JW Insider

If "BHC" was a victim herself, and reported to the police, then is not related to the common claim about whether any congregation elders, the Branch, or legal representatives of the Branch, ever voluntarily reported any cases to the police. I guess I see your point, though. It's possible that someone could have found a way to add up any of the 1700+ cases that actually did finally make it to the police even if it was from victims themselves. Yet we already know that many of these reports happened many years after the congregation's and Branch documents showed that they already were aware of some of these cases, and had never reported them. Most of the time, the victims who reported also waited many years before reporting. If this is the case, then I am pretty disgusted with Holly Folk's false implication about the 383. I understand that they (at BitterWinter) want to build a niche audience supportive of "new religions" and their support is often helpful. But it should be done honestly or it isn't worth so much in the long run. 

I don't promote these numbers to be true at all. I can only refer to the numbers that show up in the documents that were, for a time, all available on the ARC website. I have no way of verifying if those numbers are correct. I can only verify what numbers I have seen within those documents. The documents could be completely without merit for all I know. I have made it pretty clear that it is NOT my contention that the information is true. It could be a lot worse than these numbers purport, or it could be a lot better. All I have is the data provided.
This is why my focus was on where that claim of "383 cases reported to the police" came up. It wasn't in any early discussions of the ARC. I didn't see it in any ARC documentation. I vaguely recalled a claim that some [more recent] cases really had been reported to the police, but no one made a claim that reports related to the 1.006 perpetrators came from the Witnesses, or from the Branch, or from congregation Elders. From what I can see so far, it was first on Bitterwinter many years after the ARC hearings. I assumed I must have missed that key piece of data, and it would be very useful data to prove bias on the part of the Australian court.
I'm not at all concerned about whether you agree with Jehovah's Witnesses who report 1,006 perpetrators vs those who read it as 1,006 cases of CSA. Your Bitter Winter "Holly Folk" link does not deny that they were "perpetrators." On the link you provided, she says:
Based on this document, the media reported that there had been 1,006 perpetrators who had committed sexual crimes in Australia . . .
I have no stake one way or another as to whether these numbers are correct, and it's a bit late to try to get a retraction from Holly Folk, or to get a retraction from all the JWs and non-JWs who reported those numbers as they read them.
You referred to some contention over the numbers, and you indicated that JWs are making a "false claim" when they read this as 1,006 perpetrators. Against that supposedly "false claim" you said: Yes, the exhibit information is there in my post." And you said: "My exhibit of the ARC document proves my point ."
I looked for that exhibit and found nothing that counters the numbers provided by other Witnesses, or the Branch numbers, or Holly Folk. It turned out that your exhibit had nothing to do with the numbers you claimed were false. It had to do with the timing of certain CSA policies.

Sorry. I didn't see your exhibit of the ARC document. Is it in this thread?

Deflating them is unwise, too.
That's a very odd, and unsubstantiated accusation. I'm not the original author. Just as I would not claim that you are somehow the author of the incorrect information about only 1,006 "cases." That same misinformation had been spread dozens of times before you repeated it. It's not your fault. Also, I have never made a comment on reddit, or do I have an account there anyway. So the JW defender who happens to disagree with you, is NOT me. He just happens to agree with me and he happens to agree with the ARC data provided by the Watchtower Branch.

The problem here was that much of the data came from a time when the victim really was forced to confront the accused. And there was evidence that it had happened since 1999, too. And the elders testifying at the ARC didn't help when they wouldn't reject the old policy. 
And of course, a similar problem happened when the elders, even Bro. Jackson himself wouldn't completely reject the court's understanding of how we implement the two-witness policy.

The thing is, it never was 1,006 cases [instances]. It was 1,006 perpetrators, per the numbers the Watchtower Branch provided to the ARC. It was always at least 1,732 cases, per the numbers the Watchtower Branch provided to the ARC. 1,006 "cases" was just a very common sloppy reading of the numbers. I saw it being misreported that way on the first day of the ARC hearings. Only a few people corrected it. I recalled the number vaguely because when I saw people making the correction, I looked it up myself to make sure it was right before commenting on it.
Although I have looked at my notes, I still haven't got out my old computer with the files (and I don't plan to for at least a week). But I did find a site (unfortunately it is generally an anti-JW site) and that site has numbers that pretty much match all my own notes from MS-OneNote. I won't link to it, but you could look up any of the lines in Google and would probably find it easily:
I don't know if every statement is true. I don't even know if the Watchtower Branch provided all the data. (In fact, I heard from the Australian brother that several Witnesses were already suspicious when some notorious cases were missing from the Gold Coast, Queensland area.) At any rate, here is their summary of the ARC data that generally matched my own notes taken directly from the ARC data:
There was at least 1732 children who were sexually abused. Over 650 of those children were abused by family members. At least 170 of the children sexually abused were under the age of 5. There was 1006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse within the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Of that number, 15 were women. 579 of the alleged abusers confessed to their crime(s). 306 did not. Of the remaining 121, it’s unclear whether they confessed or not. 95 of the alleged child abusers were not Jehovah’s Witnesses when they committed their first sexual abuse. 65 of the alleged child abusers were ministerial servants; 42 were elders;  8 were pioneers; and 1 was a circuit overseer. At least 56 ministerial servants and 27 elders were deleted from their roles. 6 elders and 2 ministerial servants were re-appointed to their roles. Over 33 ministerial servants, 13 elders and 1 pioneer were disfellowshipped. 14 ministerial servants, 4 elders and 1 pioneer were convicted for Child Sexual Abuse by the Australian authorities, yet 3 of those elders and 3 of those ministerial servants were never disfellowshipped for their crimes. Not a single instance of Child Sexual Abuse was ever reported to the authorities by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

I take things regarding missing persons, even with children, with concern, as do others in the community I am apart of, some of which, in said community go above and beyond to deal with such issues. As I mentioned, back in 2021-2022, when places start to open up, there will be people who will target folks even the youth, physically and or mentally, among said stuff I talk about, this has been taking place recently, there is nearly 30+ children reported as missing in Cleveland during first 2 weeks of May (this factors out those who are not US citizens such as Mexicans or Ukrainians, although in their case it is grave), and it is stated to have been a surge, some believe this has links to human trafficking, which I do not fault them for believing.
That being said, although it is one area, something of this nature can spread to other areas, so be very careful, as is vigilant out there. Watch yourself and those around you, mainly if you do have folks who can be unaware of such things.
The below is what I can find for now, regarding this situation, surprisingly, most of media do not even talk about this stuff.
 
 

It's very difficult to make a presentation without showing bias. The things that are important to one person or group or religion are the thing reported, not the things that are much less important. This presentation above was extra careful to present only things that were factual, but even here a couple of biases slipped in.
For one thing, the narrator claims by strong implication that no changes to CSA policy were initiated in the wake of the Australian Royal Commission. This isn't true. First of all, Bro Jackson made some excellent points about how responsibility for CSA policies cannot just be one-sided where all blame appears to be put on an organization when the organization itself often has no blame in the matter. Primary blame is always on the perpetrators of the crime, but policies to deal with it include government and law enforcement policies. It's true that many individuals within the organization have not always followed the law, but the law itself is often inconsistent, and frankly, the authorities have not earned public trust.
The ARC pointed out some of these egregious mistakes and even cover-ups. But the truth is that CSA policies were updated CORRECTLY in the wake of the ARC, and there was also a kind of "public service announcement" that addressed a necessary attitudinal shift among Witnesses: There was to be no more thinking that covering up CSA crimes somehow protected the reputation of the organization. From now on the emphasis was on the fact that all the shame should be centered on the perpetrator. Also, there has been a heightened awareness and sensitivity to the legal issues and more legal personnel have been aiding the organization in this regard.
I get the impression that these new policies and emphasis have been working. There are fewer and fewer NEW cases being tried against JWs. There are many cases still being tried and pending, but they are nearly always from CSA reports that predate the updated policies.  

Of course it does. Would one hold Macy’s responsible for the conduct of its shoppers?

It's very difficult to make a presentation without showing bias. The things that are important to one person or group or religion are the thing reported, not the things that are much less important. This presentation above was extra careful to present only things that were factual, but even here a couple of biases slipped in.
For one thing, the narrator claims by strong implication that no changes to CSA policy were initiated in the wake of the Australian Royal Commission. This isn't true. First of all, Bro Jackson made some excellent points about how responsibility for CSA policies cannot just be one-sided where all blame appears to be put on an organization when the organization itself often has no blame in the matter. Primary blame is always on the perpetrators of the crime, but policies to deal with it include government and law enforcement policies. It's true that many individuals within the organization have not always followed the law, but the law itself is often inconsistent, and frankly, the authorities have not earned public trust.
The ARC pointed out some of these egregious mistakes and even cover-ups. But the truth is that CSA policies were updated CORRECTLY in the wake of the ARC, and there was also a kind of "public service announcement" that addressed a necessary attitudinal shift among Witnesses: There was to be no more thinking that covering up CSA crimes somehow protected the reputation of the organization. From now on the emphasis was on the fact that all the shame should be centered on the perpetrator. Also, there has been a heightened awareness and sensitivity to the legal issues and more legal personnel have been aiding the organization in this regard.
I get the impression that these new policies and emphasis have been working. There are fewer and fewer NEW cases being tried against JWs. There are many cases still being tried and pending, but they are nearly always from CSA reports that predate the updated policies.  

It's very difficult to make a presentation without showing bias. The things that are important to one person or group or religion are the thing reported, not the things that are much less important. This presentation above was extra careful to present only things that were factual, but even here a couple of biases slipped in.
For one thing, the narrator claims by strong implication that no changes to CSA policy were initiated in the wake of the Australian Royal Commission. This isn't true. First of all, Bro Jackson made some excellent points about how responsibility for CSA policies cannot just be one-sided where all blame appears to be put on an organization when the organization itself often has no blame in the matter. Primary blame is always on the perpetrators of the crime, but policies to deal with it include government and law enforcement policies. It's true that many individuals within the organization have not always followed the law, but the law itself is often inconsistent, and frankly, the authorities have not earned public trust.
The ARC pointed out some of these egregious mistakes and even cover-ups. But the truth is that CSA policies were updated CORRECTLY in the wake of the ARC, and there was also a kind of "public service announcement" that addressed a necessary attitudinal shift among Witnesses: There was to be no more thinking that covering up CSA crimes somehow protected the reputation of the organization. From now on the emphasis was on the fact that all the shame should be centered on the perpetrator. Also, there has been a heightened awareness and sensitivity to the legal issues and more legal personnel have been aiding the organization in this regard.
I get the impression that these new policies and emphasis have been working. There are fewer and fewer NEW cases being tried against JWs. There are many cases still being tried and pending, but they are nearly always from CSA reports that predate the updated policies.  

It's very difficult to make a presentation without showing bias. The things that are important to one person or group or religion are the thing reported, not the things that are much less important. This presentation above was extra careful to present only things that were factual, but even here a couple of biases slipped in.
For one thing, the narrator claims by strong implication that no changes to CSA policy were initiated in the wake of the Australian Royal Commission. This isn't true. First of all, Bro Jackson made some excellent points about how responsibility for CSA policies cannot just be one-sided where all blame appears to be put on an organization when the organization itself often has no blame in the matter. Primary blame is always on the perpetrators of the crime, but policies to deal with it include government and law enforcement policies. It's true that many individuals within the organization have not always followed the law, but the law itself is often inconsistent, and frankly, the authorities have not earned public trust.
The ARC pointed out some of these egregious mistakes and even cover-ups. But the truth is that CSA policies were updated CORRECTLY in the wake of the ARC, and there was also a kind of "public service announcement" that addressed a necessary attitudinal shift among Witnesses: There was to be no more thinking that covering up CSA crimes somehow protected the reputation of the organization. From now on the emphasis was on the fact that all the shame should be centered on the perpetrator. Also, there has been a heightened awareness and sensitivity to the legal issues and more legal personnel have been aiding the organization in this regard.
I get the impression that these new policies and emphasis have been working. There are fewer and fewer NEW cases being tried against JWs. There are many cases still being tried and pending, but they are nearly always from CSA reports that predate the updated policies.  

First of all. Thanks for the sentiments in the previous post. I don't plan to focus much on things said here anymore, so you're right that it isn't really going to matter much whether those details about 2016 are explained to me or not. 
I've read what the editors of "DTIB" have said about genealogy and it's easy to understand. I also understand what it says about "generations" in those pages you referenced and in other parts of this same "Bible Dictionary." Also, I know that if someone did a search on the term "overlapping generations" among all the Bible commentaries and Bible dictionaries, the term almost never comes up at all except in this particular one: "Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible" (DTIB). And it only happens on page 244, the first page you quoted. Yes, it's "cool" and "unique" that someone can find a person with academic credentials who used the term "overlapping generations" but its very use here undermines the Watchtower teaching instead of helping to support it.
The problem, of course, is that the editor you recommended here (pp. 244-246), doesn't really believe the Bible's genealogies are trustworthy and accurate as actual genealogies. He prefers to see many of them as unhistorical. But that's typical of modern critical commentaries. However, he quotes Rendsburg who actually does argue that the genealogies of the Pentateuch are reliable and historical. And in that paragraph, he uses the phrase: "overlapping generations." He says that:
Rendsburg "has based his conclusions in part on the observable pattern of overlapping generations so that people of the same age need not be of the same generation."
But it's quite easy to see that this goes completely against what the Watchtower publications have tried to say about generations. In fact, it directly opposes what the Watchtower publications say.
The Watchtower publications NEVER use the expression "overlapping generations" with respect to the generation teaching, because our current teaching is the opposite. Our teaching is that even persons of widely different ages NEED to be part of the SAME GENERATION because Jesus said that "THIS GENERATION" (not "these generations") would not pass away. Our current teaching is that almost all of the people in the first part of the generation do not need to have their lives overlap with most of the people in the second part of that same generation. In fact, our current teaching is supposed to work out even if only ONE person among the thousands in that first part has a lifespan that overlaps with at least ONE person in the second part of that SAME generation. The infamous Splane chart even mentions the possibility that this ONE person might be, using a known example: Brother Frederick W. Franz. If FWF was indeed the last living person from the first group, then his lifespan, in the end, would only need to have overlapped with ONE remaining person from the second part of that same generation by the time the end of this system arrives. Our definition of the current teaching could allow for this even if that overlap had happened for only a few seconds and the overlapping person in the second group had never met or even known about FWF while FWF was alive. And then, by definition, this ONE GENERATION Jesus spoke of can only go on for as long as at least that ONE person from the second group, is still alive.
That might sound complex and I'm using an extreme example. But it's an example that fits the current teaching.
I'm personally not too concerned with whether this teaching is going to hold true, time-wise. It very well might. If it does, I don't think it's necessary that it was because the teaching was right. It could just be a coincidence if the end of this system comes tomorrow.
One reason I'm not too concerned is just based on the very nature of speculative teachings. If the teaching is now correct, then this means that it is the "truth." Yet, if someone believed and promoted this "truth" back in 2004, for example, then it would have been an apostate teaching at that time. Speculative teachings are always this way: they could be an apostate teaching, then a true teaching, then they might become an apostate teaching again in the near future.
I'm not saying the Watchtower is wrong. But I'm not personally concerned with our more speculative teachings. And this one is the kind that creates a range of dates, which, to my conscience, goes against what Jesus and Paul said about not needing anything to be written to us about the times and seasons. These things are in the Father's jurisdiction, not ours.
We should be more concerned with what type of person we ought to be knowing that the end could come at any time.

I probably haven't kept up enough with things being said recently, so I don't really know what you're asking about.
A few months ago, I always tried to read almost everything that everyone would write on this forum. I did this for a few years here but decided it was a bit excessive even though this forum is relatively small. I have read only a very small percentage of posts for about two months now. So I don't really know what you are talking about when you ask if I and BroRando did the numbers. I don't know anything about the significance of 2016 or the "Alpha Generation." I've read that the Alpha generation refers to people born after the year 2000, who are therefore currently about 23 years old or less. I don't recall reading anything from BroRando about 2016 or the Alpha Generation.
I am hopeful that the end of this wicked system comes soon, but I have never believed in trying to tie the future fulfillment of prophecies to specific dates. I'd go so far as to say it's unchristian to get overly involved in such speculation about the times and seasons. But I do understand the desire to peer into such things and always want to learn more about the fulfillment of prophecy. I'm intrigued about whatever you mean about me "doing the numbers" "2016" "Alpha Generation" and whatever you meant by my "reference." I'm sure I didn't refer to any of those things, so I wondered what you meant by that. 

Nathan W Pyle's alien comics are hilarious. Without kids, I don't think I would have known. Do you think the WTS will ever make use of something like them to help show the folly of Birthdays (aka Emergence Days)? Or Valentine's Day?

Caution: my own commentary will likely seem critical of the interpretation given by the Watchtower publications, for reasons that I will try to make clear. Not because the WT interpretations are necessarily wrong, but because they are so often presented as fact in so many publications, when overall, it is just an interpretation. The following was said in the "Revelation - Grand Climax" book, which explains why no interpretation, except that given in the Bible itself, should be treated as a fact.
*** re chap. 2 p. 9 The Grand Theme of the Bible ***
Interpreting the Scriptures The mysteries locked up in the book of Revelation have for long baffled sincere students of the Bible. In God’s due time, those secrets had to be unlocked, but how, when, and to whom? Only God’s spirit could make known the meaning as the appointed time drew near. (Revelation 1:3) Those sacred secrets would be revealed to God’s zealous slaves on earth so that they would be strengthened to make known his judgments. (Matthew 13:10, 11) It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infallible. Like Joseph of old, we say: “Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Genesis 40:8) At the same time, however, we firmly believe that the explanations set forth herein harmonize with the Bible in its entirety, showing how remarkably divine prophecy has been fulfilled in the world events of our catastrophic times.
A couple of the ideas found in this same book have already undergone some changes. TTH commented on the underlined part of the above quotation saying:
That's the spirit in which I would like to share a possibly "simpler" reading of this portion of Revelation. Some might not think the current explanation is complex, but I think when we look into it carefully, we can see that our current explanation produces some complexities that aren't seen until we reflect and meditate on the scriptures involved. And, of course, some might think that a supposedly "simpler" reading is wrong. That's quite alright, because I'm not 100 percent happy with it either.
So here's hoping that others can defend what's right with the current definition, and what's wrong with the alternatives, or vice versa.

The PDF linked earlier, "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Cross" Leolaia, 1990, speaks of semantic restriction by which some Watchtower doctrines have developed by focusing on only the simplest etymological meaning of a word like parousia or stauros or xylon, etc. In the case of "hand" there was found good reason to go with semantic expansion to fit our traditional beliefs on the subject.
Of course, this is not the only way that we (and, frankly, all Christian-associated religions  and others, too) solve problems of textual understanding. We could have used the method of resolving apparent contradictions by merely making up a third story that allows for a strict sense of the text to be true. For example, we have two versions of the death of Judas in the gospel accounts:
(Matthew 27:5-8) . . .So he threw the silver pieces into the temple and departed. Then he went off and hanged himself. 6 But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said: “It is not lawful to put them into the sacred treasury, because they are the price of blood.” 7 After consulting together, they used the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. 8 Therefore, that field has been called Field of Blood to this very day. (Acts 1:18, 19) 18 (This very man, [Judas] therefore, purchased a field with the wages for unrighteousness, and falling headfirst, his body burst open and all his insides spilled out. 19 This became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language A·kelʹda·ma, that is, “Field of Blood.”)
To accommodate a strict-sense reading of both versions, we merely make up a third story that makes both versions true. We say that Judas bought the field in the sense that he provided the money even though others bought it. We also say that Judas hung himself but since there is no mention of falling in the first, and no mention of hanging in the second, we say that while hanging himself the branch broke and he died from the fall when his body burst open.*
So the WTS could have solved the supposed problem created by a strict-sense use of the word "hands" by merely adding a third story, not in the text, that Jesus may also have been bound to the stake in addition to being nailed. I read of a Roman slave carrying the patibulum through the public streets on their way to execution and having that patibulum tied to the arms of the slave. The patibulum of course, could become the crossbeam of an upright stake.
The fact that no third story like this, however plausible, has been suggested tells me that "semantic expansion" has been the solution, and this is the easiest idea to support from the Greek and from Scriptural usage of "hand."
*I think it's "funny" that when Papias (60 AD - 130 AD?) went to Palestine hoping to find first-hand corroboration of some of these early accounts he discovered completely different versions. For example, Judas was supposed to have blown up so big and fat, like a balloon, that he burst asunder and all his guts (fecal matter) were spread around. (His weight could have been part of a "third story" solution that explained a breaking branch!) The versions Papias learned told of Judas in this same condition, I think, being run over by a chariot (so that his fecal matter spread around on the ground). Mentioning the spread of someone's fecal matter as a most disgusting death was not limited to pagans. It is very explicit in the account of how Ehud kills "fat king, Eglon." And it's implicit in the idea that dogs ate up the body of Jezebel in the plot of Jezreel.
I saw this at https://www.gotquestions.org/nails-hands-wrists.html
While historical scholars are uncertain of the nail placement in Jesus’ crucifixion, or anyone else’s for that matter, the Bible simply says that Jesus had wounds in His hands (John 20:25-27). The Greek word translated “hands” is cheir, which means literally “hands.” There is no Greek word for “wrists” in the New Testament, even though some versions translate Acts 12:7 to say that the chains fell off Peter’s wrists. But the Greek word in this verse is also cheir. It's possible that the nails may have been angled to enter through the hand and exit through the wrist, but it's just as likely that the nails were driven straight through the hand somewhere near the base of the thumb. Experiments have shown that both ways do work and either way could have been used in the crucifixion of Jesus. I have also read that the "experiments" were some "scientist" nailing up cadavers to test the theory. Evidently just the hands alone actually could support the weight of any corpse he tried. Weird science.

Jesus gave accurate knowledge about the more important things. He gave that knowledge to the apostles and had it written down so that we would have the same access to the more important things through the Scriptures. Having accurate knowledge about a lot of other things is nice, but it wasn't what Jesus had in mind. The very fact that there are teachings of higher priority than others was already shown in this verse from John quoted earlier. Also, the point is made in more detail in Hebrews:
(Hebrews 5:12-6:3) . . .For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong. 6 Therefore, now that we have moved beyond the primary doctrine about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying a foundation again, namely, repentance from dead works and faith in God, 2 the teaching on baptisms and the laying on of the hands, the resurrection of the dead and everlasting judgment. 3 And this we will do, if God indeed permits. I take it that we have most of the more important things in order. These additional details are just "nice-to-haves." And I see a lot of progress, not enough yet, but still a lot of progress on removing the less important things that we have admitted to getting wrong.

I hope no one was thinking that any comparison was being made (by Luke or Origen) to true Christians. The comparison was always between what was being practiced by the seven sons of Sceva, and what was being practiced by the "bad men" in Origen's reference. We don't know much about the success rate that the Scevason boys had in their exorcisms prior to their attempts to add the pronunciation of Jesus to their repertoire, but it doesn't matter.
We know that Jesus would reject some who claimed to cast out demons in his name and say he never knew them. We also have the verses in Mark saying:
(Mark 9:38-40) John said to him: “Teacher, we saw a certain man expelling demons by the use of your name and we tried to prevent him, because he was not accompanying us.” 39 But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one that will do a powerful work on the basis of my name that will quickly be able to revile me; 40 for he that is not against us is for us. Not really knowing anything about their motives, I'll limit my comparison the the original reason I gave for comparing them.
True. If, as we say, 99% of apostate Christianity calls itself Christian, then even the word "Christian" itself has become a brand mark of "Christian" apostasy. But it's also the term that true Christians should use. Apparently, a brand mark representing a small fish could have also survived as a brand mark of Christian apostasy, but I agree that dual-beamed cross symbol is the most popular brand mark, whether this was the incorrect version of the instrument of Jesus' death, or the correct version. You have already said that we don't know for sure. 
I sometimes wonder why no one ever thought to create a "compendium" (staurogram, christogram, etc) that made use of the letter "I" which was the actual initial of Jesus' name, and which would have been rationalized against the words of Paul:
(1 Corinthians 1:17-18) For Christ dispatched me, not to go baptizing, but to go declaring the good news, not with wisdom of speech, that the [STAUROS] of the Christ should not be made useless. 18 For the speech about the [STAUROS] is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it [the STAUROS] is God’s power. (1 Corinthians 1:22-24) 22 For both the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks look for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ's [STAUROS], to the Jews a cause for stumbling but to the nations foolishness; 24 however, to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
(1 Corinthians 2:2) For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and [his STAUROS].
Combining those words of Paul (which the unsteady were already twisting to their own destruction) it would have been easy to imagine creating a symbol from the "I" of "Iesous" and the possible "I" shape of the "STAUROS" and try to symbolize that they were following Jesus, who also, like Paul, is seen treating the STAUROS as a "symbol."
(Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [STAUROS] and follow me continually. Would it be right to assume that your primary reason for favoring a one-beamed cross is not so much about the variety of uses of the term STAUROS, but because the two-beamed cross has long been associated with apostate Chrsitianity? Associated with this might be the fact that the Watchtower displayed the two-beamed STAUROS, or cross, for about 52 years, and has since has dropped the symbol, due to its association with apostate Christianity. 
The original reason that Rutherford spoke out against the CROSS however, was that it was so closely associated with the cult of "Russell worshipers" and Russell often spoke about this need to remove the Russellite cult elements from the Bible Students. The Leolaia paper, on the first two pages, reminds us that Rutherford campaigned for 8 years against this symbol of the dual-beamed CROSS while still teaching that Jesus had died on a dual-beamed CROSS. The symbol was removed from Watchtower covers after 52 years of showing, but even this was at a time when the WTS still taught that Jesus had died on a traditional two-beamed CROSS.
That situation reminds of the time we are in now, where we don't like something because of its idolatrous associations, but we still haven't reached a point where the have the scholarship to back up our reasons to dismiss the possible "fact" of the stauros. But I have a feeling that, due to the way the Watchtower has worded the topic, that many Witnesses have already come to assume that the scholarship is there already. That could easily make other Witnesses think that even my own acceptance of the evidence in favor of a two-beamed stauros is somehow related to promoting the use of the symbol, or even promoting idolatrous worship.
So our current stance is understandable. "Flee from idolatry" should have a high priority and based on our correct prejudices against anything used in idolatry, it would be very difficult to imagine the WTS ever looking into whether the dual-beamed stauros might have more scholarly, historical and linguistic support. We might rightly hope that it does not.

LOL! You are even pickier than I was about this phrase. Immediately after writing it, I looked back on it and literally said to myself, "Wait, I can't use the word 'similar' because @Outta Here might even point out that Origen referred to successful pronouncers of Jesus' name and Acts/Luke refers to failed pronouncers of Jesus' name." (Or words to that effect.)
In fact, I nearly re-edited the word "similar" on the spot to "related" but didn't because I had said:
Similar idea in Acts from the seven sons of Sceva. This idea "from" the seven sons of Sceva is that they, too, wanted to be successful and effective pronouncers of Jesus' name. And, of course, the Origen quote that you offered is from the same article that's attached to the picture of the coin-like amulet. And this particular quote from Origen starts immediately after the quote from Acts about the sons of Sceva. (Both references start 4 to 7 lines further down in the article from the point where the picture left off, but still seen here: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/the-staurogram-correcting-errors/)
In any case, I was offering a point about how we do not immediately deny the accuracy of all information that comes from mystical or apostate sources. As you indicate, we might even expect that someone transforming themselves into an "angel of light" may get a lot of things right, while misusing and misapplying other things.
I believe you are here admitting that this is a similar idea between both Origen's examples and the seven sons of Sceva.
And the same point again that one of those apostate legends might have been that Jesus had been executed on a crux simplex, as the Watchtower has promoted for several years now. This does not mean that the Watchtower itself is apostate, but that we must always be on the lookout for mistakes in our teachings that might have been tainted by false or apostate thinking. Otherwise we would not need the following admonition:
(Colossians 4:17) . . .“Pay attention to the ministry that you accepted in the Lord. . . (1 Timothy 4:16) Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching.. . . (Hebrews 2:1) . . . That is why it is necessary for us to pay more than the usual attention to the things we have heard, so that we never drift away. (Philippians 4:5) Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . . True. But standing for something that is right and then drifting away from that stand is the basic, simplest definition of "apostasy" based on the meaning of the word in Biblical Greek ("standing from").  We don't have to be an apostate to be affected by apostasy. You will recall that we now believe that when the Watch Tower publications promoted the celebration of Christmas and birthdays that they were not being apostate, but that it was a matter of getting something wrong due to the long effects of apostasy. Also, recall that you had said:
"And whether consciously or not, given the spirit behind apostates, the inroads are far too subtle for humans to discern strategically. " You were speaking of the writer of the Letter of Barnabas specifically and pointing out the possibility that he could have been consciously or unconsciously transforming himself into an angel of light, and therefore we would expect that misleading or false information would be combined with information that was very true. But your statement just quoted shows the difficulty in discerning such subtle inroads. Therefore, I never claimed that Rutherford was apostate, but that he got clearly got some things wrong due in part to the supposedly indiscernible inroads of apostasy. If they are not humanly discernible, then we must even more carefully follow those "pay attention" scriptures just quoted, and perhaps that's the best we can do. Your logic admits that there may still be much humanly indiscernible apostasy anywhere. 
Personally, I have stated my belief that choosing between one or the other direction based on the preponderance of evidence is merely a choice that comes out of "letting our reasonableness be known" "guarding our hearts and our mental powers" and "paying close attention to ourselves and our teaching." It does not mean that either choice is an apostate choice, yet you did bring up that one of the choices might be related to apostasy. So I merely state the obvious: that if it's humanly indiscernible, then we don't really know which set of evidence is the one that might be leading us in that direction. But we do know that by paying closer attention the Watch Tower publications could have avoided being led astray from a more correct stand on Azazel,* pyramids, the superior authorities, the "generation that will not pass away," 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, the 6000 years, the Elder arrangement, the Gentile Times, Zionism in Palestine, the identity of the faithful and discreet slave, etc. And who is to say how many issues remain, if they are truly indiscernible?
*Azazel was just an example that "Letter of Barnabas" evidently had right, then J H Paton got wrong in Russell's Watch Tower magazine, then Russell himself came closer to our current teaching, then Rutherford drifted back in the direction of Paton's teaching, and now, today, by coincidence, we are closer to the "Letter of Barnabas" in our current teaching.

It would not surprise me in the least if evidence were discovered that indicated that Jesus died on a simple, upright pole, rather than a two-beamed traditional cross. It also wouldn't surprise me in the least if additional evidence were discovered that indicates that Jesus died on a traditional, two-beamed cross.
But up to this point, I'd have to admit that no evidence for a single-beamed upright pole with reference to Jesus' execution has yet been discovered. The evidence isn't very strong, but all of it, so far, points to a dual-beamed, traditional cross. 
Good points. And if Jesus were executed on a traditional, dual-beamed cross, then what would have been the correct words to refer to this type of instrument?
"STAUROS" and "CRUX."
And these are the words used in the oldest known manuscripts of the Bible. These are the same words used in the Christian Greek Scriptures and the early Latin translations of those Greek Scriptures, which were translated at a time when Greek was still a living vibrant language spoken by hundreds of thousands of people in the Roman world.
It's true that the Greek and Latin words "stauros" and "crux" could also refer to a simple upright pole, but it's also still true that the words "stauros" and "crux" were also the CORRECT words the Bible would use to refer to a two-beamed cross, or even another shape altogether. There was no better word. 
Of course, the same could be said for the single-beam, upright pole.
While we have no direct evidence in the Bible that a traditional cross-shaped symbol was a pagan symbol, the Bible contains many direct examples showing that the single-beam, upright pole was a pagan symbol.
(Deuteronomy 16:21, 22) 21 “You should not plant any sort of tree as a sacred pole near the altar of Jehovah your God that you make for yourself. 22 “Neither should you set up a sacred pillar for yourself, something Jehovah your God hates. (Judges 6:25) . . .tear down the altar of Baʹal that belongs to your father, and cut down the sacred pole next to it. (1 Kings 15:12, 13) . . .He expelled the male temple prostitutes from the land and removed all the disgusting idols that his forefathers had made. 13 He even removed Maʹa·cah his grandmother from her position as queen mother, because she had made an obscene idol for the worship of the sacred pole. Aʹsa cut down her obscene idol and burned it in the Kidʹron Valley. (1 Kings 16:33) 33 Aʹhab also made the sacred pole. Aʹhab did more to offend Jehovah the God of Israel than all the kings of Israel prior to him.
(1 Kings 18:19) 19 And now summon all Israel to me at Mount Carʹmel, as well as the 450 prophets of Baʹal and the 400 prophets of the sacred pole, who are eating at the table of Jezʹe·bel.”
(2 Kings 13:6) 6 (However, they did not depart from the sin of the house of Jer·o·boʹam that he had caused Israel to commit. They continued in this sin, and the sacred pole continued to stand in Sa·marʹi·a.)
(2 Kings 17:16) 16 They kept leaving all the commandments of Jehovah their God, and they made metal statues of two calves and a sacred pole, and they bowed down to all the army of the heavens and served Baʹal.
(2 Kings 18:4) 4 He was the one who removed the high places, smashed the sacred pillars, and cut down the sacred pole.. . .

I've used this argument at the door and with Bible studies, too: that supposedly Christians, even if they claim they are not worshiping the item, should still find it wrong to carry around a model of the "murder weapon" that killed Jesus Christ! I've even heard the additional example from other Witnesses, such as: "If your own father had been murdered with an AK-47, or a .38 revolver, would you ever think about carrying around a small model of an AK-47, or a .38 revolver, on a chain around your neck?"
Of course, this seemed quite fair until I learned that a member of the Governing Body who had worn a cross in the past, remembered that it was the way in which they felt they were showing their agreement with the idea in Mark:
(Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [STAUROS] and follow me continually." It was the Bible that treated the STAUROS as a "symbol." And we would never have complained that Jesus was saying (Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [MURDER WEAPON] and follow me continually."
Similarly, the apostle Paul would have been saying:
(1 Corinthians 2:2) For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and [his MURDER WEAPON]. Jesus and Paul knew that the STAUROS (whether cross or stake) was a proper symbol that could remind us of Christ's sacrifice, and it would remind us of our own need for daily sacrifice, and even a similar sacrifice to the death if need be. But this is not an external symbol like baptism by which we show we have dedicated our lives to God and associate ourselves with Christians of like faith. For we walk by faith and not by sight, and need no ongoing piece of jewelry to state our Christian status.

Sorry about that last post. I tried to do the whole thing from my Dragon speech app on my phone, and every time I reworded something, or decided to change it, I couldn't find the previous version. Then I found it all bunched down there at the bottom of my post. I removed most of the gibberish.
I guess that was supposed to be me? LOL. I can assure you that I have never dissociated myself, nor have I ever been disfellowshipped. I did "step down" as we call it, but I am pretty sure that you yourself would most likely consider this to have been at least a "step" in the right direction. After all, I am now responsible for a lot less teaching assignments in the congregation. Your response to this has repeatedly been to call me someone who is "no longer in good standing," but surely this is better for everyone all around. (Turns out there are plenty of sacred service activities that don't require an "eldership" or "pioneership" etc.)
The jwcross.pdf by Leolaia does not prove the Watchtower wrong. It does not even say that the Watchtower is wrong about Jesus dying on a simple, upright pole. It does try a bit too hard to show up the dogmatism and research errors, in staking out a position, but without crediting the Watchtower for exposing a major flaw in Christendom's assumptions, too. Also, the article avoids the issue of improper veneration to objects and idols, which has been a major part of the history of the cross. I understand that this is not a real focus of a "cross vs. stake" discussion, but since it is obviously geared to a JW and ex-JW audience, it should therefore give more credit where credit is due.

I suppose you are referring to the fact that most Witnesses think that "spirit-directed organization" refers to the idea that the persons responsible for directing the WT organization would therefore have a greater measure of Jehovah's holy spirit, or at least a special measure of holy spirit specifically for the work of guiding and directing what counts as "spiritual food."
*** wp17 No. 1 p. 15 Is It Just a Small Misunderstanding? ***
The holy spirit also moves more knowledgeable Christians to come to the aid of those seeking greater understanding.—Acts 8:26-35. *** w17 February p. 24 par. 5, 10-14 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? ***
Christians in the first century recognized that the governing body was directed by Jehovah God through their Leader, Jesus. How could they be sure of this? First, holy spirit empowered the governing body. (John 16:13) Holy spirit was poured out on all anointed Christians, but it specifically enabled the apostles and other elders in Jerusalem to fulfill their role as overseers. For example, in 49 C.E., holy spirit guided the governing body . . . .  In 1919, three years after Brother Russell’s death, Jesus appointed “the faithful and discreet slave.” For what purpose? To give his domestics “food at the proper time.” (Matt. 24:45) Even in those early years, a small group of anointed brothers who served at headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, prepared and distributed spiritual food to Jesus’ followers. . . . .  the Governing Body to focus on providing spiritual instruction and direction. Evidence of holy spirit. The holy spirit has helped the Governing Body to grasp Scriptural truths not previously understood. . . .  Surely, no human deserves credit for discovering and explaining these “deep things of God”! The Governing Body echoes the apostle Paul, who wrote: “These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit.” . . . . can anything other than holy spirit explain the rapid increase in spiritual understanding since 1919? Evidence of angelic assistance. The Governing Body today has the colossal task of overseeing an international preaching work involving over eight million evangelizers. Why has that work been so successful? For one, angels are involved. What I think that many persons might find confusing here is that the article specifically used examples of how wrong we have been in the past as proof of the direction of holy spirit, otherwise how would the Governing Body have been able to make so many changes to its own false doctrines. The same article included these words:
The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food. So how can we answer Jesus’ question: “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?” (Matt. 24:45) What evidence is there that the Governing Body is filling that role? Let us consider the same three factors that directed the governing body in the first century. 13 Evidence of holy spirit. The holy spirit has helped the Governing Body to grasp Scriptural truths not previously understood. For example, reflect on the list of beliefs clarified that was referred to in the preceding paragraph. Surely, no human deserves credit for discovering and explaining these “deep things of God”! I think the biggest source of confusion is the contradiction between the idea that we don't yet have perfect knowledge and yet Jesus promised his disciples:
(John 15:26-16:13) 26 When the helper comes that I will send you from the Father, the spirit of the truth, which comes from the Father, that one will bear witness about me; 27 and you, in turn, are to bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning. . . . . For if I do not go away, the helper will not come to you; but if I do go, I will send him to you. . . .  13 However, when that one comes, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own initiative, but what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things to come. The contradiction is pretty obvious:
The Governing Body claims to be directed by holy spirit; The holy spirit was supposed to guide Christians into all the truth when it was poured out in 33 CE after Jesus was no longer present; The Governing Body admits to a long list of errors going back over 100 years; Many of these new errors and false doctrines were introduced after Jesus was supposed to be present again in 1914. The Second Adventists (and Seventh Day Adventist branch) resolved the issue by calling their false doctrines "Present Truth." If doctrines were found to be false and therefore changed, then the new doctrines were "present truth" and those past false doctrines were "present truth" at the time, even if time proved them to actually be false. Clever! It was based on a mistranslation/misinterpretation of 2 Peter 1:12. But in the tradition of Second Adventists, we (Bible Students/JWs) also needed to adopt the same solution, especially because we were promoting pieces of a chronology that was continually being proven false. For many years, the Watchtower used 2 Peter 1:12 to defend the idea of "present truth." We now admit that it was based on a mistranslation/misinterpretation. But it remained in Watchtower vocabulary for many years. At one time the doctrine has been so important it was capitalized.
*** w52 4/1 p. 219 An International Assembly in Rome ***
those who had already come to the truth must keep up with present truth. They must appreciate what the Lord provides through his organization and study diligently. *** yb88 p. 139 Korea ***
The Watch Tower of August 15, 1914, printed a fascinating letter addressed to Brother Russell, stating: “I am a stranger to you in one sense; but I came to a knowledge of Present Truth through your writings just twenty-two months ago. For some time I have been anxious to write and tell you of my special appreciation of the Truth, but circumstances did not permit until now. The real solution, I think, is found in Jesus' words about what the "spirit of truth" would lead them to. Truth is not the same as "accurate knowledge." Jesus said it would focus on three things: the truth about sin, righteousness and judgment:
(John 16:7-11) . . .For if I do not go away, the helper will not come to you; but if I do go, I will send him to you. 8 And when that one comes, he will give the world convincing evidence concerning sin and concerning righteousness and concerning judgment: 9 first concerning sin, because they are not exercising faith in me; 10 then concerning righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; 11 then concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. For other things, like this issue of cross vs stake, we should have absolutely no problem telling the truth about it. The truth is that we cannot be dogmatic. The truth is that we don't really have proof one way or another. It is NOT the truth to say that "Jesus was therefore executed on a single upright stake." But the truth is very accessible. All we have to do is say that, based on current evidence, Jesus may have been executed on a single upright stake, but there is also evidence that he may have been executed on a dual-beamed cross. It appears that both of these methods, and several others, could fall within the meaning of the term "stauros" found in the Scriptures.
So we have no reason to believe that holy spirit has not already led Christians "into all the truth." We even know the truth about cross versus stake.

This Youtuber has Phd in Theological Studies and offers his personal opinions throughout.
I thought it interesting to see how others view us....