but it is not impossible.
I really would keep attending, so long as I felt Jehovah's Witnesses were right. I would figure that I was just termporarily on the outs with them, it will blow over eventually, and that i can always request reinstatement from time to time. Eventually one would stick. In the meantime, I would not insist that they 'come around.'  I would be open to the possibility that I might have contributed to the mess.
To be sure, I would miss the association, and I would probably not attend so constantly as I do now, which is almost without miss, but I would keep coming to the only place I know of where the Bible is discussed accurately. Though the association might be closed off, the spiritual food would remain undiminished.
I know of one person who, while disfellowshipped, began attending meetings. Elders soon spoke with her, and she had  no idea that she could be reinstated. She just figured the chasm would stay open till Armagedon but in the meantime she would go where she knew there was accurate knowledge.
Why did she have no idea? Who knows? Such times are emotional. Maybe elders did not make it sufficiently clear. She is back now. Until recently, elders made a real effort to personally contact each DF one in their territory at least once a year. That's better 'service' than the typical non-Witness gets. Don't tell me they are not interested in people.
John, you are at a crossroads. Don't screw it up, becasue it will affect your family more than you. Don't regard it as a pissing contest between you and the GB. Tell your kids: 'yeah, I got in a tiff with the brothers, but it will smooth out in time,' If you are truly convinced that the GB should be removed, be like David, who knew he was to be king, but in the meantime would not lay a hand on 'Jehovah's annointed' and rebuked those who tried to make him go there.
 

The data is evident on those who do such things, what opponents of the JWs or opponents of religion in general, do not understand is that they are creating a monster that they cannot tame, perhaps already running wild and about from the things I have seen and read, for they fail to see child abuse is all over and target a specific faith because of said faith suffering from child abuse who is obviously not immune to such things, now in regards to the United Kingdom, they will scream, rant and lose their minds on the problems the JWs are dealing with  child abuse on their end, but these same opponents will not bat an eye for the children affected by Rotherham Grooming Gang, the Haut de la Garenne, Newcastle sex rings, and a plethora of other groups and institutions with people of bad intent that have mingled among them without being noticed.
This also goes for those who claim child abuse and attack Christianity and the Bible (some goes as far as to rip and burn it no matter the translation), or in this case, religion as a whole, so when one attacks a JW, a Unitarian, a Jew or a Muslim, etc, the blame will just automatically be pinned on religion regardless of the faith, some may have it bad than others and suffer from physical harm should they be targeted on the streets because of their faith, for at that point it won't be persecution, it will just be shear brutality on said person, and I am sure the Jehovah's Witnesses are aware of the early 1900s, for ever since the whole NFL kneeling thing, the history was talked about.
Now, it is understandable, for those who do bad, we can't have anyone in the weeds, so to speak, but at the same time, to be brutal with a group and twisting scripture against them only contributes to bigger problems, something such persons cannot see, and only few people like me, you and others tend to be aware of people who do such things.
For better solutions and better ways on dealing with child abuse has been throw out the window and people seem to stick to just attacking a religion for a problem that is weaved within the very land they walk on.
The more the silliness continues, the more of the very people and their supports that were in Detroit a few years ago will only get stronger, and Christianity itself will decline further and religion will be the subject of targeting more and more as the days go by.
As for the prevention rate, even with facts before them, they will ignore it sadly - someone brought this up elsewhere and the anti-religion crowd just attacked and ignored the information, for they were not targeting JWs, they were targeting religion as a whole, which is somewhat evident today that most religious people tend not to be aware of at times. I was once told, you can give a sick man medicine for his illness, but he will ignore it and not accept it, even though it can help in dealing with his pain, in this sense, even with facts you provide, they'll ignore and not accept it, and continue on a warpath without having better solutions and ways of going about the issue of child abuse - going as far as to twist fact to tickle the ears of the masses to join the same foolish cause when others are doing it the right and correct way in gunning for the problem at hand and not a specific group of persons.
That being said, my opinion, as do most, the best way to really prevent child abuse in most cases if faced with it as best as we can is just to educate the child and or parents, friends, relatives, etc. This has been the case with one of the victims in the JWs in regards to the ARC due to Watchtower articles on child abuse revealing to her what it actually is, and even outside of the Watchtower, this is the position that people have taken, which is smart. Such has helped some people learn about the issue that others have gone as far as to make thousands of videos on this subject for saying at least one child is a plus on anyone's part for educating someone on child abuse be it videos, articles, or verbally, and the like, for when a child is taught on the issue they can identify the signs of child abuse should it starts on them or someone they know.
But what to expect by people living in a box, not taking the moment or even having a mere thought of looking and or stepping out of the box for once - that is today's society for you.
They'll continue to do what they do instead of talking with the person, they will attack them and or their faith because of said subject, child abuse, and never, not even once (surprisingly), you have seen someone come to common ground on the issue at hand and what can be taught or learnt. Only one time when 3 people stepped up, they were attacked by opponents of the faith, the very man whom got a group of people to seek out and dislike, bash, insult these individuals. I believe John had posted of whom I speak, for the gofundme link was a direct link to who this British man is.
One day it is going to come to a point where someone is going to get hurt via influence opponents will spread in public and or online, and surprisingly some have speculated that was the case regarding a hate crime in the UK - but later down the road, who knows how worse it could get, since religion, well in this case, Christianity is not as fancied by some as it was before.

Let's not do whataboutism. The organization has frequently used the pedophile cover ups in the catholic church and secular institutions to support their moral superiority and divine backing. So should we now accept that this organization is no better than them? Isn't the whole point that our org is BETTER than these other religions/organizations because we are a spiritual paradise?
I understand that child abuse is a problem that cannot be stamped and is present in all large organizations. BUT the organization has done itself no favors by doubling down on their messed up policies which have allowed abuse to continue in congregations. And they have been completely zip-lipped with their own members--refusing to be transparent about this ongoing problem. JWs are owed transparency on this matter. It's the least they could do.