JW Insider

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.

I'm still not sure he's allowed by law to visit homes of minor children even if it is with others.  I'm sure it can be startling to have someone all of a sudden with a camera in your face being loud, but he should have known that having that record in his past and being out in public someone was bound to confront him.  So yes, being prepared with an answer ahead of time would have been adequate, instead of total denial.  If everyone is in denial, nothing will change.  There should be an ongoing restriction against anyone underage being left alone with individuals accused of sexual abuse.  This would be added protection for everyone, while understanding everyone should be treated with love and respect.

It was once said by a well-meaning circuit overseer at an assembly; “You can’t be an introvert in the truth”. More accurately the statement should have been; “It’s more difficult for the introvert in the truth”. Why is that the case? Well let’s first find out a little about the Introvert.
Do you know publishers who need to spend time alone every day? Publishers who love quiet conversations about feelings or ideas. Publishers that can give good talks at congregation meetings, but seem awkward when it comes to socialising and reluctant to participate during the meetings? They may appear to growl, grunt or wince when accosted with pleasantries by publishers who are just trying to be nice? If so, then you know publishers who are Introverted.
New Look
It’s time for a new look at introversion. It may come as a surprise to you that introverts are a legitimate personality type. Introverts comprise between 10-30% of the population. The problem is that their self image is defined almost exclusively by that other 70% (or more) of extroverts who don’t understand them and think they are wrong because they are different.
This is like saying a person is wrong because they are black. Racism in the truth, unlike the world hardly exists, but the area of introversion could be called one of the last frontiers of prejudice.
And don’t think it’s a choice to be this way, it’s all in the brain, literally. Researchers have established a positive correlation between alpha waves generated in the frontal lobes of the human brain and personality traits that characterise introverts or extroverts. Introverts have more acetylcholine, a chemical that enhances “long-term memory, the ability to stay calm and alert, and perceptual learning.” They also have increased activity in the frontal lobe, which has been linked to high-level problem solving skills, long-term planning, and a facility with language.
Misconceptions
The Introvert is not simply a shy person. They are not necessarily depressed and they are not social outcasts, although it may appear this way to the extroverts who need ongoing social contact to be healthy and happy. Introversion is not a pathological condition; it is not an abnormal response to the world. It is simply a personality trait found in a smaller percentage of the total population. Introversion is not shyness or a lack of social skills. It’s temperament, hard wired in ones genetic code, and cannot be altered.
Differences
Introverts are different from extroverts and this difference is very difficult for the extrovert to understand because they do not operate in the same way. As they do not understand it, many continually try to ‘help’ the introvert become more social, more gregarious, more outgoing, and have more fun, all, of course, from the extroverts point-of-view. As an example I know of one introvert who used to love going to parties, they used to plant themselves in an unobtrusive place where they could get a good view of the room, and with drink in hand they spent the evening 'people watching’ and were more than happy in doing so. That is until the continue barrage from extroverts to get up, have a dance, enjoy yourself, became too much to cope with.
In essence the terms Introvert and it’s antonym extrovert can be summarised by the source of our energy. Extroverts get their energy from the outer world and feel drained when they are by themselves too long. Introverts get their energy from within and lose energy quickly when having to deal with a lot of people. To illustrate; extroverts are like solar cell batteries they need to be in the sun to get charged up, introverts are more like rechargeable batteries, they need to be by themselves to restore their energy, to enable them to go back out into the world of people.
Two statements sum up one of the main differences between the extrovert and the Introvert.“If you don’t know what an extrovert is thinking, you haven’t listened”. “If you don’t know what an introvert is thinking, you haven’t asked.” Introverts tend to mentally rehearse what they are thinking. When they have it all worked out in their mind, then they might tell you. It is not that they want to conceal their thoughts. It just doesn’t occur to them to say them out loud. That is why it is wise to ask. Silence does not necessarily mean consent. Never presume you know what an introvert is thinking, or you know what they want.
Participation
Participation or commenting at meetings has for decades been seen as a good sign of spiritual progress. A means of sharing an expression of our faith. A means to encourage others. That of course has not changed. What needs to change however is our perception of those who do not readily avail themselves of this avenue.
Ask the teacher of any Introvert attending school and they will say the same; “Does not participate much in class”. Does that mean that they are not a good student? Far from it, in fact in most cases they are usually better as they excel in listening and reading.
As one student put it: “Receiving a grade for class participation has always been a great source of anxiety for me, since I am rarely the person in the class who speaks the most, and sometimes I am the person who speaks the least. I watch other students who speak often and I am frustrated by the knowledge that they are being rewarded for the quantity of their participation while I am being punished.” Introverted learners tend to participate less in class, since they prefer to process ideas by thinking to themselves rather than by speaking to others. The difficulty with this style of learning is that it does not fit well with the traditional concept of participation by commenting at meetings. The fact that lack of participation is looked down upon adds to the frustration of an Introvert. When others try to encourage an introvert to comment their discomfort usually increases due to the extra pressure. One of the best compliments a publisher was given was that although they didn’t comment often at the meetings, when they did, they always said something meaningful. Unfortunately, this advantage often seem undervalued in the congregation.
In the same way that the introverted makes the effort to participate during a meeting, extroverted publishers must make the effort to refrain at times from participating just to fill the silence. Introverted publishers need space in which to comment, and if the conductor provides this space, rather than taking the first hand they see, it will encourage them to continue to make the effort to participate. Bear in mind the conductor should not use that space with any phrase along the lines of, “Who hasn’t answered yet?”, as that will add further pressure and anxiety.
As has been proved in the school classroom, participation should be encouraged rather than required. The use of participation at the meetings is a valid and important instructional technique. However, what is valuable and beneficial to some, is not necessarily so to others. Forcing highly apprehensive, ethnically and socially divergent, or skill deficient people to participate is harmful. It will increase apprehension and reduce self-esteem. Thus, at the meetings participation should be encouraged but never required from those that are quiet. Try to remember that introverts often cannot relax unless they are alone with a teacher or in a very small class, which is why introverts were more inclined to comment on a book study level (when small groups met in private homes).
The reluctance to participate has nothing to do with preparation or lack of it, in fact the opposite is most likely true. Knowing the material is likely to keep the introvert from participating as they dislike redundancy. As one introvert said, “The only thing worse than talking about something twice is thinking something I’ve already thought”. They often do not feel compelled to demonstrate all that they know, hence they may sometimes surprise those around them when they do choose to speak up.
In view of the percentages mentioned earlier you need to keep constantly in mind that most publishers are moderately to highly verbal people, and hence different than the quiet publishers within the congregation. What makes good common sense to such ones may be the worst thing they could do for someone who is quiet. So please don’t ever say, “What if everyone was like you?” (that will never be the case). One final pointer in this area, when an introvert does answer, and they will if they have something to say and feel up to it, don’t ever make a big issue of it for that will draw further attention and hence stress to that one. Therefore never say after the meeting; “I enjoyed your answer”, or “It was good to hear you answer”. If you feel you need to say something then mention something about their comment rather than about the fact that they commented.
Where to Sit
Kingdom Halls have high, moderate, and low interaction areas. The highest are near the front and centre. The lowest are along the sides and in the rear. One of the potentially most harmful things an elder (or attendant) can do is to force a quiet publisher to sit in a high-interaction area of the hall. While the publisher is not likely to talk any more in such an area than if he or she were seated elsewhere, the threat of communication will be felt much more consistently. Under such pressure it is more difficult for the publisher to concentrate on the talks being delivered, and learning will decrease. Allowing publishers to select their own seats avoids harming the quiet ones.
Ministry
Introverts are unlikely to initiate a conversation either with acquaintances or strangers. Introverts will prefer to wait until someone approaches them. This of course doesn’t happen very often in the ministry. Therein lies the problem for Introverts, they have a constant fight to bring themselves to speak to people in the ministry. A fight that subsequently leaves one drained emotionally and physically.
An introverted publisher is most likely happier when working in field service alone as they tend to not like being watched. Although happy to be out with a group in service, they would prefer to be alone on the door-step. This of course would also apply to telephone witnessing or street witnessing. They find it hard to concentrate on what they are doing as well as concentrating on someone else.
Ministry that is much easier on introverts would include aspects such as letter writing.
Socialising
Introverts can feel quite uncomfortable going to a social event where they may not know anyone. If you are hosting a party, you will be doing the Introverts a favour by introducing them to several people, being sure to indicate what they might have in common. Another good idea is to pair them up with an extrovert who will carry the conversation until the Introvert feels more comfortable. Introverts are known for being good listeners.
If you want an introvert to share their thoughts, ideas, concerns and feelings with you then you need to make it easy for them. One would need to stay with them, sit quietly and patiently hear them out. They do not like to be hurried or interrupted as they very easily forget their thoughts.
They may seem reluctant to join in as they will tend to avoid doing anything they have not mastered. They will not risk looking the fool. Their opinions are not easily swayed by others and they will rarely do anything they don’t really want to do just to impress, please, or be accepted by others. This sometimes causes others to erroneously classify them as stubborn and inflexible, as extroverts, in general, feel they can easily manipulate the introvert as they may appear quite and timid.
If the way they see the world is ignored the risk of creating a constantly contentious and hostile environment is greatly increased. Tolerance is communicated when they are accepted for who they are. While they may not appear to be especially happy, that is most often a false appearance. They are different from most people and their style often diverges from the way society in general operates.
The Last Vestige
The Written Review: The one area where the introvert could truly feel comfortable has been replaced by the extrovert friendly Oral Review.
Some Characteristics of Introverts:
- Territorial - desire private space and time
- Happy to be alone - they can be lonely in a crowd
- Become drained around large groups of people; dislike approaching others
- Need time alone to recharge
- Prefer to work on own rather than do group work
- Act cautiously in meeting people
- Are reserved, quiet and deliberate
- Concentrate well and deeply
- Become absorbed in thoughts and ideas
- Limit their interests but explore deeply
- Communicate best one-on-one
- Get agitated and irritated when without enough time to think or act.
- Do not enjoy being the centre of attention
- Do not share private thoughts with just anyone
- Form a few deep attachments
- Think carefully before speaking (practice in head before speaking)
- See reflection as very important
- Select activities carefully and thoughtfully
- Contributed
 

No, nothing was said publicly as far as I can remember. The branches responsible for their own language mastheads had to be informed, and I don't recall any discussion or reasons given in those communications either. These changes weren't even well publicized within the headquarters.
Suggestions for changes began when phototypesetting became available -- and a new masthead became easy. Artists pushed for more room on the front cover for artwork, now that art could become much more detailed, and there was talk of getting a complete press changeover to "offset" which would make it much easier to make the changes in record time. The new "Photoplate Department" was started over in the 8th floor of factory #1 (117 Adams) to fit into this new process. That department was located just below the Computer Department.
(The computer department was also set adjacent to the new MEPS typesetting equipment which had a feed built right down into the darkroom area of Photoplate..Note however that MEPS had nothing to do with the masthead changes; it was only a new part of a new defined process where changes were to be made more quickly. For a few years it just created an expectation of a faster process. It took a while to get fully implemented.)
Still, the ease of changing the masthead was in place, and it could be changed almost as easily as artists could order specialty fonts (headline fonts) for article titles. You'll notice that in the late 1970's we started using dozens of different fonts for the first time that weren't hand-drawn. (A few hand-drawn titles kept being made into the 80's.)  The process was not as easy as using a computer, since every font was actually a set of characters set onto a negative filmstrip on a long "stick". The "stick" was positioned in a machine over a light source and a couple lenses so that it shined the light directly through the character, and onto a piece of "stat camera" film. The light exposed the shape of the letter, and that portion of the film turned black, and then the next letter was found on the stick and positioned onto the film. The font size was made by repositioning the light. "Kerning" -- the space between letters -- was all done manually, so that we could overlap letters if we wished. We could play with the exposure and switch between negatives and positives on the stat cameras to create outline fonts, or manipluate the letters into the artwork. Artists from the home art department would go over to the factory and play with this equipment when it was new, but soon started letting Photoplate personnel do all the work when the novelty wore off.
But back to the masthead changes. A couple of the early customizations were driven by an artist. When it seemed easy (it wasn't) it drove a more official "branding change" to look more modern, we were told internally. But that turned out to be a big problem for other branches and languages. (In the 70's the Spanish magazine came out a few weeks after the English, but other languages were sometimes a few months behind. So their masthead changes were sometimes a version or two behind, or they just ignored the change.) So it was decided (one more time) to make a "final" masthead decision from the top down with more consensus. Naturally, not everyone liked it even after voting for it. So it changed again. I forget how many  changes there were from 1975 to 1980, but there were several obvious ones and a couple more subtle ones. 

Yes, this is true of JWs and true of so many other organizations too. One might argue that the reputation of the organization is even more critical among JWs because we are dependent on reputation for disciple-making for growth, and growth is still tied to proof of Jehovah's blessing. The unjust procedures were kept for too long, and this might have been based on the fact that they served to protect the reputation of the organization. If so, that's a travesty.
I don't know if anyone has posted the latest procedural updates anywhere but they have improved the procedures about as far as I had ever expected the organization to go. (I'm referring to the August 2016 update to the previous 2012 procedures. They are still just incrementally better than the previous version, but better nonetheless.) It's true that they do not ask the elders to automatically report sexual abuse of minors to the authorities, but it is assumed that the legal department will always make sure that local jurisdictional laws are always followed correctly by the elders. It's also true that neither elders nor the legal department will always providing counsel for victims to report the crime. .
This gives the impression that they will only do the minimum required under the law in any particular jurisdiction, but I believe the organization now has almost as much incentive to handle things correctly with the secular authorities. The reason is that the organization has been "burnt" so many times by not doing the right thing that the previous bad habits (process-wise) have also brought reproach on the organization. And, as stated, this organization is dependent on reputation.
I think the best thing that any of us can do as Witnesses is to just expose the problem so that the organization faces it more honestly. Hopefully, I have done that above. The idea that it's better to hide such things, including any and all accusations, continues to produce an environment that is passively hostile to exposure. Exposure is the best medicine. The criminals should know that no one will side with them to help them hide their crimes. Also, exposure of all accusations (within reason) will also help a congregation learn that not all accusations are immediately credible and this is a good reason to ask for all the help we can get investigating such accusations as early and openly as possible. We should be glad that the secular authorities, who are generally trained, will thus take some of the burden off the elders and the organization where almost no professional training in such matters exists.

Yes, this is true of JWs and true of so many other organizations too. One might argue that the reputation of the organization is even more critical among JWs because we are dependent on reputation for disciple-making for growth, and growth is still tied to proof of Jehovah's blessing. The unjust procedures were kept for too long, and this might have been based on the fact that they served to protect the reputation of the organization. If so, that's a travesty.
I don't know if anyone has posted the latest procedural updates anywhere but they have improved the procedures about as far as I had ever expected the organization to go. (I'm referring to the August 2016 update to the previous 2012 procedures. They are still just incrementally better than the previous version, but better nonetheless.) It's true that they do not ask the elders to automatically report sexual abuse of minors to the authorities, but it is assumed that the legal department will always make sure that local jurisdictional laws are always followed correctly by the elders. It's also true that neither elders nor the legal department will always providing counsel for victims to report the crime. .
This gives the impression that they will only do the minimum required under the law in any particular jurisdiction, but I believe the organization now has almost as much incentive to handle things correctly with the secular authorities. The reason is that the organization has been "burnt" so many times by not doing the right thing that the previous bad habits (process-wise) have also brought reproach on the organization. And, as stated, this organization is dependent on reputation.
I think the best thing that any of us can do as Witnesses is to just expose the problem so that the organization faces it more honestly. Hopefully, I have done that above. The idea that it's better to hide such things, including any and all accusations, continues to produce an environment that is passively hostile to exposure. Exposure is the best medicine. The criminals should know that no one will side with them to help them hide their crimes. Also, exposure of all accusations (within reason) will also help a congregation learn that not all accusations are immediately credible and this is a good reason to ask for all the help we can get investigating such accusations as early and openly as possible. We should be glad that the secular authorities, who are generally trained, will thus take some of the burden off the elders and the organization where almost no professional training in such matters exists.

Yes, this is true of JWs and true of so many other organizations too. One might argue that the reputation of the organization is even more critical among JWs because we are dependent on reputation for disciple-making for growth, and growth is still tied to proof of Jehovah's blessing. The unjust procedures were kept for too long, and this might have been based on the fact that they served to protect the reputation of the organization. If so, that's a travesty.
I don't know if anyone has posted the latest procedural updates anywhere but they have improved the procedures about as far as I had ever expected the organization to go. (I'm referring to the August 2016 update to the previous 2012 procedures. They are still just incrementally better than the previous version, but better nonetheless.) It's true that they do not ask the elders to automatically report sexual abuse of minors to the authorities, but it is assumed that the legal department will always make sure that local jurisdictional laws are always followed correctly by the elders. It's also true that neither elders nor the legal department will always providing counsel for victims to report the crime. .
This gives the impression that they will only do the minimum required under the law in any particular jurisdiction, but I believe the organization now has almost as much incentive to handle things correctly with the secular authorities. The reason is that the organization has been "burnt" so many times by not doing the right thing that the previous bad habits (process-wise) have also brought reproach on the organization. And, as stated, this organization is dependent on reputation.
I think the best thing that any of us can do as Witnesses is to just expose the problem so that the organization faces it more honestly. Hopefully, I have done that above. The idea that it's better to hide such things, including any and all accusations, continues to produce an environment that is passively hostile to exposure. Exposure is the best medicine. The criminals should know that no one will side with them to help them hide their crimes. Also, exposure of all accusations (within reason) will also help a congregation learn that not all accusations are immediately credible and this is a good reason to ask for all the help we can get investigating such accusations as early and openly as possible. We should be glad that the secular authorities, who are generally trained, will thus take some of the burden off the elders and the organization where almost no professional training in such matters exists.

As of 1956, pioneers began receiving a reduced rate on the magazines. (See "Informant" February 1956, p.2.) At that time they were sold for a nickel, and yes, we were still using the word "sold" into the 1950's. The reduced rate was a penny. The magazine quota for Special Pioneers was 110 per month, and for Regular Pioneers, it was 90. If they made their quota, that was about $4 per month they could now "pocket" but it usually went to transportation expenses.
[Edited to add that I don't think there was a Pioneer School in 1960. Even in 1973, you just became a Pioneer if your application was approved, and there was no school.]

Any religion that has the same problem, that has mishandled the problem, that has negligently allowed victims to be harmed, needs their failings exposed - whether it's the Catholics, the Church of England, the Jewish or Muslim faith communities, the LDS, Moonies, Scientologists or Jehovah's Witnesses.
Damn right that the JW Org is feeling the pressure too. The Org has a history of naivety and stubbornness in this area and has to be dragged by 'worldly' authorities into improving their safeguarding protocols. The Org is still lagging too far behind current best practice - even now after the latest BOE letter guidelines.

No, nothing was said publicly as far as I can remember. The branches responsible for their own language mastheads had to be informed, and I don't recall any discussion or reasons given in those communications either. These changes weren't even well publicized within the headquarters.
Suggestions for changes began when phototypesetting became available -- and a new masthead became easy. Artists pushed for more room on the front cover for artwork, now that art could become much more detailed, and there was talk of getting a complete press changeover to "offset" which would make it much easier to make the changes in record time. The new "Photoplate Department" was started over in the 8th floor of factory #1 (117 Adams) to fit into this new process. That department was located just below the Computer Department.
(The computer department was also set adjacent to the new MEPS typesetting equipment which had a feed built right down into the darkroom area of Photoplate..Note however that MEPS had nothing to do with the masthead changes; it was only a new part of a new defined process where changes were to be made more quickly. For a few years it just created an expectation of a faster process. It took a while to get fully implemented.)
Still, the ease of changing the masthead was in place, and it could be changed almost as easily as artists could order specialty fonts (headline fonts) for article titles. You'll notice that in the late 1970's we started using dozens of different fonts for the first time that weren't hand-drawn. (A few hand-drawn titles kept being made into the 80's.)  The process was not as easy as using a computer, since every font was actually a set of characters set onto a negative filmstrip on a long "stick". The "stick" was positioned in a machine over a light source and a couple lenses so that it shined the light directly through the character, and onto a piece of "stat camera" film. The light exposed the shape of the letter, and that portion of the film turned black, and then the next letter was found on the stick and positioned onto the film. The font size was made by repositioning the light. "Kerning" -- the space between letters -- was all done manually, so that we could overlap letters if we wished. We could play with the exposure and switch between negatives and positives on the stat cameras to create outline fonts, or manipluate the letters into the artwork. Artists from the home art department would go over to the factory and play with this equipment when it was new, but soon started letting Photoplate personnel do all the work when the novelty wore off.
But back to the masthead changes. A couple of the early customizations were driven by an artist. When it seemed easy (it wasn't) it drove a more official "branding change" to look more modern, we were told internally. But that turned out to be a big problem for other branches and languages. (In the 70's the Spanish magazine came out a few weeks after the English, but other languages were sometimes a few months behind. So their masthead changes were sometimes a version or two behind, or they just ignored the change.) So it was decided (one more time) to make a "final" masthead decision from the top down with more consensus. Naturally, not everyone liked it even after voting for it. So it changed again. I forget how many  changes there were from 1975 to 1980, but there were several obvious ones and a couple more subtle ones. 

One of the other important factors surrounding this problem might just explain why Witnesses have had so much trouble dealing with it.
The most surprising aspect of child abuse (to me) is the fact that this crime is apparently commonly related to "authority." The higher the "authority," the more common the crime. It's not limited to religious authority; it occurs via the levels of authority with family, teachers, bosses, boy scout leaders, military authority, etc.
"Authority" is used as the means to create the circumstances.
"Authority" is used as the means to convince the victim that it's OK. 
"Authority" is used as the means to convince the victim when the victim knows it is not OK.
"Authority" is used as the means to convince the victim not to talk.
Of course, most of this idea about the misuse of "authority" is common sense, but the part that might be most surprising is the prevalence. Abuse by persons in authority is so prevalent that you can almost predict that the higher the level of authority reached in a group, the more likely that you will find the crime of child abuse at that level. The higher the level of priests, the higher the percentage accused of child abuse. And this is known is in spite of the opportunities for authority to cover up the crime.
I believe, and this is only a little bit more than opinion, but I believe this explains the problem that no religion, including Jehovah's Witnesses wants exposed. It's the fact that the higher level of authority one reaches even within the JW Organization, the more likley one will find evidence of child abuse.
I am only going on the evidence of accusations here, and no first hand knowledge of whether these accusations mean anything real. But this would explain why the documentation of how child abusers were handled among JWs can never be open to the public. It explains why, even though the JWs have greatly improved their procedures, we can still never expose the individual cases to a court. It's because it would provide evidence that the crimes are greater and more frequent the higher up one goes in the organization. It would show that those at higher levels of authority in the organizational structure have been the most protected from public and congregational exposure. It would show that, in the not-to-distant past, there have been cases at some levels that were "forgiven" based merely on the promises of the perpetrator, with no apparent punishments.  
Some evidence of this is the fact that rumors and accusations of terrible child abuse crimes reached to the very highest levels of authority in the Australian Branch. At least two past Australian Branch overseers have been implicated, although I know nothing about the current branch overseers except that I know they were aware. Brother Jaracz of the Governing Body was even accused more than once. I have been told that persons treating victims who are not allowed to speak out for professional reasons have provided ambiguous evidence that Brother Jaracz was involved in more than one such incident.
More evidence of such rumors and accusations of terrible child abuse cases reached the highest levels of the UK Branch Office, and I'm told the UK Charity Commission was aware of this. When three or four persons were dismissed from very high levels within the UK branch recently, I was told that the problem was two-fold, but the most serious was not only the process of covering up child abuse, but also the accusations of involvement in child abuse crimes by more than one member of the leadership of the UK branch office.
I've heard of such issues at other branch offices, but never heard enough details.
And of course, most Witnesses are already aware of the fact that not only  Brother Jaracz, but also Brother Greenlees (both of the Governing Body) had been accused of the crime of child abuse. Also, hundreds of Bethelites, including me, witnessed the strange behavior of Brother Fred Franz who held a weekly Wednesday-night sauna session where about a dozen naked and nearly naked young Bethelites would act like sycophant disciples to listen to a naked Franz pontificate. This evidently went on for years, although I only witnessed it once.
Again, except for the evidence of actual dismissals that have sometimes included an admission of the sin (crime), and except for my first-hand knowledge of the behavior of Fred Franz - which might have been innocent, even if weird -- most of what I mentioned above refers to "rumors and accusations." It's easy to make a rumor or an accusation, and they might not be true. You can't just say where there is smoke there is fire. We must be careful of judging and misjudging. But in general, there is still evidence of the trend toward a bigger problem among those in higher levels of authority. These are also the ones who are the least likely to be caught, so we often have a misperception of this particular part of the problem.

One of the other important factors surrounding this problem might just explain why Witnesses have had so much trouble dealing with it.
The most surprising aspect of child abuse (to me) is the fact that this crime is apparently commonly related to "authority." The higher the "authority," the more common the crime. It's not limited to religious authority; it occurs via the levels of authority with family, teachers, bosses, boy scout leaders, military authority, etc.
"Authority" is used as the means to create the circumstances.
"Authority" is used as the means to convince the victim that it's OK. 
"Authority" is used as the means to convince the victim when the victim knows it is not OK.
"Authority" is used as the means to convince the victim not to talk.
Of course, most of this idea about the misuse of "authority" is common sense, but the part that might be most surprising is the prevalence. Abuse by persons in authority is so prevalent that you can almost predict that the higher the level of authority reached in a group, the more likely that you will find the crime of child abuse at that level. The higher the level of priests, the higher the percentage accused of child abuse. And this is known is in spite of the opportunities for authority to cover up the crime.
I believe, and this is only a little bit more than opinion, but I believe this explains the problem that no religion, including Jehovah's Witnesses wants exposed. It's the fact that the higher level of authority one reaches even within the JW Organization, the more likley one will find evidence of child abuse.
I am only going on the evidence of accusations here, and no first hand knowledge of whether these accusations mean anything real. But this would explain why the documentation of how child abusers were handled among JWs can never be open to the public. It explains why, even though the JWs have greatly improved their procedures, we can still never expose the individual cases to a court. It's because it would provide evidence that the crimes are greater and more frequent the higher up one goes in the organization. It would show that those at higher levels of authority in the organizational structure have been the most protected from public and congregational exposure. It would show that, in the not-to-distant past, there have been cases at some levels that were "forgiven" based merely on the promises of the perpetrator, with no apparent punishments.  
Some evidence of this is the fact that rumors and accusations of terrible child abuse crimes reached to the very highest levels of authority in the Australian Branch. At least two past Australian Branch overseers have been implicated, although I know nothing about the current branch overseers except that I know they were aware. Brother Jaracz of the Governing Body was even accused more than once. I have been told that persons treating victims who are not allowed to speak out for professional reasons have provided ambiguous evidence that Brother Jaracz was involved in more than one such incident.
More evidence of such rumors and accusations of terrible child abuse cases reached the highest levels of the UK Branch Office, and I'm told the UK Charity Commission was aware of this. When three or four persons were dismissed from very high levels within the UK branch recently, I was told that the problem was two-fold, but the most serious was not only the process of covering up child abuse, but also the accusations of involvement in child abuse crimes by more than one member of the leadership of the UK branch office.
I've heard of such issues at other branch offices, but never heard enough details.
And of course, most Witnesses are already aware of the fact that not only  Brother Jaracz, but also Brother Greenlees (both of the Governing Body) had been accused of the crime of child abuse. Also, hundreds of Bethelites, including me, witnessed the strange behavior of Brother Fred Franz who held a weekly Wednesday-night sauna session where about a dozen naked and nearly naked young Bethelites would act like sycophant disciples to listen to a naked Franz pontificate. This evidently went on for years, although I only witnessed it once.
Again, except for the evidence of actual dismissals that have sometimes included an admission of the sin (crime), and except for my first-hand knowledge of the behavior of Fred Franz - which might have been innocent, even if weird -- most of what I mentioned above refers to "rumors and accusations." It's easy to make a rumor or an accusation, and they might not be true. You can't just say where there is smoke there is fire. We must be careful of judging and misjudging. But in general, there is still evidence of the trend toward a bigger problem among those in higher levels of authority. These are also the ones who are the least likely to be caught, so we often have a misperception of this particular part of the problem.

No, nothing was said publicly as far as I can remember. The branches responsible for their own language mastheads had to be informed, and I don't recall any discussion or reasons given in those communications either. These changes weren't even well publicized within the headquarters.
Suggestions for changes began when phototypesetting became available -- and a new masthead became easy. Artists pushed for more room on the front cover for artwork, now that art could become much more detailed, and there was talk of getting a complete press changeover to "offset" which would make it much easier to make the changes in record time. The new "Photoplate Department" was started over in the 8th floor of factory #1 (117 Adams) to fit into this new process. That department was located just below the Computer Department.
(The computer department was also set adjacent to the new MEPS typesetting equipment which had a feed built right down into the darkroom area of Photoplate..Note however that MEPS had nothing to do with the masthead changes; it was only a new part of a new defined process where changes were to be made more quickly. For a few years it just created an expectation of a faster process. It took a while to get fully implemented.)
Still, the ease of changing the masthead was in place, and it could be changed almost as easily as artists could order specialty fonts (headline fonts) for article titles. You'll notice that in the late 1970's we started using dozens of different fonts for the first time that weren't hand-drawn. (A few hand-drawn titles kept being made into the 80's.)  The process was not as easy as using a computer, since every font was actually a set of characters set onto a negative filmstrip on a long "stick". The "stick" was positioned in a machine over a light source and a couple lenses so that it shined the light directly through the character, and onto a piece of "stat camera" film. The light exposed the shape of the letter, and that portion of the film turned black, and then the next letter was found on the stick and positioned onto the film. The font size was made by repositioning the light. "Kerning" -- the space between letters -- was all done manually, so that we could overlap letters if we wished. We could play with the exposure and switch between negatives and positives on the stat cameras to create outline fonts, or manipluate the letters into the artwork. Artists from the home art department would go over to the factory and play with this equipment when it was new, but soon started letting Photoplate personnel do all the work when the novelty wore off.
But back to the masthead changes. A couple of the early customizations were driven by an artist. When it seemed easy (it wasn't) it drove a more official "branding change" to look more modern, we were told internally. But that turned out to be a big problem for other branches and languages. (In the 70's the Spanish magazine came out a few weeks after the English, but other languages were sometimes a few months behind. So their masthead changes were sometimes a version or two behind, or they just ignored the change.) So it was decided (one more time) to make a "final" masthead decision from the top down with more consensus. Naturally, not everyone liked it even after voting for it. So it changed again. I forget how many  changes there were from 1975 to 1980, but there were several obvious ones and a couple more subtle ones. 

The "prison ministry" was always one of the most refreshing while I was pioneering. It is so different from most other types, yet you see the differences in people's lives. We worked with two major prisons. One was a high security prison and one was a minimum security prison. The high-security was a bit more scary because they let you in and they slammed the gate shut behind you. We had a Prison ID card where we also signed a waiver accepting risk in case we were caught up in violence. But the changes in people's lives was so evident from study to study -- and their questions are often deeper than the average householder. There is also a "competition" with other prison outreach ministries from other religions and a lot more questions about the Muslim religion. We often got questions we had to look up and get back the next week to answer. 
The minimum security prisons are quite different. The prisoners could literally escape and walk off the premises if they wanted to. (But they'd still have to serve their time all over again if caught.) We had a choice between using an "interfaith" building that was shared by other religions, but we often took over the interest of the other religious groups because we had interesting and lively discussions while some of the other groups often did no more than pray with them, sometimes silently. At first I wouldn't use the interfaith building, but the only other choice was the crowded visitors' room where the women/wives/girlfriends would visit other men in the room and try to get away with all kinds of activities that distracted greatly from the Bible study.

Jehovah's Witnesses under pressure over handling of sexual abuse claims
Organisation faces fight to prevent Charity Commission examining its records of abuse claims after supreme court rejects its attempt to block inquiry
 A spokesman for the Jehovah’s Witnesses said: ‘We are in no position to, and neither would we wish to, force any victim of abuse to confront their attacker.’ Photograph: Fairfax Media via Getty Images The Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation is under increasing pressure to address its handling of sexual abuse allegations as it faces legal setbacks, bills of over £1m and a fight to prevent the Charity Commission examining its records of abuse claims.
Last month a judge upheld a ruling against the UK’s leading Jehovah’s Witnesses charity, the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Britain (WTBTS), that the Jehovah’s Witnesses had failed to protect a woman, known in proceedings as A, from sexual abuse starting when she was four years old.
Now the supreme court has rejected a highly unusual attempt by the WTBTS to block a Charity Commission inquiry into how the Jehovah’s Witnesses charity handles allegations of abuse.
The extent of the charity’s challenges and the length of time they have gone on for are unprecedented in recent times, a spokesman for the Charity Commission said.
In A’s case the high court awarded damages and the WTBTS have been left facing legal fees totalling about £1m after attempting to appeal against the judgement three times.
The decision in A’s case sets a precedent that could expose the organisation to further claims. It continues to fight Charity Commission orders to provide documents on sexual abuse allegations, as well as other aspects of the inquiry, in lower courts.
Fay Maxted, chief executive of the Survivors Trust, a national sexual assault charity, said: “These are cases where someone has been sexually violated and had their whole trust in the safety of their religious community blown away.
“It’s deeply disappointing that a faith-based organisation appears to be so determined to try and avoid answering questions about its own behaviour …
“This is something the Catholics and Church of England have also had to deal with – these big institutions will fight and fight every step of the way.”
The ways in which large institutions – from the BBC to the Church of England – respond to allegations of sexual abuse has been under intense scrutiny in recent years. But the governmental investigation into the issue, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse (IICSA), was thrown into turmoil following the unexpected resignation of its chair, Lowell Goddard, last week. The home secretary on Thursday appointed Prof Alexis Jay as the new chair.
The Guardian understands that some survivors of sexual abuse by members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses are considering making submissions to the inquiry’s truth project, a strand gathering survivors’ testimony.
A, the woman at the centre of the civil case, was abused by a senior member of her congregation for five years from the age of four. It emerged during court proceedings that he had confessed to a different attack and was removed from a senior role, but had “repented” and was allowed to continue within the congregation.
The police were not told and her mother said in court that she had no recollection of being warned about him.
A said her mother told leading members, known as “elders”, about the abuse when she was about 14. Her attacker had been released from jail for other sex attacks and was asking to return to the congregation, she said.
“All the while I had it hanging over my head that if I wanted to raise any allegations … I would be forced into a judicial committee, I would have to confront him face to face,” she told the Guardian.
Although the church can “disfellowship” – expel – people for minor offences, A says her abuser was allowed to remain. “Had they discovered he was playing the lottery, he would have been disfellowshipped without question, but he admitted to them he had abused children, and he still wasn’t disfellowshipped,” A said.
She finally reported the abuse to the police after the elders did nothing. “I came to the view that I would either try and kill myself again, run away or just go to the police.”
He died before the police could question him about the allegation.
The judge ruled the congregation was “either not warned at all or not adequately warned” about the risk posed by A’s abuser.
A spokesman for the Jehovah’s Witnesses said: “Anyone who commits the sin of child abuse faces expulsion from the congregation … Any suggestion that Jehovah’s Witnesses cover up child abuse is absolutely false.”
He added: “Congregation elders do not discourage [reports to the authorities] or shield abusers from the authorities or from the consequences of their actions.”
Another woman, Jane*, who is also suing the organisation after she was raped by a member as an adult in 1990, said she was urged to face her rapist at a private hearing known as a judicial committee. It left her “completely traumatised” and led to the breakup of her marriage, she said.
Her attacker was eventually jailed in 2014, and she decided to sue after watching elders on the witness stand. “I thought, nobody’s taken responsibility for this. You could have held up your hands and said, ‘I’m sorry, we were in the wrong’,” Jane said. 
The Charity Commission launched statutory inquiries into Jehovah’s Witnesses charities in May 2014. This was shortly after claims emerged that elders in the Manchester New Moston congregation held a meeting at which three adult survivors of child sex abuse were brought face to face with their abuser, shortly after his release from prison for their abuse.
A spokesman for the Jehovah’s Witnesses said: “We are in no position to, and neither would we wish to, force any victim of abuse to confront their attacker.”
The commission, which has the power to investigate how charity trustees handle safeguarding, launched separate inquiries into the Manchester New Moston congregation and the WTBTS, which oversees the nation’s 1,500 congregations and is believed to play a significant role in handling allegations of abuse.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses challenged both inquiries in the courts, arguing that they would breach the trustees’ human right to religious freedom. They also challenged orders to produce documents on how they had handled allegations of sexual abuse in recent years.
Chris Willis Pickup, head of litigation at the Charity Commission, said: “Following two years of legal proceedings in five different courts and tribunals, the supreme court has finally brought Watch Tower’s challenge to our inquiry decision to an end.”
The commission had received only “limited information” from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, he said. The Charity Commission is encouraging anyone with similar complaints to come forward.
While a small number of charities launch legal appeals against the commission’s decisions, the extent of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ challenges and the length of time they have gone on for are unprecedented in recent times, a spokesman for the Charity Commission confirmed.
A’s solicitor, Thomas Beale, said: “Sadly, given our experience of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ approach to litigation in cases involving survivors of child abuse, it comes as no surprise that WTBTS has at every stage relentlessly challenged the legal basis and scope of the Charity Commission’s inquiry.
“In our case … they adopted similar tactics, dragging our client through years of painful and distressing litigation … We have always maintained that this is a time for apologies, not appeals.”
The Jehovah’s Witnesses said in a statement: “Jehovah’s Witnesses abhor child abuse, a crime that sadly occurs in all sectors of society … We are committed to doing all we can to prevent child abuse and to provide spiritual comfort to any who have suffered from this terrible sin and crime.
“We also see a need to protect the confidentiality of those who seek spiritual comfort. Nevertheless, we shall diligently abide by court judgments.”
Name has been changed at the individual’s request
- https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/12/jehovahs-witnesses-under-pressure-over-handling-of-sexual-abuse-claims

Jehovah is allowing humans to rule the earth to give proof that - we cannot rule the earth successfully when we are independent from him.  Humans are ruining the earth and everything on it - and each other.  Science and human philosophies (human knowledge) has not given the answers. We are more divided than ever and science has actually contributed to our insecurity with  weapons proliferation, the poisoning of the earth and our water resources... and the list goes on and on of the damage we are inflicting on the physical earth and the societies living on it.  Most people are slaves to various economic systems wherein only a few are very rich and the rest are surfs working very hard just to eek out an existence for their families..  We are close to reaching 'a point of no return' regarding the ruining of the earth.  Human violence is escalating into an unimagined catastrophe.
After Jehovah has stepped into mankind's affairs and removed the wicked (who refuse to acknowledge him as the sovereign of the universe and remain independent of him) - he will renovate and fix what man has damaged on the earth in only one thousand years. Human society will also be healed.  Mankind needs one set of principles to guide them in what is acceptable to Jehovah. .. and when all humans are prepared to make sacrifices for each other we will work together to restore the earth.  Each person will care more for the collective wellbeing of others than for their own egotistical goals.  A perfect society and perfect earth with bring the deserved glory to Jehovah - as originally purposed - before Adam selfishly chose independence from God.

Melinda Mills gave excellent choices. For the same reasons she gave I would consider 134 "See Yourself When All Is New" and 121 "Encourage One Another."
Some ideas that can be worked into the outline might include Pliny's report on Vesuvius and a reminder that this happened during the very time that people were first reading Hebrews 10:24,25 about meeting together to encourage one another (which is the basis for song 121). Also up until the time of Christ's message so many people thought that all natural disasters were "acts of God." Imagine how many people would have thought that the explosion/volcano/earthquake of Vesuvius was Armageddon. It obliterated the summer homes of the elite from Rome. The sky darkened over much of Italy including Rome. Surely Rome would be next because this would have been considered a judgment by God. Jerusalem had just been destroyed in the same decade, SURELY this act of God was not the judgment on Rome! Yet Jesus had said that you will hear of earthquakes and wars, but NOT to get overly excited about the idea that it meant the end.
(Matthew 24:6-8) . . .for these things must take place, but the end is not yet. 7 “For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. 8 All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress.
(Matthew 24:29) 29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
Imagine how this event would have become fodder for false prophets, who might teach that this was the end, that this was the sky darkening and the moon not giving its light. Imagine how it might have been used as a way to mislead the chosen ones to stay in hiding or fear, rather than preach the good news. Yet Jesus said the end is NOT yet, these things were just a beginning.
It's a way to help an audience imagine the words of the Scriptures in a more personal way when we also can imagine what was going through the minds of the people in the first century. Besides Vesuvius, the way that the first century audience of Jesus thought about these things as judgments is interesting. Jesus gave the example of Pilate's political terrorism, and the Tower at Siloam, and said that such things were not directly brought about by sin or judgements on the specific people killed, but were merely 'time and unforeseen occurrence,' yet we can still use them to take account of our lives knowing that the end can come for any of us at any time.
(Luke 13:1-5) 13 At that time some who were present reported to him about the Gal·i·leʹans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 In reply he said to them: “Do you think that those Gal·i·leʹans were worse sinners than all other Gal·i·leʹans because they have suffered these things? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise be destroyed. 4 Or those 18 on whom the tower in Si·loʹam fell, killing them—do you think that they had greater guilt than all other men who live in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all be destroyed, as they were.”
(Luke 12:18-21) 18 Then he said, ‘I will do this: I will tear down my storehouses and build bigger ones, and there I will gather all my grain and all my goods, 19 and I will say to myself: “You have many good things stored up for many years; take it easy, eat, drink, enjoy yourself.”’ 20 But God said to him, ‘Unreasonable one, this night they are demanding your life from you. Who, then, is to have the things you stored up?’ 21 So it goes with the man who stores up treasure for himself but is not rich toward God.”
 
 

Melinda Mills gave excellent choices. For the same reasons she gave I would consider 134 "See Yourself When All Is New" and 121 "Encourage One Another."
Some ideas that can be worked into the outline might include Pliny's report on Vesuvius and a reminder that this happened during the very time that people were first reading Hebrews 10:24,25 about meeting together to encourage one another (which is the basis for song 121). Also up until the time of Christ's message so many people thought that all natural disasters were "acts of God." Imagine how many people would have thought that the explosion/volcano/earthquake of Vesuvius was Armageddon. It obliterated the summer homes of the elite from Rome. The sky darkened over much of Italy including Rome. Surely Rome would be next because this would have been considered a judgment by God. Jerusalem had just been destroyed in the same decade, SURELY this act of God was not the judgment on Rome! Yet Jesus had said that you will hear of earthquakes and wars, but NOT to get overly excited about the idea that it meant the end.
(Matthew 24:6-8) . . .for these things must take place, but the end is not yet. 7 “For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. 8 All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress.
(Matthew 24:29) 29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
Imagine how this event would have become fodder for false prophets, who might teach that this was the end, that this was the sky darkening and the moon not giving its light. Imagine how it might have been used as a way to mislead the chosen ones to stay in hiding or fear, rather than preach the good news. Yet Jesus said the end is NOT yet, these things were just a beginning.
It's a way to help an audience imagine the words of the Scriptures in a more personal way when we also can imagine what was going through the minds of the people in the first century. Besides Vesuvius, the way that the first century audience of Jesus thought about these things as judgments is interesting. Jesus gave the example of Pilate's political terrorism, and the Tower at Siloam, and said that such things were not directly brought about by sin or judgements on the specific people killed, but were merely 'time and unforeseen occurrence,' yet we can still use them to take account of our lives knowing that the end can come for any of us at any time.
(Luke 13:1-5) 13 At that time some who were present reported to him about the Gal·i·leʹans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 In reply he said to them: “Do you think that those Gal·i·leʹans were worse sinners than all other Gal·i·leʹans because they have suffered these things? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise be destroyed. 4 Or those 18 on whom the tower in Si·loʹam fell, killing them—do you think that they had greater guilt than all other men who live in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all be destroyed, as they were.”
(Luke 12:18-21) 18 Then he said, ‘I will do this: I will tear down my storehouses and build bigger ones, and there I will gather all my grain and all my goods, 19 and I will say to myself: “You have many good things stored up for many years; take it easy, eat, drink, enjoy yourself.”’ 20 But God said to him, ‘Unreasonable one, this night they are demanding your life from you. Who, then, is to have the things you stored up?’ 21 So it goes with the man who stores up treasure for himself but is not rich toward God.”
 
 

Whoops!
Maybe what I meant to remember was that he was never "disfellowshipped" which means that technically he is not "officially" an "apo-state." I see that his experience says nothing of being DF'd, but then again, I've seen people DF'd for less.
Everything he says about his discussions with Albert Schroeder and John Albu "rings true," perfectly. (John Albu was a brother in NYC, but not a Bethelite) I was put in contact with Albu for access to some of his books and his expertise for research projects.
Alan says:
I have believed the same thing, but never knew for sure. I think the general outline of that 1981 book was to be prepared from a couple of older Watchtowers with updates meant to specifically answer new questions raised about Ptolemy's canon and several other sources that Carl Olof Jonsson had written about. I remember that Bert Schroeder, Gene Smalley and others were angry about COJ's manuscript but wouldn't attempt to answer it. It got passed around like a hot potato around the Writing Department for years. Finally, Fred Rusk (the brother who gave my wedding talk) got it as an assignment to produce a Watchtower article in 1980. Rusk knew that the best researchers in-house at the time were Napolitano&Lengtat but he didn't like them because they had been friends with Ray Franz and had helped work on the Aid Book. He let it sit in his office for several months. I had a very strong feeling that it would end up being turned into an assignment for John Albu. John had been open-minded about discussing anything doctrinal, even things controversial up through 1981. But he seemed to close himself off completely in 1981 and for the rest of his life (until 2004), as far as I could tell.

One of the first talks I was assigned to give while still a "ministerial servant" was the "Gentile Times" talk. The old outline was pretty much along the lines of the article that Russell had written for George Storrs' Bible Examiner back in October 1876. I prepared the talk in 1977 and had all kinds of questions. I never asked those questions specifically because I didn't think there was anyone I could ask. But I worked with the Art Dept at Bethel, and that turned into a series of research assignments even while I continued full-time work for 4 years in Art. Several of the research assignments required a full reading of the old Watch Tower books. The research also put me in touch with a lot of people who also had their own questions about the chronology. I even found out that several members of the Governing Body believed that many parts of the chronology had to be wrong. Turns out I got the questions answered without ever asking them. I only gave that "Gentile Times" talk once, and since 1977, I have been able to give dozens of different hour talks that don't have anything controversial in them (as far as I know).

I see three typos, in my last post. One of them was where I even spelled "typo" wrong ("type"). None of it changes the overall point, but if there are any questions on any specifics, feel free to ask. Unfortunately, I keep clicking enter when done, and then when I come back to see what I wrote, it's too late to edit it.

@Cheeto  I don't understand why you say Passover will never change. It's as if you believe there is only one correct way to determine when to add the leap month called "Adar II." Here is some evidence that the method is sometimes arbitrary.
[BTW, I just noticed a typo in the Passover date for 2010: It was 3/30 not 4/30.]
In my lifetime +/- a couple of years, according the Jewish calendar method, Passover has fallen on April 7 about 4 times.
Whenever Passover fell on April 7th, it means that the month Nisan had started on March 24th, which was very close to the vernal equinox on about March 21st.. For every one of these 4 different years, the calendar NEVER added the leap month of Adar 2 at the end of that Jewish year (as an adjustment for the following year) even though, if they didn't, it would mean that the start of the month of Nisan was definitely going to slip back behind the vernal equinox in that next year. As you might expect, if Passover fell on April 9th, they also never did add it. As you might expect, if Passover fell on April 5th, they always did add the Adar II as the last month of that year. So you might get the impression that April 7th was the cut-off point for the earliest that Passover could fall before it became necessary to add the Adar II. In fact, if you check April 6th 1985, they did add it, and after Passover on 4/8/1982 they did not add it.
So with just this info you would have:
April 5th, ADD IT April 6th, ADD IT April 7th, DO NOT ADD IT April 8th, DO NOT ADD IT April 9th, DO NOT ADD IT So it might look like there is a uniform process that makes April 7th the cutoff, and any Passover that falls before 4/7 is an indicator that Adar II must be added to the end of that year, so that Spring and Passover doesn't come too early the next year.
But here is the problem with that:
April 6th, 1993 (and 1917, 1936) was a Passover date, and they did NOT add Adar II to the end of that year. April 6th, 1985 (and 2004) was a Passover date, and they DID add Adar II to the end of that year. So, although they never added after a 4/7 date, they sometimes DO and sometimes DON'T add one for a 4/6 day. Those exceptions made "Spring" start more than a month later in 2012, than it did in 1994. In other words, Passover does change. It can be more than a month later (or earlier) in some years.
I think that the Watchtower acknowledged this very well all the way back in the yearly Memorial issue for 1908 where Russell said (pps. 35-36; Reprints pps 4127-8:
From the foregoing it will be seen that, with every endeavor to reach exactly the date specified in their Law for the Passover, the Jews have difficulty, and often there is of necessity a choice between two days equally appropriate. However, they follow the guidance of their leaders in this matter and have a uniformity of celebration, instead of each one trying to fix the date and celebrating according to his personal knowledge, convenience or preference. And this measure of subserviency to leaders was endorsed by our Lord, who said, "The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat; whatsoever therefore they bid you observe, that observe and do." (Matt. 23:3.) The Apostle indicated the same course to the Gospel Church. (Heb. 13:17.) Two essential features of the celebration of the Passover were: (1) uniformity, and (2) that it begin as exactly as possible at the full of the moon--which symbolized the fullness of favor to Israel.
 
So, one way of looking at it is: that by one person's reckoning the 14th of Adar (or Adar II) on one calendar is actually the 14th of Nisan  on the calendar of another person. Both are equally appropriate. One uses a certain method, to keep the start of Nisan as close as possible to the vernal equinox and another uses a different method. Most years, both methods will fall on the same date, , but some years, they won't. In those years when they don't fall on the same date, they are back in sync again the following year. Neither method is due to a Biblical command or injunction; both methods were developed and turned into a pattern over time, through some trial and error.
 

As I'm sure you already know, the whole purpose of adding a second Adar is so that Nisan continues to start as closely as possible  to the vernal equinox. (Spring in the Northern Hemisphere.) When the lunar year starts slipping back behind the solar year, the Jewish method tends to correct the year with a leap month, one year before it's really necessary to meet the goal of keeping Nisan as close to the beginning of Spring as possible. So this results in a wider range of possible dates that's closer to a 5 week range of dates that includes the equinox, when it's actually possible to keep it slightly more accurately to within nearly a 4 week range of dates that includes the equinox. By correcting the year to align the equinox with Nisan a year before it was really necessary, they (the Jewish method) added the second Adar one year prior to when "Christendom's" method would have added it. But "Christendom's" method is slightly more accurate, astronomically. And it's a bit simpler to calculate, and a little more consistent. You'll notice in the last chart of my last post that Passover usually aligns with Memorial, and the 6 times that it didn't, it was always because Jewish "leap-year" Adar was a year earlier than the method we follow.

@Cheeto
Hi. I'll try to answer your question fairly simply.
SIMPLE ANSWER
The basic reason is a difference in methods for when an extra lunar month needs to be added. In general every lunar calendar must add about 1 extra month every 3 years to match back up to the seasonal, solar calendar. In fact it's actually not 1 out of every 3 (which is the same as 6 out of 18), but it's 7 out of 19. If it were exactly 1 out of 3, you probably wouldn't see much of a problem because it would be easy to always match up to the Jewish calendar. We'd always know exactly when the leap month was going to be added. But a 7 out of 19 pattern could be done several different ways. The first table below, shows only three of a dozen different methods that could be used, and every one of them would be exactly right again after 19 years.
Since 1929, inclusive, we (JWs) have always followed the exact method in the "Christendom" column. (Always produces the same week as Easter.)  Prior to 1929 we (JWs) always used the exact method represented in the "Jewish" column.
The column in "Method 1" is just for comparison, although it's a well-documented method that has been used by many persons who find it simpler to remember a "1 out of 3" pattern for 18 years, and then correct it with an extra in the 19th year. The problem is that the method is too erratic and unnecessarily makes Spring about 5 weeks late in the 19th year. If these "leap months" are spread out more evenly, as in the "Jewish" method, then Spring will start no more than about 17 days early or 17 days late. In fact, the "Christendom" method effectively starts "Nisan 14/15" at the first full moon after the vernal spring equinox, so that the range is no more than 15 days before, or 15 days after.) 
Every range of 19 years in the following table should contain 7 years with 13 lunar months rather than 12.
Year# Method 1 Jewish Christndm Actual Yr 1 12 lun 13 lun 12 lun 1997 2 12 lun 12 lun 13 lun 1998 3 13 lun 12 lun 12 lun 1999 4 12 lun 13 lun 13 lun 2000 5 12 lun 12 lun 12 lun 2001 6 13 lun 13 lun 12 lun 2002 7 12 lun 12 lun 13 lun 2003 8 12 lun 12 lun 12 lun 2004 9 13 lun 13 lun 12 lun 2005 10 12 lun 12 lun 13 lun 2006 11 12 lun 12 lun 12 lun 2007 12 13 lun 13 lun 12 lun 2008 13 12 lun 12 lun 13 lun 2009 14 12 lun 13 lun 12 lun 2010 15 13 lun 12 lun 13 lun 2011 16 12 lun 12 lun 12 lun 2012 17 12 lun 12 lun 12 lun 2013 18 13 lun 13 lun 13 lun 2014 19 13 lun 12 lun 12 lun 2015 20 12 lun 13 lun 12 lun 2016 21 12 lun 12 lun 13 lun 2017 21 13 lun 12 lun 12 lun 2018
 
MORE COMPLICATED ANSWER
As you know, our calendar year is usually 365 days and sometimes 366 days, so that the average is about 365.25 days. So we divide it into months of either 28, 29, 30 or 31 days. So, our average month is therefore about 30.4 days. 
But if you measure each month by the time it takes the moon to cycle through all it's phases, then the average "lunar month" is 29.5 days. That means that if you start each lunar month when you see that first sliver of a "new moon," then it could be about 30 days until the sighting of the next new month, then 29 days the next new month after that, then 30, then 29, etc.
But that means that by the time you go through 12 lunar months, you will have a "year" of only 354 days. (12x29.5=354)  That's about 11 days shorter than a standard solar year. So if you want to stay matched up to the solar seasons (Spring, Summer, Autumn, WInter) you will have to add an extra lunar cycle (i.e., an extra 29 or 30-day month) about every three years. Otherwise, if you keep losing 11 days every year, then in a few years you will find yourself trying to pick summer fruits in the middle of winter, which doesn't work very well in Israel's climate, or almost any climate in the northern hemisphere.
Also, if you work it out more exactly, you will see that you it isn't exactly 1 extra lunar month for every 3 years, but 7 every 19 years. But even if it was always as easy as just 1 out of 3, and the pattern repeated continually, there is still no absolute reason to count every three years from the same starting years. The one out of three method works out to mean that you follow a pattern of -11, -11, +19, (repeating), which will be explained below. But there is no reason that one the pattern could not be chosen as -11, +19, -11, (repeating), or +19, -11, -11 (repeating). It's as if in the following example, you arbitrarily picked 2018 or 2019 as the FIRST YEAR and started repeating the cycle in that year, instead of 2017. 
Assume the current year is correct for when it starts the month of Nisan. (2016)
FIRST YEAR: Subtract 11 days to start Nisan next year (2017) 11 days, because 12 lunar months are 354 days and this is 11 days short of 365. SECOND YEAR: Subtract 11 more days to start Nisan the year after that (2018) 11 days short again, same reason. THIRD YEAR: Add 19 days to start Nisan the year after that (2019) 19 days, because 12 lunar months is still -11 (354) but you add a 30-day month (a second Adar) so that this year will be 384 days long.384-365=19; 30 minus 11 equals 19. REPEAT CYCLE for another 3 year cycle: -11, -11, +19.  (Ths can work for up to 18 years before you will need an extra adjustment.) I made a table of all the Memorial dates since the Watchtower started in 1879 up to the present. The following table includes includes only the years 1997 to 2018. These can be used to check the years that were effectively given a 13th month (second Adar). These are the years when Memorial is about 19 days later in the year than the previous year, rather than about 11 days earlier in the year. I bolded them. Notice that Easter is always the Sunday after our Memorial. Passover is always within a day or two, or within a day or two, plus an entire month.
YEAR MEMORIAL EASTER PASSOVER 1997 3/23/1997 3/30/1997 4/22/1997 1998 4/11/1998 4/12/1998 4/11/1998 1999 4/1/1999 4/4/1999 4/1/1999 2000 4/19/2000 4/23/2000 4/20/2000 2001 4/8/2001 4/15/2001 4/8/2001 2002 3/28/2002 3/31/2002 4/28/2002 2003 4/16/2003 4/20/2003 4/17/2003 2004 4/4/2004 4/11/2004 4/6/2004 2005 3/24/2005 3/27/2005 4/24/2005 2006 4/12/2006 4/16/2006 4/13/2006 2007 4/2/2007 4/8/2007 4/3/2007 2008 3/22/2008 3/23/2008 4/20/2008 2009 4/9/2009 4/12/2009 4/9/2009 2010 3/30/2010 4/4/2010 4/30/2010 2011 4/17/2011 4/24/2011 4/19/2011 2012 4/5/2012 4/8/2012 4/7/2012 2013 3/26/2013 3/31/2013 3/26/2013 2014 4/14/2014 4/20/2014 4/15/2014 2015 4/3/2015 4/5/2015 4/4/2015 2016 3/23/2016 3/27/2016 4/23/2016 2017 4/11/2017 4/16/2017 4/11/2017 2018 4/1/2018 4/4/2018 4/1/2018  
 

Laughing to myself! Didn't see that ending coming.
(It would have made for a terrible story, but I was expecting that the horse would finally be convinced to make such an effort that he would fool the farmer into thinking he had been cured, and then all the horses and other animals would die when the virus spread after all. And this would only prove that we should never encourage one another.)