Anna

It must be working since you just answered her 😂

It doesn't matter what the JW version of confidentiality is or was. The question posed in the heading of this post is: "Did Jehovah's Witnesses lie to the Montana court about confidentiality" The answer is no, the JWs did not lie about confidetiality. The court was fully aware of the JW's version of confidentiality before it made its decision to reverse the judgment. The court reversed its judgment on the basis of the JWs version of confidentiality. Page13 of the Court's Decision: "the summary judgment record demonstrates that Jehovah’s Witnesses have an established process for receiving and investigating reports of child abuse within their congregations; that they consider this process confidential; and that the process necessarily involves multiple elders and congregation members, including the accused, CCJW elders who provide spiritual guidance, and local elders who conduct the investigation." Not sure what you mean by that....but if you mean that this could be misused to intentionally falsely accuse someone, then yes, that is true. Trust is put in the good will of people, and it is assumed that they will not make things up. People like to believe in the general goodness of humanity. And there are many “good” people out there. But yes, this trust can, and has been abused, no doubt about that. I even have know of an experience where that happened. The underage daughter in the custody of her dad, wanted to go and live with her mom, so she made up a story about her dad, that he was beating her. She called child abuse helpline. I don't think we should underestimate the training these people have in knowing how to recognize authentic reports. The authorities came and investigated, and found out the real truth. The authorities are usually not quick at condemning someone without due proof. (We are taking about civilised countries). Separating families merely because someone suspects foul play usually is not the procedure.

If anyone is interested in reading the actual transcript of the Supreme Court's decision, here is the link: https://law.justia.com/cases/montana/supreme-court/2020/da-19-0077-0.html So you can decide whether Jehovah's Witnesses lied to the Montana court about confidentiality. Remarks and comments are welcome (at least welcomed by me 😀)

Actually, I was not talking about "positions" as in "positions of responsibility" (i.e. elder or something like that) I was talking about positions as in being able to be physically in the vicinity of children. That is why I said this was an impossibility to avoid, unless one was physically removed from society all together, (or unless children were physically removed from the vicinity of the perpetrator). One website says this: "In most cases, children won’t be removed from a home without clear indications the child is in danger. However, the child will remain under the supervision of child welfare services until the parents can assure caseworkers that they will provide a safe environment" . Facts are not easy to come by. Obviously someone who has molested a child will try to make sure of that! I think the new mantra (at least in the USA) now is "Trust your gut. If you suspect a child may be in danger, call 911 or call your State Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Numbers". A website also says: "Whether out of fear of getting sued by the abuser for making false accusations, or a sense of not wanting to “get involved,” child abuse often goes undetected or unreported by those closest to it. "Don’t worry about being sued for reporting child abuse. State programs receiving federal funds are required to provide immunity to people who make good-faith reports of child abuse or neglect". "Persons who report suspected child abuse in good faith are generally* immune from liability, and their identity is protected from the abuser". https://www.injuryclaimcoach.com/child-abuse-victims.html * not sure what circumstance would constitute an exemption to this, but just because a lawsuit was filed against the Mormon church for breaking confidentiality, it doesn't mean the plaintiff will win. Most likely the court will find the Mormon church acted that way for the safety of the child, and the suit will be thrown out of court. I think these matters to do with children are in a class of their own, as opposed to the rape or assault of an adult, the uniqueness being that a child cannot give consent, and it is the right of the child to expect to be protected, because it cannot protect itself. A website I posted a link to in my earlier post, and JWI drew attention to it, has this to say about Clergy confidentiality: "However, there may be times when it is appropriate to share confidential information, under extreme circumstances where people may be killed or severely injured. There are only nine cases in the history of this country (USA) where a minister was sued for breaching the duty of confidentiality. Of those, only three of the cases found the minister civilly liable for sharing confidences. In the other six cases, the courts concluded there was no duty under the circumstances for the minister to keep the confidentiality. So it can be concluded that ministers who decide to share confidential information should not in most cases be held personally liable from a legal standpoint, but they certainly won’t be held legally liable for not sharing. The exception to this rule is child abuse. In 41 states clergy are mandatory reporters of suspected or known child abuse". https://www.agfinancial.org/blog/bid103391church-liability-clergy-privilege-confidentiality-and-reporting/

Yes, agree. Also, one has to avoid situations that could re-ignite this addiction. With drugs, one has to completely cut ties with the drug based community. With alcohol, one must completely avoid it, even just one drink. However, with the "addiction" of molesting children, in other words pedophilia, there is a problem. One cannot avoid being around children entirely. So what has happened is pedophiles have been in a position where re-offending was made possible. And that has been the problem all along.

Money makes all sorts of pain magically go away, didn't you know that? Interestingly, in the Montana case (and I only know this because as I said, I read the court transcript, over 400 pages of it, in order to get a clear and unbiased view) one of the victims (the other sibling who also reported the abuse) did not want to become a part of the lawsuit. He said in his deposition that he just wants to get on with his life. In other words, he was not interested in money to "repair his trauma". This victim was the only one who is still in the truth. So it appears he was more interested in remaining one of Jehovah's Witnesses than in money. Now I am sure there will be malcontents (as you call them) who will claim that he must have been brainwashed into being loyal to the organization. All speculation of course. But the more realistic approach is; maybe he just liked being one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and therefor why would he want to claim damages from a community that he likes being a part of, especially when he knew they were not responsible for what his stepdad did to him. He knew his step dad was going to be prosecuted, and that was enough justice for him. Obviously, he felt that his spirituality helped him in overcoming his trauma. But if one doesn't have that kind of faith, then money is the next best thing. Don't forget, this was never condoned. Anything can happen if done in secret.

Wasn't my response!

@the Sower of Seed I just want to say that is not my quote above, even though it says Anna. It's what 4jah2me said.

If the law does not want confusion - they must fix the law. The problem has always been the law .... since the 1980s. It was never clear cut and every state has different statutes..... and interpretations. I agree. Also I agree with most of what you said @TrueTomHarley in your post, but it seems to me, the law is not about "you must NOT disclose clergy confidentiality", but it is about "you don't have to disclose clergy confidentiality". It was the clergy who said you must NOT. This is because it was against the law of the church, and a cleric would lose his job if he broke that church law. As you know, JWs are not under that kind of a law, so it seems to me that it has always been an option for them whether to claim clergy privilege or not. I did not see any evidence to the contrary. I read the court transcript. Again, Zalkin is making a misleading statement.

This shows clearly that the court was NOT mislead. (Saying it was mislead is another one of Zalkin's loaded words to make JWs appear dishonest and bent on protecting pedophiles. As a result we see headlines such as "JWs lied in court". ) Yes, I agree with that. I have seen it practiced (in other areas, not CSA). The Montana case is from what happened about 10 years ago. Hopefully now, with the new guidelines, and especially the WT study, all of JWs will no longer view this as bringing shame on the organization if they report, but they will see it is the perpetrator who is the one that is bringing the shame. Now it is in proper perspective.

Yes, I saw that too. (I just wanted to highlight the bit about what seems to be the two "types" of confidentiality"). You know my feelings on this anyway, that I don't see the purpose of applying clergy privilege to the elders in the first place. I have a feeling though that this will become less of an issue, and hopefully will be just a formality, like "let's see what the law says in our state, but then do what our conscience tell us is the right thing to do to protect our children".

Confidentiality: "There are two views held by state courts regarding confidentiality as it pertains to clergy privilege. In two-thirds of the states, a communication is considered confidential if made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present for the purpose of the communication. In one-third of the states, privileged communication means a communication made in confidence only to the minister, with no third person present". Taken from: https://www.agfinancial.org/blog/bid103391church-liability-clergy-privilege-confidentiality-and-reporting/

I think that is the general idea, and that we have seen the last of any pedophiles or child molesters getting away with their disgusting crime. Also, I think anyone thinking about doing anything disgusting to children will think twice about it. (However, there is the problem of new people coming in, they may not be aware of this strict child policy. But I do know that brothers who are being considered for appointment as elders are asked if there is anything in the past that would disqualify them from taking up this position). I do not expect to see any more new cases in the coming years. I think if any cases come to light now, it will be from the past. A few months ago I researched the Montana case quite extensively (I read the 400 or so page court transcript) and posted some of my "observations" in the Private JW Club. This was another classic instance of "a dirty old step dad/grandad molests step children and then years later a step grandchild". (If memory serves right, I think this happened about 10 years ago). The step daughter with the grandchild knew that her step dad had molested her sister, and despite that, she brought her child (the grandchild) to his house for baby sitting because of convenience sake. I don't think this sat too well with the Jury, since it was evident she had knowingly put her child in harms way. Most of the members of that family were not very strong in the truth, and one of the victim's claim was thrown out of court as unreliable (basically she made some stuff up). I have not followed up on the results of the lawsuit, so thanks for posting that. Anyway, what I remember from reading the transcript is that it all seemed to hang on clergy privilege law in Montana. You might already know this, but each state in USA has their own state laws. Some states have no clergy confidentiality, and others do. Then there is the issue of "what exactly is meant by "confidential". Does this mean no one but the one whom the confidential issue was disclosed to knows? If I remember right, what had to be established by the court was: whose definition of confidentiality was going to be used. Was it going to be the "Catholic" version, where only the priest knows, or was it going to be the particular religions version, in other words what that particular religion viewed as confidential. In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, confidentiality is not the same as the Catholic version of confidentiality. As we know, when a JW judicial matter is said to be confidential, it means that more than just one elder gets to know the matter and in the case of CSA, advice is sought from the branch office as to reporting laws, i.e. what does the law for that particular state say about reporting? So here we already have perhaps more than 4 people who know about the matter. However, in this version of confidentiality, only those persons who are involved in handling the matter know. No one outside of that circle is privy to this information*. Also, another criteria for the Catholic version of confidentiality is that the penitent must approach the cleric, the confessional. However, with the Witnesses, this is not always the case. The perpetrator is approached by the elders, as it was in this case. So, although I haven't read the report yet, it appears that the state of Montana recognizes a religion's interpretation of confidentiality, therefor they deemed the JW version as confidential information. So it wasn't because the elders were lying about confidentiality in order to deceive the court. The transcript clearly showed that the elders said how they proceeded, so the court was well aware the that more than one person knew, and that the elders on the judicial committee also called the branch for consultation. There was no deceit on the part of the elders. * It just occurred to me that if no one outside the confidential circle was to know, then parents of other children were not to find out either. However, this is not the case now. When it is established that there may be concern over the behavior of someone in the congregation, then the parents of any children in that congregation are notified. So really, now there is no confidentiality for the sake of protecting the children. So, I wonder how we can even claim clergy penitence now, because of that. It seems this would be a moot issue with any new cases. It makes me see how in contrast, the other version of clergy penitence is a danger to children, because the priest must not tell anyone else. This is why I think it's stupid for any state or country to have this outdated religious law written in their secular law. Some states are trying to abolish this, but religious tradition is so closely intertwined with politics that it may never happen. Especially not in predominantly Catholic countries....

You do know, Allen Smith, that you are easily identifiable no matter what name you use. And you know why? Because you always use the same insulting tactics.

What other WT explanations do you think are affected by whether the anointed that have died are now in heaven or not?

You've been reading too much false information. Russell started the ball rolling but then he and his associates died. But it didn't end there, that is why I said that since then, some scriptures became clearer, and understood better. Knowledge is progressive as I am sure you will agree. It was during Rutherford's time that the Great crowd was identified. Until then it was thought all were going to heaven. When the scripture concerning the great crowd came to be understood, it brought a lot of joy to those who realised they were of the great crowd, because their desire was to live on earth. Everyone at that time had the opportunity for the first time to realise who they were. It must have been thrilling to say the least! I am in no way saying Russell, Rutherford, or anyone after him didn't make mistakes or immediately got everything right. But I think that has always been your stumbling block. Your insistence that there must be NO mistakes and NO fault, despite knowing that all humans, including the anointed are imperfect, and that all those inspired and God fearing men in Bible times (Hebrew and Greek scriptures) made mistakes, some quite major ones. And still, God used them although he had to discipline them. Those who Jehovah loves he disciplines. If those who Jehovah loves didn't make mistakes, there would be no need for Jehovah to discipline them, would there? The discipline from Jehovah is ongoing. Perhaps one of these reprimands have been regarding the CSA issue? Although as you know, this problem is complex and no one solution fits all. (You yourself were not sure how to proceed regarding one situation. You were worried about slander and concerns whether reporting to the Police was justified and the right thing to do. You were asking for opinion on here. You said it was because you did not have all the information. Well put yourself in the elders shoes. They do not always have all the information. Just like you, they are worried about barking up the wrong tree.) There have been recent and important clarifications regarding the reporting and handling of CSA. The biggest one is that ALL members of the congregation have been made aware of how to proceed, not just elders like in the past. Everyone can be on the same page now. That is a big improvement and a step forward. In my opinion it was discipline from Jehovah. I will address the other issues you mentioned in another post later.... No, of course I am not saying that. I said that now, the congregations are mostly made up of the earthly class, but that does not mean that the body of Christ (the anointed) has been disturbed, or has no significance just because most congregations have no anointed in them at all.

Are you saying God has not made sure of it? I thought you said that it is essential that they join with each other while on earth? Because your concern was that the WT org. is trying to keep them apart. So are you saying the anointed that are within JW org and who die in JW org. will not be "connected with Christ"? Are you saying that right now there is a group of anointed who are not with JW org?

I just ask: Are they in the heaven now? And what is evidence how they were resurrected in spiritual bodies in the 1914 (as i can recall) as WT Society made claim? Whether they are in heaven already as the WT believes, or still asleep in death, it makes no difference to the fact that ALL the anointed have to be in heaven before it can be said that they rule with Christ and are with him physically. Perhaps most of them are quite old today, and many old people, as we know, in general have no interest and motivation for digital technologies: whatsapp groups, facebook, google ..... :))) Yes. That is the practical view. That is why I don't think it can be important that they keep in touch with each other, because if it was, it would not be fair on the really old ones trying to work out all these technologies. 4Jah2me mentioned letter writing, well that too has it's limits because some of these older ones have trouble holding a pen (arthritis) or do not see very well anymore. Some younger ones (some are in their 50's) obviously would have no trouble with technology. But then where does that leave the older ones? We can already see that it is virtually impossible for ALL the anointed on earth to be in contact. So how fair would that be if only some were in contact? It would already nullify the idea that in order to be ONE body, they ALL have to be in contact with each other.

In each of the letters, the members of a congregation were addressed (Galatia, Corinth, Ephesus etc.). All the members of those congregations were anointed. They physically gathered together. Today, (if someone wants to do the math) most congregations are made up of the earthly class. Those who were members of the congregations while Peter and Paul etc. were alive are in heaven now, waiting for the full number of anointed to be sealed so that the body of Christ is physically not just spiritually whole. This won't happen until ALL the anointed are in heaven. They will then rule with Christ. Those anointed remnant who are still on earth today, are physically scattered over all the earth. But they are united with Christ regardless, as long as they remain faithful. Their being faithful is not contingent on them physically gathering or communicating with the other remnant on earth is it? And you haven't actually answered the question.

You make it sound like fundamental teachings have changed. I wonder what would cause someone to actually say “this is not what I have signed up for”. Maybe you have a few ideas? I think you are missing the whole point of the Christian congregation. Let’s say that today all the anointed communicated with each other, and each brought something to the table, and each agreed or disagreed on something, which teaching or thought would they decide to stick to? Well, I hate to tell you, but you’ve missed the bus by nearly 2000 years. It’s already been done with the apostles. It’s already all there in writing, in the scriptures for all to see. When the first Bible students got together under Russell, all they did was peel away years of false teachings of Christendom and exposed the grass roots of the Truth.There has really been nothing much new since then, only some views became clearer, and a few were seen as unnecessarily complicated (such as types and antitypes) and were removed altogether . Paul said about the anointed in Ephesians 4:11 “And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, 12 with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ, until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown man, attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ”. Paul shows that some anointed were readjusted (trained) by the other anointed, so that ALL of them together would attain to the oneness of the faith and accurate knowledge. So it looks like not all the anointed were given equal tasks. Some were shepherds and teachers of the other anointed, some evidently not. But as an end result, they were all united. That was the whole point of the Christian congregation, which in those days must have represented the body of Christ because it was composed exclusively of the anointed. Today, the congregation, or body of Christ, remains undisturbed, as Jesus is still their head and the head of the congregation. But it will not be made whole until all the anointed are in heaven with Christ. With the dwindling numbers of anointed, these congregations have been filled with those who are not members of the body of Christ, but there is unity, and it is still Christ’s congregation. But somehow, you, and @Witness, imply that it is necessary that there should be a segregation of those who are anointed, and those who are not anointed. I cannot find that idea anywhere in the scripture. So, what do you think your “true anointed” would bring to the table today that hasn’t already been established by Jesus, and recorded by those who wrote the Christian Greek scriptures? I am sure you must have something in mind. Something that would help all of Jehovah’s Witnesses today. What is it? Was in the Jan 2016 WT, but here is the latest, Jan 2020 basically saying the same thing in par 7, as the 2016 WT https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-january-2020/we-will-go-with-you/ It is not saying anointed ones cannot communicate with each other. It is saying that they wouldn't want to separate themselves from the rest of the congregation. I am not concerned about it because the true anointed have no need to seek each other in that way. From what I have seen they enjoy the fellowship and mutual encouragement of brothers and sisters of the earthly class while still on earth, and they look forward to being united physically with Christ and the other anointed when they are finally in heaven. P.S. I need to comment on something you mentioned in one of your previous posts. You said: "The Anointed are not the same as the Earthly Class. The sooner people get this through their heads the better for everyone. The Anointed are the BODY OF CHRIST. Do you not understand that God has a special use for them even now. Otherwise God could anoint a person when they were on their deathbed". The problem with that is that the anointed do not fully become the body of Christ until they are in heaven. While on earth they have that hope. But they are still sinful just like the earthly class. Although they have been given the invitation to heaven, their being anointed is no guarantee that they will be there. They will only be there if they have endured faithful to the end. So yes, their final sealing happens when they are on their deathbed. (........ prove yourself faithful even to death, and I will give you the crown of life". Rev 2:10). Some who were anointed in Paul's day fell away, the same can happen today. Paul, when he knew his death was imminent was able to say: "I have fought the fine fight, I have run the race to the finish, I have observed the faith. From this time on, there is reserved for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give me as a reward in that day"

Exactly! Thank you. I meant any Tom, Dick and Harry 😀

I am continuing from your earlier post..... Well it depends on what it is and how they feel about it. If a person disagrees with the teaching of 1914 for example, then he has to decide how important that is to him. He can write to the branch, as many have done. If they don't like the reply, or don't agree with it, they have to again decide how important it is to them. Not everything is black and white and there may be something that you or they have overlooked. Is 1914 a life or death question? In my opinion it isn't, but in someone else's opinion it might be. And they may feel that they cannot continue being JW because of it. We don't have to go around telling everyone, because it is a personal opinion. Even if we can find "proof" that we are right, we should respect the opinions of others, just like we would like others to respect out opinion. With something like 1914, we really need to decide the importance of it in light of the big picture. If JW'S have got 1914 wrong, how does that affect how we view everything else we have learned from that same source? Remember, mistakes will be made. I read some of your earlier posts where you are actually defending what you have learned from JWs (God and Jesus being separate, there being no fiery hell, the promise of an earthly paradise, the last days etc.) It is true, we can have our own opinion on what a scripture means. But usually that is an exception if the scripture is read in context of the chapter AND the whole Bible. A few scriptures can be ambiguous though. Hopefully, before we signed up to become one of JWs we have already cleared that up and accepted the interpretation of JWs. How do you suggest they should be in contact earth wide? Yes, you are making a good point there. However in practice, as you know, most anointed are scattered throughout the earth. In the days before the internet communication, to be of any value, would have been difficult. Today, this is surely a lot easier, but not everyone is able to communicate via the internet. Not only that, and this is the point I was trying to make earlier, how would one know if someone was the "true anointed". I joked, and said any True Tom Harley could claim they were anointed. Can you imagine how that would work? It could become a total mess if some "false anointed" communicated whatever they liked. How would one sift what was genuine from what wasn't genuine? The GB is not concerned if the anointed communicate with each other., It is everyone's right to communicate with all of the brotherhood. The GB is concerned that the whole brotherhood remains united.

Well it depends what it is. If it would be something blatantly against scripture, then you can bet you would not be the only one to notice this, and others would say something, if not everyone. But if it was something that was ambiguous, then it would be wise to wait until things became clearer. There are many things where we might have our own opinion, even regarding the interpretation of some scriptures. But unless there is only ONE possible way of looking at something, who is to say WE are right? I am not sure what you mean by “dangerous teachings”. Something from the Ezekiel book? Can you point that out in the Bible for me? 1 Cor 13:8 “Love never fails. But if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with”. In context Paul is saying that these “gifts” will cease or “fail” but what will remain is “faith” “hope” and “ love” …the greatest being love. Everything that we are to know has been recorded by those who had those gifts. The Bible is complete, with nothing more to be added to it. So these gifts of prophesy are no longer needed and neither are “tongues” . What we can increase is knowledge, and “when that which is complete arrives, that which is partial (the knowledge) will be done away with and will become complete as per Daniel 12:4. The little flock (the anointed) and the great crowd, those who are not anointed, become one flock as Jesus said. There is no separation of the Christian congregation and no separation of the body of Christ, they are all united in thought, after all, that is what Paul had in mind, because it was impossible for ALL the anointed to be together physically. Ahh, the faults of the GB. Well this too has been brought out many times, that faults and mistakes will will happen, just as they did with Jesus’ disciples. We have also talked about this. There is a degree of trust necessary with anyone acting in the capacity of authority. Even though we know such persons of authority can make mistakes, we still trust them to do their best in that capacity. This goes for doctors, police, etc.There is nothing wrong with trusting the elders, trusting that they have our good interests at heart. HOWEVER if we find that individuals are going against the Bible, then we may, in fact we must, report it.. Depending on how serious it is (I think child abuse is exempt from this, and should be reported to the elders and Police) the Bible gives steps on how to handle situations like that. Matthew 18:15-17 " “Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go and reveal his fault* between you and him alone.n If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, so that on the testimony* of two or three witnesses every matter* may be established.17 If he does not listen* to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen* even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector" .But we have also talked about this..So if we feel a brother has wronged us, we go to the brother first. If we find out a brother has committed a sin, we go to that brother first. Are you saying this scripture is wrong? Oh really? Well they are not holding mine, and I am sure I am not the only one whose hand they're not holding. What I don't think you can get through your head is that the primary measuring stick for obedience is : we must obey God as ruler rather than men, and even if Angel's declared it to us. Gal 1:8 To be continued.......

I see the point you are making, but I'm afraid I have no concrete answer as I am thinking it could be a bit of both depending on what is the subject for contemplation. And I can't think of any examples right now as it's really late and I'm about to fall to sleep...

Blaming the GB et al for not using our brains is just another example of not using our brains. Each person is responsible for their own spirituality. When we stand in front of the judgment seat of God, there isn’t going to be an elder holding our hand, or telling us how to think or what to say. Yes, indeed. So we will let God be the judge of who stumbled who. There are also a scriptures which tell us what to do in order NOT to be stumbled. When I say questioning, that doesn’t necessarily mean literally questioning them by putting pen to paper or calling them, or causing a ruckus in the congregation. It means that we can be on the alert to make sure of all things, and make sure (question) that all things are in harmony with the scriptures. That is why G. Jackson said anyone who has the Bible would be able to do so, and would be able to see if certain direction (from the GB) measured up, and would see if it was right or wrong direction. If we discern it’s wrong direction then we act on our own behalf, and not tell others what to do, because everyone else has a Bible too. Yes, the anointed are baptized with HS and there are various ways each unique to them as to how they “know”. However the Bible says the miracles would cease. The WT on this topic merely points out some important facts, and it is good that it has been written. We had a sister in our hall who never looked up a scripture, never sang any songs, never answered, she just sat in the KH, would jiggle her car keys, walk around after the meeting telling people she is watching them. At one time she approached the platform during the meeting flicking a lighter in her hand. She was mentally ill. She also partook of the emblems each year. You judge for yourself whether she was of the anointed or not. The WT was not demeaning any of the anointed. One of the GB’s own sons is of the anointed, and everything the WT said applies to him too. We already talked about why there is no need for the anointed to form some kind of special club, just for the anointed. The reason for that is because we are all one flock. Any building up and sharing of thoughts is done in each congregation. I very much appreciated the thoughts of the anointed couple I used to know before they died. The idea is that just as Jesus distributed the loaves to his disciples and his disciples fed the crowds, so the other sheep would be fed at the hands of a few. I imagine it is a practical reason too, because who knows who really is anointed or not if one does not know them personally. It would mean that TTH for example, could claim to be of the anointed, and then imagine the kind of stuff he would be sharing via the internet! (just kidding @TrueTomHarley 😄) Of course not! And neither does @b4ucuhear. See, this is another instance where the obvious needs to be explained to you. I understood exactly what bc4ucuhear was saying, because I know, and he knows, and all Witnesses know, that Jesus does NOT make mistakes. Therefore in that context, b4 was merely saying that IF it appears that Jesus is making a mistake, (because he oversees the congregations) then we know it’s NOT Jesus, in fact this brings me to what else b4 said regarding Jesus’ oversight: "Jesus and Jehovah have provided direction in his Word as guidelines for how the congregation should be run. sometimes men in authority go "beyond what is written" and we should use our "clear thinking faculties" to be able to discern the difference. The fact is, that if one is too lazy to study and read God's Word or are gullible, you can start acting like you are in a cult - even when you are not". Also " So, if Jesus controls all the elders like some sort of spiritual remote control by means of holy spirit, (as some may think), then everything that takes place within the organization should be perfect, because Jesus is perfect and would use holy spirit in a perfect way. Why is that of interest? Because too many things happen within thes organization (even the early Christian congregation), that are clearly not "controlled" by Jesus - unless he is deliberately controlling them to do bad things..(logic alert for Mr. Butler!!! b4 is not here implying that Jesus would do that, it's just to show the absurdity of that notion) I won't get into detail, but things happen that shouldn't happen and even very unscriptural things happen. My description of the factors that come into play regarding that interplay, attempted to explain the discrepancies that clearly exist if you are not living in a "snow globe." I had mentioned 1 Tim. 5:24 because it plays an important role in helping to understand why bad things can go on within the congregation for decades. All one has to do is look at the way that scripture is true historically to get a better understanding of how it applies today. The fact that elders have a measure of autonomy is hinted at by the phrase: "By heeding his words to each of the seven congregations, present-day elders see how they can handle similar situations." So elders make their decision based on "heeding his words" which are contained where? In the Bible - and so are accountable to Jesus as to how they use the authority he gives them". Although b4ucuhear was giving the example of elders in the congregation, by extension the same principles apply to the GB, they are elders too. (For some reason you thought it was funny as you gave it a laughing emoji). But you still didn't answer my question. Bible in hand, what have you found that the GB are doing wrong?