JW Insider

There are Bible passages that I would not read with my children until they were old enough to understand them.
But if it helps, all of my work was from 1976 to 1982, and in '76 it was still just handbills, booklets, brochures. In 1977-79 some of the art got more time-consuming, but it was still mostly one or two-color. I didn't get to work on the Bible Stories book which was full-color,  and I only got ONE full paradise scene, no Armageddon scenes, and no pictures of Jesus. Nothing very startling or striking like the scenes you showed. I wasn't very good with drawing expressions on faces back then, although I could draw or paint a fair landscape. It wasn't until '79 - '82 that more of my time was spent in research than in art.

No. The Watchtower has not forgotten how Christ was persecuted on our behalf, nor have they forgotten that he set the perfect example under the harshest of trials. We are reminded that this was for the benefit of our own example to imitate. We are also reminded that Jesus was under the added difficulty of knowing that every move would be scrutinized even more closely because he was also claiming to represent his Father perfectly through all of these trials.
I don't believe it's fair to imply that the Watchtower removed this in some of the images of Jesus as a way to minimize just how much he suffered. Our memorial invitations have shown Jesus wearing the crown of thorns. The jw.org website shows it several times (I'll attach a couple of them below). But more importantly, these Bible accounts are discussed exactly as they appear in the Bible -- nothing is removed.
Art work often includes some conjecture. Some would conjecture that the crown of thorns was removed from Jesus at the time the cloak was removed, or at the time that his outer garments were replaced, or that it must have fallen off during the harrowing experience of carrying his own "stauros" (and perhaps even falling under its weight when the task was given to Simon the Cyrene). They might conjecture this based on the fact that the crown is not mentioned at the time that the soldiers cast lots over his garments, nor in connection with the sign that says "King of the Jews." There is nothing wrong with such a conjecture, because one should be careful about adding anything that might not be there.
Others would assume he still was wearing it at the time of execution, and yet there is no scripture that states this. On the other hand, there is no scripture that says it fell off, or that it was explicitly removed either. So one would also be justified to include it in the pictures after he left Pilate.
If one were to read the 4 different gospel accounts carefully, there are some differences among all the accounts that can make it difficult to make sure one is drawing the scene correctly. If you the four gospel accounts included below, you might wonder at some differences in detail. For example, at what point was Jesus carrying the stake, and at what point did Simon the Cyrene enter the picture? Did Simon carry it alone, behind Jesus, or did he carry it with Jesus? John does not mention Simon and says only that Jesus carried it himself. Another point of difficulty is whether Jesus was was completely naked on the stake since Matthew and Luke say that the soldiers took "his garments" and John explicitly says they even took his inner garment. Matthew only mentions that they distributed his "outer garments." (This nakedness could be considered part of his suffering, but for various and perhaps obvious reasons, the Watchtower does not depict him this way on the stake.)  There is even a question about when Jesus would have actually been wearing the crown of thorns during the questioning by Pilate. (It is nearly certain that he was NOT wearing it when questioned about whether he was indeed "a king.")
Many of us probably hadn't even noticed that Jesus appeared TWICE before Pilate, and on only one of these occasions, the second one, was he in front of Pilate when the purple robe and crown of thorns were put on him. The purple robe might actually have come along from Herod's soldiers, who dressed him in a splendid garment, and perhaps he was RE-dressed in that same robe in front of Pilate. In one of these accounts, it was only after Jesus left Pilate's immediate audience that the soldiers did this to him.  In another account, Pilate presents him while Jesus is wearing the crown and robe. 
Therefore, The Watchtower has made various pictures of Jesus standing in front of Pilate both with and without his hands bound, both with and without wearing his own garments, and both with and without any indication of having been whipped, and both with and without wearing a crown of thorns.
In other Watchtower pictures, he carries the stake both with and without outer garments, and both with and without the crown of thorns. In other pictures, especially recently, he has a large purple bruise on his face from being struck prior to being handed over to Pilate. 
Perhaps the details mentioned in the article in the Watchtower of December 15, 1990 caused some discussion about the time and exact place when the crown of thorns was worn.
*** w90 12/15 p. 9 From Pilate to Herod and Back Again ***
Disappointed, Herod and his soldier guards make fun of Jesus. They clothe him with a bright garment and mock him.
Notice that Matthew, Mark and John never mention Herod. So they do NOT say that a garment was put on him by Herod's soldiers but mentions that Pilate's soldiers did this at the governor's residence. Luke, the one who says it was Herod's soldiers who put this garment on him, never mentions the crown of thorns or his wearing of purple in front of Pilate or Pilate's soldiers.
All these differences in details can still dovetail into a plausible explanation based on the perspective of each gospel writer, but this does not mean that differences in various pictures definitely makes one right and one wrong.
(Matthew 27:1-37)  . . . 2 After binding him, they led him off and handed him over to Pilate, the governor. . . . 11 Jesus now stood before the governor, and the governor put the question to him: “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus replied: “You yourself say it.” . . . 26 Then he released Bar·abʹbas to them, but he had Jesus whipped and handed him over to be executed on the stake. 27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the governor’s residence and gathered the whole body of troops together around him. 28 And disrobing him, they draped him with a scarlet cloak, 29 and they braided a crown out of thorns and put it on his head and put a reed in his right hand. . . .  30 And they spat on him and took the reed and began hitting him on his head. 31 Finally, after they had mocked him, they stripped him of the cloak and put his outer garments on him and led him off to be nailed to the stake. 32 As they were going out, they found a man of Cy·reʹne named Simon. This man they compelled into service to carry his torture stake.. . . 35 When they had nailed him to the stake, they distributed his outer garments by casting lots, . . . 37 They also posted above his head the charge against him, in writing: “This is Jesus the King of the Jews.”  
(Mark 15:1-32) 15 Immediately at dawn, the chief priests with the elders and the scribes, indeed, the whole Sanʹhe·drin, consulted together, and they bound Jesus and led him off and handed him over to Pilate. 2 So Pilate put the question to him: “Are you the King of the Jews?” In answer he said: “You yourself say it.” . . . 15 At that Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Bar·abʹbas to them; and after having Jesus whipped, he handed him over to be executed on the stake. 16 The soldiers now led him off into the courtyard, that is, into the governor’s residence, and they called the whole body of troops together. 17 And they dressed him in purple and braided a crown of thorns and put it on him; 18 and they began to call out to him: “Greetings, you King of the Jews!” 19 Also, they were hitting him on the head with a reed and spitting on him, and they got on their knees and bowed down to him. 20 Finally, after they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple and put his outer garments on him. And they led him out to nail him to the stake. 21 Also, they compelled into service a passerby, a certain Simon of Cy·reʹne, . . .  to carry his torture stake. . . . 24 And they nailed him to the stake and distributed his outer garments by casting lots over them to decide who would take what. . . . 26 And the inscription of the charge against him was written: “The King of the Jews.” . . . Even those who were on stakes alongside him were reproaching him.  
(Luke 23:1-38) 23 So the multitude got up, one and all, and led him to Pilate. . . . 3 Now Pilate asked him the question: “Are you the King of the Jews?” In answer he said: “You yourself are saying it.” . . . 6 On hearing that, Pilate asked whether the man was a Gal·i·leʹan. 7 After ascertaining that he was under the jurisdiction of Herod, he sent him on to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem in those days. . . . 11 Then Herod together with his soldiers treated him with contempt, and he mocked him by clothing him with a splendid garment and then sent him back to Pilate. . . .  26 Now as they led him away, they seized a certain Simon of Cy·reʹne, who was coming from the countryside, and they placed the torture stake on him to carry it behind Jesus.. . . Furthermore, they cast lots to distribute his garments. . . . 36 Even the soldiers mocked him,. . . 38 There was also an inscription over him: “This is the King of the Jews.”  
(John 18:28-19:24) 28 Then they led Jesus from Caʹia·phas to the governor’s residence. It was now early in the morning. But they themselves did not enter into the governor’s residence, . . . 29 So Pilate came outside to them and said: “What accusation do you bring against this man?” . . . 33 So Pilate entered the governor’s residence again and called Jesus and said to him: “Are you the King of the Jews?” . . .  So Pilate said to him: “Well, then, are you a king?” Jesus answered: “You yourself are saying that I am a king. . . . 19 Pilate then took Jesus and scourged him. 2 And the soldiers braided a crown of thorns and put it on his head and clothed him with a purple robe, 3 and they kept coming up to him and saying: “Greetings, you King of the Jews!” They also kept slapping him in the face. 4 Pilate went outside again and said to them: “See! I bring him outside to you in order for you to know that I find no fault in him.” 5 So Jesus came outside, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And Pilate said to them: “Look! The man!” . . . The chief priests answered: “We have no king but Caesar.” 16 Then he handed him over to them to be executed on the stake. So they took charge of Jesus. 17 Bearing the torture stake for himself, he went out to the so-called Skull Place, which is called Golʹgo·tha in Hebrew. . . . 19 Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the torture stake. It was written: “Jesus the Naz·a·reneʹ the King of the Jews.” . . . 23 Now when the soldiers had nailed Jesus to the stake, they took his outer garments and divided them into four parts, one for each soldier, and they also took the inner garment. But the inner garment was without a seam, being woven from top to bottom.  

It was never consistent, and there were more examples without it. There are several pictures from the 80's that do not show it. There are several pictures that also tend to use solid black hair, sometimes even with a "spiky" hair  style (when on the stake) that tends to make the picture ambiguous. Also in the January 15, 1992 p.11, (the only such WT picture that year) there is no crown of thorns unless it's hidden in dark hair. (The picture is small.) But in the June 1, 1993 issue, page 10, issue the next year, it's back again while Jesus is dragging the stake. Also, the crown of thorns made the cover very prominently on the July 1, 1993 issue (and p.17), but this is in front of Pilate.

Sorry to disappoint. lol. I have no "perceptive" comments to make on this. I'll take a guess, below, but first, a small clarification:
This isn't true. Unless you are speaking only of current magazines, after the 1990's. While I was at Bethel we still had file cabinets with a lot of the old artwork and there were several pictures of Jesus with the crown of thorns, not just in front of Pilate, but also while on the "torture stake" or on his way to the place of execution, while dragging the stake. I don't know if they all had been used in print, but I remember seeing a few of them in print, and I remember seeing at least one or two more in the 1990's.
But here is my guess. The Art Dept at Bethel gets the articles from Writing with requests for appropriate artwork. The artists makes two or three sketches which go back to the Writing Dept. A choice from the sketches is made and when the art is finished it gets incorporated into the page layout of the article. Almost no Biblical or historical research went into most of the old artwork from the 1950's to the 1970's, but since the 1980's the organization has become more and more sophisticated with research. 
As you might imagine, when I was there, the Art Dept rarely got questioned about anything, and rarely had to redo artwork with one exception: pictures of Jesus. Pictures of Jesus got scrutinized outside the Art Dept, and sometimes the discussion went beyond the writer and editor. (By "editor" I mean someone like Rusk, Swingle, Barry, or Adams in the 70's and 80's.) A couple members of the GB worked in the Writing Dept and they might be questioned if pictures of Jesus were taking on a different quality from previous pictures.
There were a few things you could never do with Jesus. You couldn't give him even a hint of a hooked nose, and he always had straight hair, never curly (dark brown or black). You should make him "handsome" and with slightly above average muscles. We don't do this any more, but we used to avoid any pictures of blood and wounds after he was whipped or while on the stake. (See the picture in the Knowledge book for an example.) By 1978, we settled on a Bethelite as a "model" for Jesus' face and used that same general likeness for every picture for several years.
Just a few years before, artists weren't allowed (for about 30 years) to give Jesus a beard . And that fact alone probably explains the problem with the crown of thorns, too. It makes Jesus look too much like the pictures that "Christendom" produces. This should be pretty clear when you just take a look at the comments made over the years about the crown of thorns:
These articles came out when we still depicted the crown of thorns on the stake:
 
*** w56 4/15 p. 251 par. 14 Gaining the Prize of Life by Active Training Now ***
He was stripped of his clothes, nailed to the stake, wearing on his head a crown of thorns.
*** w81 5/15 pp. 20-21 pars. 15-16 The Kingdom—Is It Real to You? ***
There is no indication that Jesus tried to remove that crown of thorns. It remained on his head, and that served to highlight the issue at stake. No one was to be left in doubt.
*** w91 1/1 p. 9 “Look! The Man!” ***
After this torturous beating, Jesus is taken into the governor’s palace, and the whole body of troops is called together. There the soldiers heap further abuse on him by braiding a crown of thorns and pushing it down on his head. They put a reed in his right hand, and they clothe him with a purple garment, the type worn by royalty. Then they say to him mockingly: “Good day, you King of the Jews!” Also, they spit on him and slap him in the face. Taking the sturdy reed from his hand, they use it to hit him on the head, driving even further into his scalp the sharp thorns of his humiliating “crown.”  [In 1991 we still drew the crown of thorns worn on the execution stake, the "driving further" might have helped someone rationalize that it stayed there throughout the entire ordeal. Also, it's sometimes drawn as a kind of brambly thistle which would be difficult to remove from the hair.]
 
The following types of statements underscore the sensitivity to depictions of Jesus that make him appear too much like those of Christendom:
 
*** sl chap. 3 pp. 42-43 par. 29 A Transformed Messiah with Whom Politicians Must Cope ***
By their crucifixes and their church Masses the clergy of Christendom have caused the political element of the world to view Jesus Christ as a bedraggled figure. They claim that at his ascending to heaven he even took along with him the human body in which he was nailed to the stake, still bearing the scratches of the crown of thorns in his forehead and the gory nail holes in his hands and feet and the spear gash in his side.
 
*** sl chap. 3 p. 30 par. 2 A Transformed Messiah with Whom Politicians Must Cope ***
2 Political rulers, especially those of Christendom, are more or less familiar with the Gospel accounts of the earthly life of Jesus Christ. Likely the most familiar mental picture that they have of him is that presented by many religious artists, that of a Jesus with drawn facial features beneath a crown of thorns, nailed hand and foot to a cross. Little, or, rather, not at all, do the political rulers of today count on having a confrontation with Jesus Christ as a mighty heavenly King all equipped to fight with his earthly enemies. To their utter amazement, it will be a transformed Messiah whom they will have to confront shortly.
 
*** ip-2 chap. 14 p. 198 par. 11 Jehovah Exalts His Messianic Servant *** [This quote is from 2000, which was the same year when a picture was made that explicitly removes the crown of thorns while Jesus made his way to Golgotha, the place of execution.]
11 Today the misrepresentation of Jesus continues. Most people picture Jesus as a babe in a manger or as a tragic figure nailed to a cross, with his face distorted in agony under a crown of thorns. Christendom’s clergy have encouraged such views.
 
 
 
 

I always remind people that when Russell was studying the Bible and learning about truths such as 1914 (they did not have the 'whole' truth about 1914 but only some of it) the rest of the world was still in the time of the industrial revolution.  People in America were still moving West in wagons and they were shooting each other because there was not much law and order.... they were still fighting Indians and this time was quite some time before WW1 (No cars or the modern conveniences - only trains and the telegraph were on the horizon).   Similarly, when we look at the seventies and some people thought the 6000 years were almost done - they naturally made assumptions.  This is normal human behavior (to speculate) if one is very interested in the Bible. So when we evaluate the past - we must always evaluate what was said within the time frame (environment) that these things were said.  What was the rest of society like in this time? What was their level of knowledge compared to the light that Jehovah was slowly revealing?
As the light is getting brighter - we now understand so much about the future Kingdom and how it is going to function. We also understand the qualities that we need to develop if we want to be part of that future government.  It seems the governing body is now mainly focusing on strengthening us for the nasty world events which lie ahead.  We need to always be ready.
If one looks at the escalation of violence in the world, the aggressive posturing of nations, and one looks at the preaching work done in the entire world - reaching even the remotest places - then one remembers where one learnt these Truths regarding the mortality of the soul, the earth being a paradise, and many more truths.  Jehovah is using the governing body, which was only appointed in 1919 with the commission to preach to the world. 
Thank Jehovah for knowing the truth and giving it to us in little bites so we can absorb it - because without it - we are lost.  Always remember that people are people and they are imperfect individuals.... (prone to speculate).... but they are drawn to Jehovah because he sees something good in them. Without Jehovah's spirit no-one can come to him.  This is why we as witnesses should never think we are better than others because we know the truth. We must always remember who gave us the truth and who gives us Spirit to understand it.

I already replied to this topic.

The WT Library CD-ROM list is not intended to be a comprehensive list of doctrinal changes. It's from the "Index of Watch Tower Publications" (since 1985), and its purpose is to show which particular changes happened to be mentioned in print after 1985. Notice that about 110 years of Watch Tower publications (references from 1875-1985) are missing from that list. There was another such list made in the 1935-1985 Index, but again this was not comprehensive, and was intended to mention only the changes that had come up for discussion (in print) during that same period. Also, there were several changes to doctrines made that were not referenced specifically as a change which usually meant that the Index had no reason to mention them.

It's not just apostates and other opposers who would say that the destruction of Jerusalem was within a year or two of 587 BCE.
It's easily about 99% of everyone who has studied the currently available archaeology and the evidence. There is still no evidence that it could be anywhere near 607 BCE. The idea of 607 was promoted by some Adventists who influenced C.T.Russell to accept the date. Today only JWs and a few remaining Russellites and Adventists hold to a date near 607. In fact, over the years, even Adventists who have studied the evidence have had to become "apostates" to their original Adventist belief.
Also, there were at least 3 members of the Governing Body, at least one since 1974 and at least one since 1978 who also didn't believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607, and at least one who later admitted he had problems with that belief while writing the Aid Book article on chronology (admitting this in a book from around 1983 after being disfellowshipped.) There was at least one additional member of the GB who may or may not have believed in 607 but who didn't believe we were correct in saying that the generation had started counting in 1914. I worked for that same "one additional member" from 1977 to 1982. In 1980, he was able to get the two other members of the GB Chairman's committee to sign onto a proposal that would have moved the start of "that generation" from 1914 to 1957. That would have brought the total members of the GB who had in some way expressed doubts about 1914 from 4 to 6. There may have been others, but I have never heard that any others had said anything to anyone, if that were the case.
I knew the beliefs of two of these GB members personally, and learned of one other from his book after he was disfellowshipped. A very close friend and confidant told me of the beliefs of the 4th member. 
I have no idea what the current members of the Governing Body believe about 1914 and/or 607 BCE, but I do personally know one member of the current Writing Department who does not believe that either of those dates are related to Daniel's prophecy.
I know that the implication that it's "apostates and other opposers" actually comes from the link you provided where that same wording is used in the introduction. But I don't believe it is right, because it implies that even members of the Governing Body could be counted among these same apostates and opposers.
Also, I should add that those links you provided are full of false claims, false information, and specious reasoning. 
 

My my, Allen. I'm going to need a license to fish out all the red herrings swimming in your post.
Only in your imagination. 
Yes. Conti, Campos, Karen Morgan, 'A' (the one referred to in the OP), several more. 
Which cases have you followed? Seeing as I have asked you this a number of times now, I can only conclude that you haven't really followed any.
Was this a JW case? If so, who was it and where? I'd like to check it out. 
Do you think the cases I just mentioned above were ambulance-chasing, bogus ones? Or were they 'legitimate'?
So you didn't read them ... otherwise you wouldn't have written such twaddle. But for the sake of argument, what protocols in your opinion does the government need to recommend to improve institutions' responses to child abuse allegations? Do you have any concrete ideas? Or are you going to continue to blow smoke?
Was this a JW case? If so, who was it? I'd like to check it out.  
You asserted that the WTS was sued for breach of confidentiality when elders reported crimes to the authorities. You haven't backed up your assertion, and the evidence from Watchtower's own documentation and elders' own testimonies in court reveal that elders did not routinely notify the authorities about child abuse during the '80s and '90s. 
We've been over this, doofus. You are wrong. I have shown you why you are wrong. All 1006 cases were classified as Child Sexual Abuse. The commission is only interested in child sexual abuse incidents hence it being called (see if you can spot the clue in the title) 'The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.' 
Do you really think Watchtower Australia inflated its own figures by including adultery, fornication, masturbation and 'improper contact' in its child sexual abuse stats? Lolol.
Um, no. That's not how it happened. Watchtower didn't want to produce the necessary documents on some pretext that it wasn't practical because it would take a crazy amount of time (somewhere in the order of 20 years) to give the court what it wants. A computer expert testified that the needed info could be extracted in a couple of months so it became evident that Watchtower was talking BS. Although the default judgment (i.e. the terminating sanctions because Watchtower had violated the court's discovery order) was overturned on appeal, Watchtower is still ordered to produce the needed documents and will have monetary sanctions imposed for each day it doesn't.
http://dumaslawgroup.com/2016/06/28/jehovahs-witnesses-face-sanctions-withholding-documents-sex-abuse-case/
I should hope they are. That's JW publishers' dedicated funds they're wasting! 
Because it's not there in the ARC evidence.
Horse-hooey.  
Hahaha! Saying there were 2 testifying victims 'is a far cry' from my contention that there were 2 testifying victims? Brilliant. At least you've conceded on this point.
You have forgotten your own train of thought. The point I was responding to was your suggestion that Mr. Stewart was ignorant of the difference between 'criminality and civil culpability.' I asked whether you really believed that. You then answered with something completely irrelevant about 'spiritual cleanliness' so I cut it from my post.
Ah, now you are trying to proof-read. (Psst, you bolded and italicized the wrong part.) 
Why did you quote UK law, then?
Not if the authorities have taken no action - which is contrary to what you stated.
Clap ... clap ... clap. You caught one. I hope you don't mind me taking the liberty of highlighting every punctuation and spelling mistake of yours that I've copied and pasted in this post. I may not have caught them all (there were so many) but I've found there is always room for improving our written presentations, don't you agree? 
I'll give you a hint. If you look through my previous post, you might just see it among the 2 transcript extracts I quoted. Now, don't pester me for more clues. I don't want to spoil all the fun for you. Good luck! 
As I said, both victims had already disclosed to the elders seeking help, so yes, they were willing to participate in exposing the wrongdoing.
 The 'flip-flop' confusion is because your brain is jumping around like a frog in a box. 
The UK has no statute of limitations for sexual crimes. The U.S. does.
The main point is to do with the person (allegedly) responsible for sexually assaulting these women and calling him to account before a court of law. If there were others involved who had knowledge of and/or knowingly enabled the crimes to take place, hopefully they will be called to account too. But the only reason I mentioned Cosby was to make a connection in your head about the statute of limitations barring victims from initiating lawsuits after a set period of time since the crime, thereby countering your point about victims suing 40, 50 years later.

Did you mean 'cue' word? Anyway, despite your latest round of diatribes, the moderator's axe hasn't fallen on you yet. 
Much of your post is off-the-point invective (as usual) so I'll only home in on what is pertinent to the topic.
Which claims do you think are the ambulance-chasing, bogus ones? Which cases do you think are 'legitimate'? Have you followed any of them?
Governments have done so already. Did you see the .gov websites I linked to in my previous posts and read the recommendations?
Oh you didn't specify that they were wrongfully accused. 
If there was an allegation of abuse, it was proper to call the authorities, and Watchtower would not be liable for breach of confidentiality for reporting a crime. However, elders routinely did not call the authorities in the '80s and '90s, as has been evidenced in the ARC and numerous court cases - the woman 'A's' abuse mentioned in the OP article occurred in the late '80s/ early '90s ("The police were not told ... "). 
Watchtower is resisting allowing the U.S. courts access to their files on child abuse allegations (and it's costing Watchtower $thousands p/d in fines for every day it doesn't produce)  so you do not know the stats on how many, if any, abuse allegations were reported to the police by the elders. 
It is a matter of public record how many of the 1000+ allegations were reported by the elders in Australia, so you can DISAGREE all you want but these are the objective facts.
But they weren't - not by the Org, anyway.
Last I heard, adultery, fornication, masturbation and 'improper touching' (whatever that is) weren't felonies legislated against by the government. Child sexual abuse is.
 On what?
Actually, Mr. Stewart wiped the floor with him. 
You refer to (not 'my evidence' but) Watchtower Australia's list of 1006 Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) incidences that was submitted as evidence to the ARC. The title of the tabulated document is, "Jehovah's Witnesses - Incidence of CSA in Australia" so yes, they were all child sexual abuse cases.
You mention there are some convictions listed, but do you see the last column on the right of the table titled "Reported to authorities by JW"? Scroll down that column. Do you see any 'yes' entries there?
As I say, you can DISAGREE all you want but these are the objective facts.
There you go again. 'We.' Are you using the 'royal we,' perhaps? 
By reading the BOE child abuse letters (including this month's which made some improvements but still nowhere near what's needed), the elders manual, and the UK's WTBTSB Child Safeguarding Policy.
The point is always safeguarding children and young people by having a robust and up-to-date set of policies and procedures that meet current best practice in line with the recommendations of the government and other advisory bodies with expertise in this area.
The Org's approach remains inadequate. It has to be dragged by external pressures into making any changes. 
After the Conti case in 2012, when a stark light shone on the Org's shameful failures in dealing with a known abuser in their midst, Watchtower issued new directives to the BOE. 
Recent high profile UK cases drawing the attention of the Charity Commission as well as the ARC hearing and findings, where the Org's handling of abuse was dissected and laid out on public view, have likewise prompted Watchtower's revision of its directives that were circulated earlier this month.
Therefore, the Org is exhibiting a reactive mindset rather than a proactive one - which is indicative of an institution that won't acknowledge how far it needs to change.
2 victims testified for the ARC inquiry.
There's that 'we' again. Relay this message to the other voices in your head: 'Ann has never testified in court about Watchtower abuse issues; she has never claimed to have done so; quit making stuff up.'
You gave an example of a 'repentant' abuser who wasn't disfellowshipped and remained a member of the congregation? Did you also detail how the congregation's children were protected at the time? I must have missed that. Can you repost your example?
Good. We agree with each other here.
Are you one of the insane, then? For you are 'listening' to me and engaging with me. It looks like I was right about your mental state after all. 
How is your quoted extract relevant to my question?
Is that a 'no'?
I refer you back to previous answers.
 
I stand corrected on the terminology. The crux of the matter is this:
You stated,
"Now, if the authorities are alerted, and no action is taken by the authorities, the accused name is placed on a mandatory sex offenders list"
You are wrong. A 'caution' in UK law (which is to what your quote refers) is the consequence of authorities taking action against a criminal act (was your hypothetical 15yo boy deemed to have committed a sexual assault on the hypothetical 14 yo girl or was it a misunderstanding?), and during police interview, the 15yo would have to make "a clear and reliable admission of guilt" to a crime. The purpose of a 'caution' is "to resolve cases where full prosecution is not seen as the most appropriate solution."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_caution
If no action is taken by the authorities, the accused's name would NOT be placed on a mandatory sex offenders list!
If the WTS has been compliant, why have 'Caesar's laws' shown it to be otherwise?
Who should establish the validitiy of an accusation? Professionally-trained police bodies or untrained, volunteer elders?
Wrong again. Both victims testified. Do you not tire of looking like an idiot?
Transcript Day 1:
MR STEWART: Your Honour, the first witness will be the
first survivor witness, [BCB]. Her name and address are
known to the Royal Commission, and she is accompanied by
her husband for support.
THE CHAIR: [BCB], it will be necessary for you to be
sworn. Will you take an oath on the Bible or an
affirmation?
[BCB]: An oath on the Bible
<[BCB], sworn: [11.30am]
Transcript Day 2:
MR STEWART: The next witness, your Honour, will be [BCG].
THE CHAIR: [BCG], it's necessary for you to be sworn. Will you take an oath on the Bible or an affirmation?
[BCG]: Affirmation.
<[BCG], sworn: [12.14pm]
Which victim? 'AB' or 'BG'? *snort*
Both victims had already disclosed to the elders seeking help. Had the authorities been called from the get-go, they would have had the needed support, and the perps would have been stopped in their tracks earlier.
Your statement: not even wrong.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
The statute of limitations also applies to civil prosecution - whether honest or not.
You are citing a UN resolution about conflict-related rape and applying it to Cosby's alleged crimes? Smh.
Well, Cosby is the one accused of sexual assault. That'll be why the 20+ women would like to sue him. But they can't ... because the statute of limitations has run out.

 

What has that to with the price of beans? Again, instead of having a rational discussion about how the Org. has historically dealt with and presently deals with child abuse allegations, you resort to ad hominem and deflection. I think our conversation must soon come to an end if you continue to be incapable of rational discussion.
My questions resulted from your own words where you said the WTS and other institutions are getting hammered and negative publicity, not because of their failings but, because of "ambulance chasing lawyers." 
Do you think the dozens upon dozens of lawsuits in recent times are down to "ambulance chasing lawyers" and are not 'legitimate' cases? Which 'legitimate' cases have you followed?
What are you babbling on about? Which disgruntled witnesses? The abusers? When did the WTS or congregation elders notify the authorities about allegations of child abuse in the '80s and '90s? In Australia, according to the evidence brought out at the Royal Commission, the elders did not notify the police about the crime once in all 1000+ cases in the past 50 years.
Who's 'we'? Your duplicate accounts don't count.
I asked you a question. Do you know the difference between a statement and a question? You stated that the WTS will make changes through the Branches to comply with new government legislation. This prompted my question to you about whether you believe governments have to legislate to make 'God's organization' do the right and moral thing?
So what do you think? Do governments have to legislate so that 'God's organization' is made to do the right and moral thing? Or should the Org's own sense of morality and justice make it proactive rather than reactive when formulating its child safeguarding procedures?
Again, you are wanting to bend the discussion away from the issues and make it about me or other institutions. To steer you back on track, a reminder: the article in the OP is about JWs. This thread is in the JW section. Ergo, we are discussing how JWs deal with child abuse within their organization. 
Court case after court case after public inquiry after court case has shown there is a pattern in how disclosure of abuse has been mishandled by the Org. The directives to the BOE as well as JW culture explain why this pattern exists. There are huge flaws in the Org's approach that desperately need addressing.
 In general. Now you have that clarified, 
What if the wrongdoer isn't disfellowshipped because the elders believe s/he is repentant? How can the congregation's children be protected while s/he continues as a member?
Your suggestions please.
Do you not think child abuse to be a crime? Do you not think that negligence and failure to provide a duty of care to vulnerable members of a faith community should be brought to civil court? 
And, most hilariously, are you really suggesting that a professional lawyer with 20 years experience is ignorant of the difference between 'criminality and civil culpability'? 
Historically, the Org's elders have already been 'taking the law into their own hands' by investigating and passing judgment on child abuse allegations internally within the congregation. This is why so many cases have been grossly mishandled, pedophiles had opportunity to abuse more JW children, and victims were further harmed and traumatized.
Regarding your nonsensical objection about 'forcing' - reporting to the police or child protection services is forcing a criminal act to be exposed and stopped, and the perpetrator of that crime to be called to account and punished. 
What should the elder do if he suspects child abuse and/or neglect?
"If you suspect a child is being harmed, or has been harmed, you should report your concerns to the appropriate authorities, such as child protective services (CPS), in the State where the child resides. Each State has trained professionals who can evaluate the situation and determine whether help and services are needed. Most States have a toll-free number to call to report suspected child abuse and neglect. Child Welfare Information Gateway, a service of the Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), provides a list of State child abuse and neglect reporting numbers and information on how to make a report in each State.
"Another resource for information about how and where to file a report of suspected child abuse or neglect is the Childhelp® National Child Abuse Hotline. Childhelp® can be reached 7 days a week, 24-hours a day, at its toll-free number, 1.800.4-A-CHILD® (1.800.422.4453)." - http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/faq/can6
"Anyone can report suspected child abuse or neglect. Reporting abuse or neglect can protect a child and get help for a family it may even save a child's life." - https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/responding/reporting/how/
"Anyone." Rather than dump all the responsibility of reporting the crime to a frightened and perhaps dysfunctional family, the elders can take the initiative to report themselves. 
What if the crime wasn't child abuse but murder? Should an elder keep an allegation to himself about a murder having taken place thinking, 'It's the victim's family that has the responsibility to notify the authorities - not me"?
The article in the OP is not discussing this type of scenario but that of adults abusing minors. Besides, the latest August 2016 BOE letter clarifies what the Org. means by 'child abuse' on p.3:
10. Congregation Considerations: When discussing child sexual abuse from a congregation standpoint, we are not discussing a situation in which a minor who is a willing participant and who is approaching adulthood is involved in sexual activity with an adult who is a few years older than the minor. Nor, generally speaking, are we discussing situations in which only minors are involved. (See paragraphs 24-25.) Rather, we are referring to an adult guilty of sexually abusing a minor who is a young child, or an adult guilty of sexual involvement with a minor who is approaching adulthood but was not a willing participant.
Baloney. You have to be convicted as a sex offender to be put on the sex offenders list.
Elders are required to follow the Org's instructions. No mind-reading was involved. 
Exactly. The governmental authorities have those processes and powers. This is why they have to be called on to act when crimes have been committed. As the apostle Paul said,
"Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.  So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished.  For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you.  The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong.  So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience." - Rom. 13:1-5 (NLT)
And what 'rules of evidence' does the congregation employ in its handling of child abuse allegations?
Shouldn't 'evidence' rather be collected by professional police bodies rather than by untrained, volunteer leaders?
Actually 2 cases - 2 victims who, out of more than 1000 recorded cases by the Australian Branch, were brave enough to relate their experiences before a public inquiry. 
It means that the UK WTS have been unsuccessful in blocking the Charity Commission from investigating how the UK congregations deal with child abuse allegations. The Commission can now go ahead with their inquiries. Read the article.
Backing up to your initial statement, namely ... 
"as I recall, in the Australia case, that 1 witness “begged” the Elders NOT to turn her father into authorities. Are you suggesting by any means and force?"
... You were implying that, if a minor victim begged the elders not to turn in her father to the authorities for sexually abusing her, that the elders should comply; that the elders should not 'force' that action upon her. Hence my question about your mental state. Your suggestion is extremely irresponsible and dangerous, for such compliance would further enable the abuser to continue abusing. It's astonishing that I should have to spell this out to you as if you were a child yourself.
You are projecting once again. What was complete and utter bunkum was your argument that 'forcing the child to the police department' - whether by the elders or the child's mother - would amount to 'child abduction.' This fancy of yours is totally ludicrous. 
Well duh. And your point is ...? 
Aaaand another senseless ad hominem rant. Your trademark. To repeat:
The article in the OP is about JWs. This thread is in the JW section. Ergo, we are discussing how JWs deal with child abuse within their organization. 
Do you get how topical sections in a discussion forum work?
So you believe historical child sexual abuse cases are not 'legitimate'? 
Are the government-led inquiries into institutional historical child abuse, because the cases may include instances that occurred 40, 50 years ago, likewise not 'legitimate' and are decided with 'the aid of corrupt lawyers'?
Are you aware that many countries have a statute of limitations that bar victims from making civil claims for sexual crimes after a set amount of time? So, a victim would be unable to civilly prosecute somebody 40, 50 years later. Are you familiar with the controversy surrounding Bill Cosby and why it has been so difficult to prosecute him due to the time that has elapsed since his alleged crimes?
This is the most sensible thing you have said in the whole discussion. However, evidence gathering is done by the police and forensic teams, and the legal system decides whether there is enough to potentially secure a conviction in criminal court and/or a favorable judgment in civil court.
Huh? What does that even mean?
Yeah whatever. This scripture has no bearing on how best to safeguard children now.

    

It's nothing like what you said.
Bzzzt.   Aww and you'd done so well catching one in the other post. Never mind. Thanks for playing.
I suppose you think a display of ineptitude is virtuous.
I see that you, as 'Allen' have nothing more to further the discussion. It looks like your alter ego has submitted something worth addressing, however. ...
For heaven's sake, whatever 'God's government' is supposed to do in the future, we are talking about children's welfare in the here-and-now. Finding ways to better protect them or to better deal with allegations of abuse is not 'mindless.' 
James 4:17 . . .if someone knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him.
Besides, 'God's earthly organization' is representative of or an extension of 'God's heavenly government,' is it not? The spirit-directed Org. should be a trailblazer in children's safeguarding and its responses to abuse allegations, providing a shining example to 'worldly' institutions, right? Instead, it has been embarrassingly far below the higher 'worldly' standards.
I've asked (Allen) several times for suggestions on how the Org., and institutions in general, can improve their policies and procedures; or how to protect children in the congregation if the abuser doesn't get disfellowshipped and remains a member. No sensible answer is forthcoming from either of your identities so far. Responses such as 'God will sort it out' and 'Stop picking on us - we're not the only ones with a problem' aren't good enough. 
Allegations of child abuse are not 'frivolous,' and if Watchtower or its' agents reported a suspected incident of abuse to the appropriate secular authorities in good faith, there would be no legal cause for the accused to sue them for breach of confidentiality.
Your quotation, purportedly from a Watchtower letter about a query over confidentiality, was in regard to a JW insurance salesman revealing the urine test result of a fellow JW and prospective client which indicated he was a smoker. Nothing to do with the issue of reporting a crime to the police.
The court case you cite was to do with a lawsuit over being shunned - likewise irrelevant to the question about what should and shouldn't be divulged and to whom when suspected child abuse comes to light.

SEX OFFENDERS REGISTRATION ACT 2004 - SECT 6
Who is a registrable offender?
    (1)     Subject to subsections (3) to (6), a registrable offender is a person whom a court has at any time (whether before, on or after 1 October 2004) sentenced for a registrable offence.
- http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/sora2004292/s6.html (Bold emphasis mine.)
To be 'sentenced,' a person has to go through the judicial process and found (or pleaded) guilty, i.e. the authorities have taken action. Your (Allen's) statement remains erroneous.
... like you have, for example. 


That depends on whether the Dan. 4's '7 times' calculation = (360 days x 7 =) 2,520 days = ('day for a year') 2,520 years is sound hermeneutic, and also depends on whether Luke 21:24 has anything to do with Dan. 4.
If not, then 'no.'

It's not just apostates and other opposers who would say that the destruction of Jerusalem was within a year or two of 587 BCE.
It's easily about 99% of everyone who has studied the currently available archaeology and the evidence. There is still no evidence that it could be anywhere near 607 BCE. The idea of 607 was promoted by some Adventists who influenced C.T.Russell to accept the date. Today only JWs and a few remaining Russellites and Adventists hold to a date near 607. In fact, over the years, even Adventists who have studied the evidence have had to become "apostates" to their original Adventist belief.
Also, there were at least 3 members of the Governing Body, at least one since 1974 and at least one since 1978 who also didn't believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607, and at least one who later admitted he had problems with that belief while writing the Aid Book article on chronology (admitting this in a book from around 1983 after being disfellowshipped.) There was at least one additional member of the GB who may or may not have believed in 607 but who didn't believe we were correct in saying that the generation had started counting in 1914. I worked for that same "one additional member" from 1977 to 1982. In 1980, he was able to get the two other members of the GB Chairman's committee to sign onto a proposal that would have moved the start of "that generation" from 1914 to 1957. That would have brought the total members of the GB who had in some way expressed doubts about 1914 from 4 to 6. There may have been others, but I have never heard that any others had said anything to anyone, if that were the case.
I knew the beliefs of two of these GB members personally, and learned of one other from his book after he was disfellowshipped. A very close friend and confidant told me of the beliefs of the 4th member. 
I have no idea what the current members of the Governing Body believe about 1914 and/or 607 BCE, but I do personally know one member of the current Writing Department who does not believe that either of those dates are related to Daniel's prophecy.
I know that the implication that it's "apostates and other opposers" actually comes from the link you provided where that same wording is used in the introduction. But I don't believe it is right, because it implies that even members of the Governing Body could be counted among these same apostates and opposers.
Also, I should add that those links you provided are full of false claims, false information, and specious reasoning. 
 

Another thought on this is that some people remembered both temples. They remembered the old one destroyed 70 years earlier, according to Zechariah, and were celebrating the dedication of the new temple in Zechariah's and Haggai's time. Of course, the Watchtower's tradition that this was a 90-year period instead of 70 means that these same people who were celebrating were likely about 96-100 years old or more. Since the Bible says that a lifespan was 70, or 80 only "by special mightiness" it is surprising that nothing more was said about these persons of  super "special mightiness" who were nearly 100 years old or more. (And survived the ravages of war and forced travel as prisoners and exile and long travel back at an advanced age.)
Of course, if Zechariah was right that these persons were more likely only 75 to 80 or more, then it's understandable that there could have been quite a few of them.
(Psalm 90:10) 10 In themselves the days of our years are seventy years; And if because of special mightiness they are eighty years,. . . (Ezra 3:12, 13) 12 Many of the priests, the Levites, and the heads of the paternal houses—the old men who had seen the former house—wept with a loud voice when they saw the foundation of this house being laid, while many others shouted joyfully at the top of their voice. 13 So the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shouts from the sound of the weeping, for the people were shouting so loudly that the sound was heard from a great distance. Note, from Ezra, that there are enough of the 75-85 year olds (per Zechariah) that their loud weeping competes with the loud cries of joyfulness. If these were really 95-105 year olds (per current teaching) among the remnant who came back, then it is less likely that such a small mumber in this "remnant" of a "remnant" would really have been able to compete in volume.

Wow! Ann! Much appreciated.
I started to work out a post like yours, but didn't have time yesterday. Even if I had, it wouldn't have been as good and not half as complete.  Also, I got bogged down in finding some other interesting material. I even read about half of a book called:
The Bodleian Manuscript of Jerome's Version of the Chronicles of Eusebius
https://books.google.com/books?id=lixAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Eusebius+chronicon&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFyrzJp9rOAhXPsh4KHSLjD4YQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=chaldean&f=false

It was most interesting in the introduction where it discussed the state of the extant manuscripts and how closely they came to going all the way back to manuscripts that were written in a hand that matched the time of Jerome himself. It's easy to forget that everyone worked from copies, and errors sometimes creep in. But sometimes these types of errors can be corrected when there are at least two "families" of copies and translations of Josephus, or two major manuscripts of Eusebius. (The translation of Eusebius from the old Armenian copy is excellent: http://www.attalus.org/armenian/euseb2.htm by Robert Bedrosian.) 
Eusebius' Chronicle - The Chaldean Chronicle
Of course, Eusebius (4th century - Constantine) compared some of these same discrepancies among the classical historians. Some of the items that Eusebius reviewed get directly to the point that the Watchtower ultimately wishes to make about the 70 years. In his section quoting Josephus, he is able to show that Josephus is in agreement with the Bible chronology:
Nebuchadnezzar . . . . He had reigned for 43 years. His son Amel-Marduk took the kingship. . .  He was murdered by his sister's husband, Neriglissar, after ruling for two years. Then that Neriglissar, who had committed the murder, held power for four years. The latter's son Labesorachus ruled as a child for nine months. . . . After his murder, the conspirators . . .placed . . . Nabonidus on the throne. . . .  Now in the 17th year of his reign, Cyrus [g72] came from Persia with an enormous army with which he conquered all the other kingdoms. . . . . After Cyrus had taken Babylon, he ordered that the city's outer wall be razed to the ground because of its [effective] fortification and the trouble it had presented [to him] in capturing the city.
This is all true and in accord with our literature, which states that in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar our temple was destroyed, and remained ruined for 50 years. In the second year of the kingship of Cyrus the foundations were laid and in the sixth year of Darius' reign it was completed.
That "50 years" is the same period for which the Watchtower has traditionally assigned a period of "70 years." (Eusebius: c. 587 - c. 537 B.C.E.) The temptation to make that same mistake goes back many years because the temple destruction seems like a more definitive event from which to start counting the 70 years, instead of counting it from closer to the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's rule. Just a couple of sections back when Eusebius is reviewing Polyhistor's account, he makes a specific point to note that the beginning of the 70 years must begin with the start of Nebuchadnezzar, not the 18th year. (i.e., 19 years prior to the temple destruction).
The account chronologically is in harmony with what is [g43] written in Scripture. According to Polyhistor, Sennacherib ruled during the period of Hezekiah for 18 years; his son succeeded him for 8 years; Sammuges followed, for 21 years; followed by his brother, for 21 years. Then Nabupalasar ruled for 20 years, followed by Nebuchadnezzar, for 43 years. From Sennacherib up to Nebuchadnezzar the regnal years total 88.
If one examines Hebrew writings, nearly the same [information] will be found. For following Hezekiah, his son Manasseh ruled over the remaining Hebrews for 55 years. Then Amos [ruled] for 12 years, followed by Josiah, followed by Jehoiakim. At the beginning of the latter's reign, Nebuchadnezzar came and besieged Jerusalem and took the Jews captive to Babylon. From Hezekiah to Nebuchadnezzar there are 88 years, just as Polyhistor calculated from the Chaldean sources.
. . .Then Nebuchadnezzar ruled for 43 years. He massed troops and came and took captive the Jews, Phoenicians, and Assyrians. Since the Hebrew sources are in harmony with Polyhistor here, there is no need to elaborate.
Following Nebuchadnezzar, his son Amilmarudochus  [Amil-Marduk] ruled for 12 years. .  . . After him, Polyhistor says, Neglisarus ruled the Chaldeans for 4 years, followed by Nabodenus for 17 years. It was during his reign that Cambyses' son, Cyrus, massed troops and came against the country of the Babylonians.
Berosus described the Chaldean kings briefly one by one, and so does Polyhistor. Now it is quite clear that from the time when Nebuchadnezzar massed troops and took the Jews captive until the time of Cyrus' rule over the Persians, 70 years had transpired. Hebrew history also confirms this, considering that they had been in captivity for 70 years, reckoning [that event] from the first year of Nebuchadnezzar until the time of Cyrus, king of the Persians.
 
Eusebius was able to add up the 88 years from Senacherib to Nebuchadnezzar and check it against the Bible account correctly. So he must have also been able to check that from the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar to the 2nd year of Cyrus was about 70 years. Yet, Polyhistor is listed in Eusebius as having 12 years for Amel-Marduk instead of two which would make this same period about 80 years. But since he elsewhere noted that Amel-Marduk ruled only two years, and he summarizes the total as if it says only 2 years, then it's clear that there is a copyist error that crept in somewhere.
(If Amil-Marduk's reign may have been documented somewhere as only about 18 months, this could also explain the "18" in the Josephus column, but we also know that Eusebius quotes Josephus above as having correctly listed it as only 2 years. So in either case a copyist error is obvious.)
The potential to assume 70 years instead of 50 from the destruction of Jerusalem to the first couple of years of the reign of Cyrus is a mistake with a long tradition among Jewish Bible commentators, and it was easily fixed by historians who looked at the specifics more closely, which of course included the work of Berossus who actually lived in Babylon only a few hundred years after these events, and who could also read the cuneiform writing.
Some interesting footnotes in the book here https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0567629309  in the section on "Priestly Chronology of the World." on page 40 and 41 showing that some Jewish traditions had shown confusion over the 50 and 70 year periods so that later Jewish tradition moved the 70 years "desolation" from the destruction to the foundation in the second year of Darius, not Cyrus using Zechariah 1:1. Footnote 30 says:
Bimson is incorrect . . . 2 Chronicles 36:21; the previous verse refers to the prophecies of Jeremiah. However the Jeremiah passages which refer to ta period of 70 years ascribe this to the total duration of Babylonian domination, which followed Nebuchadnezzar's victory at Charchemish in 605 ('the fourth year of Jehoiakim). See also the comments on page 78 of his book: https://books.google.com/books?isbn=9004117911
Of course, one of the most interesting types of corrections is when the author makes it himself in a later attempt to address the same chronology. You mention this with Josephus when he wrote "Against Apion." Previously he had assumed, evidently, that 70 years had transpired from the time of the destruction of Jerusalem to Cyrus, but after all these years of writing and reviewing sources like Berossus, he made a correction -- and even stated that the source was already to be found in various other Jewish books, too. The direct quote from Josephus (not just through Eusebius) is in "Against Apion" Book 1, 21: (found here: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/apion-1.html )
Josephus' Against Apion
These accounts agree with the true histories in our books. For in them it is written, that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, (16) laid our temple desolate; and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years. But that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus, its foundations were laid; and it was finished again in the second year of Darius. 
The second year of Darius was considered to be 70 years later, so this was a solution that addressed the confusion over tying a 70-year period to two important events betwen the temple destruction and the restoration of the Jews by Cyrus (the second year of Cyrus). The Jews in Zechariah's day also understood that this was a 70-year period (about 587 BCE to about 518 BCE). The events were too close in their memory in Zechariah's time to have made the 20-year mistake that we have made today. In any case it shows that persons living in Zechariah's day understood that there were NOT 70 years from the destruction of Jerusalem to the second year of Cyrus, as the Watchtower has traditionally claimed:
The Bible - Zechariah
(Zechariah 1:1-16) 1 In the eighth month in the second year of Da·riʹus, the word of Jehovah came to the prophet Zech·a·riʹah son of Ber·e·chiʹah son of Idʹdo, saying: 2 “Jehovah grew greatly indignant at your fathers. . . . 7 On the 24th day of the 11th month, that is, the month of Sheʹbat, in the second year of Da·riʹus, the word of Jehovah came to the prophet Zech·a·riʹah son of Ber·e·chiʹah son of Idʹdo, saying: . . .12 So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?” . . .16 “Therefore this is what Jehovah says: ‘“I will return to Jerusalem with mercy, and my own house will be built in her,” declares Jehovah of armies, “and a measuring line will be stretched out over Jerusalem.”’
Because of the 20-year mistake required to make the 607 BCE date work, the Watchtower has been forced to claim that this period that the angel of Jehovah called "70 years" (587-518) was actually about "90 years" (607 - 518).
 
 
 

Your math is off. The abuse of 'A' was about 25 years ago. Anyway the point remains about how to best safeguard children and address abuse allegations in the here-and-now.
That is your personal opinion of my personal opinion, but it is not my personal opinion. 
The courts' and ARC's findings, based on the evidence presented by all parties (and not on my personal opinion, btw), is that the Org. has had a woefully inadequate set of child abuse policies and procedures which, in practical terms, has focussed on protecting the Org's image, on protecting the alleged abuser's 'right to confidentiality' at the expense of the victim's welfare, enabled abuse to continue, and victims who disclosed to be further traumatized. The Org. needed to improve its attitude and approach, which it has to a limited extent over the years, but it still fails in key areas.
Is not the Organization spirit-directed? 
If the holy spirit directs, does it direct imperfectly? I.e. is it the holy spirit's (God's) fault when the spirit-directed Org. gets things wrong?
If it isn't the holy spirit's fault that the Org. has made mistakes, and if the holy spirit directs perfectly, has the Org. been ignoring the spirit's direction?
If the Org. has been ignoring spirit-direction, it wasn't being directed by holy spirit.
Sure, the Org. is made up of imperfect people, but those imperfect people make grand claims about how wonderful they are and how they are the only ones being directed by God's holy spirit to act and teach a certain way.
I think you are confusing the Commission with civil court.
(Give me strength. Talk about delusional.) So you do believe Watchtower inflated its own figures and included other sexual 'sins' in its list of child sexual abuse cases? Lolol. Smh.
Isn't this what you originally claimed in the second post of this thread?
"No different than any other religion that is dealing with a worldwide problem." - AllenSmith, 8/12/16
So which argument are you going with? Do you think the Org. is better than other religions at safeguarding children, or 'no different from any other religion'?
 I'm glad to see you've finally dropped the 'JWT is my brother' charade.
This is why you should follow your own counsel about not searching through legal websites for a quick response to win an argument. You have completely misunderstood its content. 
 (6)     A person ceases to be a registrable offender if—
... (c)     he or she is a registrable offender only because he or she is subject to a sex offender registration order and that order is quashed on appeal.
In other words, if a person who, due to having been convicted and sentenced for a registrable offense was court ordered to be on the register, later has that court order overturned on appeal, s/he ceases to be a registrable offender. 
*Sigh*

The OP has changed since the last time I checked in here. 
The somewhat misleading table from the Watchtower article makes it look as if the classical historians sourced the kings' regnal years independently from each other and that's why there are different figures. Yet most readers will be unaware that Berossus is the ultimate source for all of them. 
Polyhistor got his data from Berossus. Polyhistor's works are lost. To get Polyhistor's figures, you have to consult Eusebius.
Eusebius in Chronicon, bk. 1.9 cites Polyhistor, whose source was Berossus, who gives 20 years for Nabopolassar and 12 years for Evil-Merodach.
Eusebius in Praeparatio Evangelica, bk. 9, ch. XL (and in Chronicon) cites Josephus, whose source was Berossus, who gives 21 years for Nabopolassar and 2 years for Evil-Merodach.
Interestingly, Insight Vol. I, p. 453 provides a possible ... um ... insight into why some of Polyhistor's figures (as given by Eusebius) are different:
"Of his [Berossus'] writings Professor Olmstead remarks: ' . . . only the merest fragments, abstracts or traces have come down to us. And the most important of these fragments have come down through a tradition almost without parallel. Today we must consult a modern Latin translation of an Armenian translation of the lost Greek original of the Chronicle of Eusebius, who borrowed in part from Alexander Polyhistor who borrowed from Berossus direct, and in part from Abydenus who apparently borrowed from Juba who borrowed from Alexander Polyhistor and so from Berossus. To make a worse confusion, Eusebius has in some cases not recognized the fact that Abydenus is only a feeble echo of Polyhistor, and has quoted the accounts of each side by side!' He continues: 'And this is not the worst. Although his Polyhistor account is in general to be preferred, Eusebius seems to have used a poor manuscript of that author.' (Assyrian Historiography, pages 62, 63)" [emphasis added]
Could the different figures attributed to Polyhistor be corruptions in the text? It would seem so.
The full quote by Olmstead is available at http://www.aina.org/books/ah.pdf. To punch home the point about all roads leading back to Berossus, Olmstead adds in his following paragraph,
"Summing up, practically all the authentic knowledge that the classical world has of the Assyrians and Babylonians came from Berossus."
As regards the Josephus column in the Watchtower article's table, it's telling that only the figures from Antiquities, X.11 are given, as if these are solely the ones Josephus uses. Nabopolassar's regnal years are omitted in the table presumably because in the midst of that section, Josephus quotes Berossus who assigns 21 years to him. Naturally, Josephus' later book, Against Apion, has regnal years identical to the first Berossus column in the table - indeed, to get these Berossus figures in the table, one has to consult Josephus!
The Ptolemy column matches the Berossus column anyway - with the exception of Labashi-Marduk who reigned less than a year and didn't need counting.
Here is a table that doesn't compare Berossus with a row of historians whose source was ultimately Berossus (other than, perhaps, Ptolemy):

Source: Berossos and Manetho, Introduced and Translated: Native Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt - Gerald Verbrugghe, John Wickersham, John Moore Wickersham (University of Michigan Press, 2001).

The history and evolution of the tenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the letter י (yud). A Chart of the Ancient Hebrew alphabet is available through the Ancient Hebrew Research Center
 
 

If by this you are implying that the present system will end later rather than sooner, then surely Paul's words to the Hebrews at 11:13 would continue to apply to many currently alive who do not live to see God's intervention in human affairs:
"In faith all of these died, although they did not receive the fulfillment of the promises; but they saw them from a distance and welcomed them and publicly declared that they were strangers and temporary residents in the land."
In fact, many who truly serve Jehovah will continue to have an experience similarly to Abraham (Gen.25:8) : "Then Abraham breathed his last and died at a good old age, old and satisfied, and was gathered to his people."
These scriptures hold good regardless of when the Gentile Times end and would do so even if we had never heard the expression in our lives.

I agree with much of what you have said in your post. The areas where we disagree the most have been discussed earlier and I have no need to discuss them with you any further until you have tried to answer the scriptural reasons that were brought up at the time. Besides, those discussions mostly touch on subjects that are not of much concern in this current topic.
Consider:
*** w95 6/15 pp. 21-22 “Sacred Service With Your Power of Reason” ***
Slaves of God and Christ, Not of Men
13 Elders have to allow those under their care to use their power of reason. The members of the congregation are not slaves of men. “If I were yet pleasing men,” wrote Paul, “I would not be Christ’s slave.” (Galatians 1:10; Colossians 3:23, 24) In contrast, the Pharisees wanted people to believe that it was more important to gain the approval of men than that of God. (Matthew 23:2-7; John 12:42, 43) The Pharisees took it upon themselves to become moral dictators who formed their own rules and then judged others by how well they measured up. Those who followed the Pharisees were weakened in the use of their Bible-trained conscience, in effect becoming slaves of men.
14 Christian elders today know that the flock is not principally accountable to them. Each Christian must carry his or her own load. (Romans 14:4; 2 Corinthians 1:24; Galatians 6:5) This is as it should be. Indeed, if members of the flock were to be slaves of men, obeying simply because of being monitored, what would they do when those men were not around? Paul had reason for joy over the Philippians: “In the way that you have always obeyed, not during my presence only, but now much more readily during my absence, keep working out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” They were truly slaves of Christ, and not of Paul.—Philippians 2:12.
 
 

With only a few exceptions. I'm not going to get into details, but I'm sure I could manage to get whatever is necessary reported to the proper authorities and also meet the obligations of the congregation.

I do not mean just eye-witness evidence; after all, eye-witness or video evidence is rare. I mean "direct" in the sense that the case, or a confession, or complaint, were brought directly to my attention.
Having spoken at some length with a couple of abuse victims, I also know that behavior and trust characteristics on the part of the victim can also be evidence, but I am no expert in such difficulties. I'm talking about persons who suspect that a child has been abused, or when parents, guardians, or the child himself/herself makes the claim, or an adult makes a claim about a past case of abuse (or series of abuses) when they were a child.
At this point, the suspicion may not even deal with who is suspected of being the perpetrator (although this is usually part of the accusation). Parents don't want to believe a relative or spouse can be guilty, and often refuse to suspect the right person, or even provide evidence that they suppress psychologically or purposefully. The remaining evidence is often just the claim of a victim, and it often comes to light many years after the abuse occurred -- and by this time memories and projections and confusion will often need to be factored in. There are cases when an abused person, years later, will even blame the wrong person, sometimes a parent who was only indirectly responsible through negligence or suppression of obvious clues. Also, victims often go through stages of behavior after abuse that make them vulnerable to multiple abusers through their lives, and dealing with the painful memories of multiple abusers is often a factor that leads to mistaken memories. And sometimes it's a very simple matter, even if it happened years ago. Sometimes there is a diary, or letters to a parent, relative, or friend. Often there is the evidence that shows up when an accused perpetrator moves to another congregation, and new accusations come to light in the next congregation,  or a search into his background shows up previously unreported accusations from a prior congregation.
These complexities just point out that we need all the help we can get in such situations. Whether the evidence is recent or from years ago, we still need to inform the authorities as quickly as possible. We need all the help we can get from persons trained to investigate such matters. (Romans 13) 

If I had direct evidence that a JW had committed a serious crime (murder, rape, child physical abuse, child sexual abuse). I would definitely report it to the police. My wife, as a school principal has had to report several such instances, even of suspected child physical and/or sexual abuse, because she has always worked in very large school districts, where she has had an obligation under the law to do so..One of those instances involved a JW parent. I have never witnessed or seen direct evidence of a JW committing a serious crime.
I guess, to be totally honest, I should explain what I mean by "serious crime.".I don't consider a typical spanking the same as child physical abuse although I have seen some borderline situations, but have never reported them. In almost 50 years as a baptized JW, I have also heard many admissions of guilt in a congregation setting (admission of smoking, abortion, adultery, etc. - against such things there is no "law."). Outside the judicial setting I have learned of financial fraud, insurance fraud, welfare fraud, shoplifting, theft of services, returning used clothing as new, etc. I have never reported such things to secular authorities, and only reported to the congregation in one case when I knew it was another brother defrauded, and "we" (mostly "I") took it to the other brother first.  In these cases, I expressed my personal disapproval, offered scriptural counsel, recommended confession to the elders, and recommended ways to make amends. I do not think that every such case needs to be reported to the congregation (elder body) by me personally.
When a Bethelite robbed me of a couple hundred dollars, I took it to his congregation elders, not Bethel elders, after warning him that he had 2 months to pay me back. (The kinds of things I believe Paul had in mind that the congregation could try to handle without going to court are internal cases of financial and property fraud between brothers.)
I have turned in a lecherous photographer to park authorities, who was obviously focusing on getting lascivious pictures up little girls' dresses and that sort of thing. I'm almost 100% sure he was not a JW, but it never occurred to me. I would not have asked and it would not have made a difference.

LOL! Hilarious response to AllenSmith (and JWTheologian).
I was thinking about the reasons for the use of duplicate accounts by Allen. Anyone here who has the IP address displayed already knows for a fact that AllenSmith and JWTheologian are the same person. Not that anyone actually needed specific evidence since Allen has also used these same two names (among a couple of others) in the JW-Archive forum. And he ties them together with a unique vocabulary including the same misspellings, and the unique use of words like "recreants" etc.
But what actually ties them together even more clearly is the fact that he regularly resorts to using the language of abuse and bullying. On the jw-archive forum, in fact, his new names were used specifically so he could continue his abusive behavior when prior user names had reached the limits of the abuse allowed by moderators.
I did a little experiment with Allen that might seem either funny, revealing or embarrassing. I'll explain below:
As many people know, Allen's prime use of the two names on this forum is not so much to allow him to hide his abusive behavior. After all, both names are still in use, both have been equally abusive, and I'm sure that AllenSmith is aware that the two names don't really fool anyone here who is involved in dialogue with him.
In fact (and this may be the primary use) both names: AllenSmith and JWTheologian have been used to bolster the reputation of each other. AllenSmith very often give "likes" or a "reputations" to his own posts of both names. And JWTheologian has also given "likes" or "reputations" to his own posts of both names. In fact, for most of his posts that have been given a like or reputation, he is the only one who likes them.
Knowing this, I wondered how important that self-made reputation was to Allen. I decided to give a "Down-vote" as a "reputation" which hurts AllenSmith's and JWTheologian's overall numerical "reputation." But I only gave that "down-vote" to a small number of his posts. (In fact there have been a couple of posts in the past where I have given a "like".) I only down-voted a few of the posts where AllenSmith and/or JWTheologian had already boosted his own reputation by giving himself an up-vote AND where he was being nasty, abusive, or was clearly using an ad hominem.
The experiment worked. Both AllenSmith and JWTheologian quickly came back at past posts of mine under several topic areas. He left some with a "minus one" reputation and some where he just knocked a point off the overall count where others had already up-voted my post.
It seemed a bit ironic in topics like this one where one of the sub-topics is a discussion of how and why a society or entity will cover up abuse for the sake of "reputation." My own view has always been that I should do my best, where possible, to expose this kind of problem, whether I would learn of evidence of it in a local high school, or a sleazy photographer surreptitiously taking pictures of children in our local park, or even our own Organization. Exposure is the best solution that most of us can help with.
And now, I've also done my small part to expose the abuses of an individual perpetrating abuse, ad hominem and bullying on this forum while simultaneously trying to boost his own reputation.