Anna

Looking at today's scripture text, I see that there is a fairly good reference to the concept of "core doctrines" in the commentary. Some have questioned whether this concept of core doctrines is correct, with the alternative being that we should accept ALL doctrines, great and small, with equal vigor. In other words, we should be ready to die for the our current teaching concerning "whether people of Sodom would be resurrected" just as strongly as we should be ready to die for the doctrine of the Ransom.
The day's text is about the resurrection, and the commentary speaks of the importance of including this among our key doctrines, as if it might not have been "up there" with the rest.
*** Text for Tuesday, December 10, 2019 ***
What are the key teachings of your faith? Surely you would stress that Jehovah is the Creator and Life-Giver. You would likely mention your belief in Jesus Christ, who died as a ransom. And you would happily add that an earthly paradise is ahead, where God’s people will live forever. But would you mention the resurrection as one of your most cherished beliefs? We have good reasons to include the resurrection as a key teaching even if we personally hope to survive the great tribulation and live on earth forever. The resurrection is central to our faith. Had Christ not been resurrected, he would not be our ruling King, and our teaching about Christ’s rule would be in vain. (1 Cor. 15:12-19) However, we know that Jesus was resurrected, and we hold firm to our belief in the resurrection.
Note that the text reminds us a few things that the great crowd, perhaps, do not get reminded of enough: We might die. The great hope is that "You May Survive Armageddon into God's New World." But since the book of that title came out, most of us who studied that book as JWs are now dead. The key teachings mentioned above are therefore:
Jehovah is the Creator, Jesus' Ransom, Living Forever in an Earthly Paradise The Resurrection The Teaching about Christ's Kingdom I would agree that these are definitely the core teachings.
Of course that final one might be a nod to "1914" as a key teaching, but it is worded here in such a way that no one could dismiss Christ's Kingdom as a key teaching. This is true whether one focuses on the
Kingdom preaching beginning in 29 CE through 33 CE, or the Kingdom's beginning in 33 when Christ began to rule as king (1 Cor 15, Colossians 1, Acts 2, Revelation 1, etc.), or the historical outworking of the Kingdom with renewed emphasis on preaching since WWI, or the focus on what that Kingdom will bring to the new heavens and new earth. But the fact that 1 Cor 15 is quoted above as the context to the teaching about Christ's rule, and that Paul goes on in verse 25 to indicate that "sit at my right hand" is the equivalent of "rule as king" tells me that 1914 might have been left off on purpose. (Because Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33 CE., therefore he began ruling as king in 33 CE. --1 Cor 15:25)
That's an easy solution to all the current difficulties and contradictions in the 1914 teaching. But it's not the "difficult teaching" I had in mind.
If you look at the text through the Watchtower Library, you will also see that it is somewhat related to the material for the Midweek meeting (December 9-15), which starts out with a discussion of Revelation 11.
*** Text for Tuesday, December 10, 2019 ***
TREASURES FROM GOD’S WORD
• “‘Two Witnesses’ Are Killed and Brought Back to Life”: (10 min.)
Re 11:3—“Two witnesses” prophesy for 1,260 days (w14 11/15 30)
Re 11:7—They are killed by “the wild beast”
Re 11:11—The “two witnesses” are brought back to life after “the three and a half days”
I'll explain later today.

Some good points there Srecko.
It was obviously God who decided when it was ok to kill, based on laws that superseded the command not to kill. The question then is, when it comes to shunning, who decides when it's ok to shun and when it is not ok? Or is there something that supersedes the command to shun? First I want to address this comment you made:
I understand the parallels you are trying to draw. There are many examples in history of family members disowning other family members, cutting them off as if the other person no longer exists. In these instances it is humans that make their own personal law. Sometimes it's based on understandable reasons, (extreme evilness on the part of the one who is being disowned) and sometimes on purely frivolous grounds (used as blackmail). Of course there are many many different reasons, too many to mention.
I suppose this sounds reasonable. Usually when this situation occurs, the person is not in a disfellowshipped state.
I have often thought about this problematic and I have still not found satisfactory justification for some of these actions.
I can understand that a person guilty of breaking the Bible's commands and not repenting, or changing, should not be a part of the congregation. The congregation must be kept clean, otherwise Jesus "could vomit it out of his mouth". (Rev 3:16) He says "All those for whom I have affection, I reprove and discipline. So be zealous and repent" (Rev 3:19). And  "‘Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first. If you do not, I will come to you, and I will remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent". (Rev 2:5) and “‘Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching of Baʹlaam......  So repent. If you do not, I am coming to you quickly, and I will war against them with the long sword of my mouth" 
I think just those few scriptures in Revelation show clearly Jesus' feelings about keeping the congregation morally and spiritually clean. We also have Paul's counsel. However, we know that those who have not repented are not thrown out of the congregation literally, but symbolically. They can still attend the meetings if they want. But they cannot participate and speak to anyone. Why? Because they have been disfellowshipped. So in this sense they have been "removed" BUT by being able to still go to meetings they are able to receive Jehovah's instructions and come to repentance, and then be welcomed back. Now imagine if this person had literally been thrown out, and was not allowed to put foot inside the KH. How would they be able to "repent and come back"? How would that work in practice? So in this sense, disfellowshipping is a merciful and loving provision, because the person is still able to receive spiritual instruction. But if they weren't disfellowshipped, and everyone would speak with them, then there would be no difference at all would there? Now the questions I ask is, it makes sense for the congregation, but how is it outside the congregation? This is where I find the difficulty. There are several things to consider. One is; are we Christians only inside the congregation, or are we Christians 24/7? Obviously we are Christians all of the time. So we could argue that whatever applies inside the congregation should also apply outside of it. Then there is the family. Frequently there is a misunderstanding in what family means. The broad definition is "a group of people who share common ancestors" a more usual definition is "group of people that may be made up of partners, children, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents" then the classic definition, and the ones JW mean when they say family is; "a group consisting of parents and children living together in a household" It's also called the nuclear family. We know that members of a household or nuclear family are not shunned. Only those living outside the household. 
I am ok with that, but I think that associating with family living outside the household should be left up to conscience, (your first conclusion). That is just my opinion.
So is there something that supersedes the command to shun? (this is for anyone to answer, not just Srecko)
 
 
 
 
The basics are in the Bible, for anyone to see

British sarcasm

Some good points there Srecko.
It was obviously God who decided when it was ok to kill, based on laws that superseded the command not to kill. The question then is, when it comes to shunning, who decides when it's ok to shun and when it is not ok? Or is there something that supersedes the command to shun? First I want to address this comment you made:
I understand the parallels you are trying to draw. There are many examples in history of family members disowning other family members, cutting them off as if the other person no longer exists. In these instances it is humans that make their own personal law. Sometimes it's based on understandable reasons, (extreme evilness on the part of the one who is being disowned) and sometimes on purely frivolous grounds (used as blackmail). Of course there are many many different reasons, too many to mention.
I suppose this sounds reasonable. Usually when this situation occurs, the person is not in a disfellowshipped state.
I have often thought about this problematic and I have still not found satisfactory justification for some of these actions.
I can understand that a person guilty of breaking the Bible's commands and not repenting, or changing, should not be a part of the congregation. The congregation must be kept clean, otherwise Jesus "could vomit it out of his mouth". (Rev 3:16) He says "All those for whom I have affection, I reprove and discipline. So be zealous and repent" (Rev 3:19). And  "‘Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first. If you do not, I will come to you, and I will remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent". (Rev 2:5) and “‘Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching of Baʹlaam......  So repent. If you do not, I am coming to you quickly, and I will war against them with the long sword of my mouth" 
I think just those few scriptures in Revelation show clearly Jesus' feelings about keeping the congregation morally and spiritually clean. We also have Paul's counsel. However, we know that those who have not repented are not thrown out of the congregation literally, but symbolically. They can still attend the meetings if they want. But they cannot participate and speak to anyone. Why? Because they have been disfellowshipped. So in this sense they have been "removed" BUT by being able to still go to meetings they are able to receive Jehovah's instructions and come to repentance, and then be welcomed back. Now imagine if this person had literally been thrown out, and was not allowed to put foot inside the KH. How would they be able to "repent and come back"? How would that work in practice? So in this sense, disfellowshipping is a merciful and loving provision, because the person is still able to receive spiritual instruction. But if they weren't disfellowshipped, and everyone would speak with them, then there would be no difference at all would there? Now the questions I ask is, it makes sense for the congregation, but how is it outside the congregation? This is where I find the difficulty. There are several things to consider. One is; are we Christians only inside the congregation, or are we Christians 24/7? Obviously we are Christians all of the time. So we could argue that whatever applies inside the congregation should also apply outside of it. Then there is the family. Frequently there is a misunderstanding in what family means. The broad definition is "a group of people who share common ancestors" a more usual definition is "group of people that may be made up of partners, children, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents" then the classic definition, and the ones JW mean when they say family is; "a group consisting of parents and children living together in a household" It's also called the nuclear family. We know that members of a household or nuclear family are not shunned. Only those living outside the household. 
I am ok with that, but I think that associating with family living outside the household should be left up to conscience, (your first conclusion). That is just my opinion.
So is there something that supersedes the command to shun? (this is for anyone to answer, not just Srecko)
 
 
 
 
The basics are in the Bible, for anyone to see

Oh? 
And you have moved beyond the limits of the flesh to speak, not just things that you believe to be true, but things that ARE true?
Next thing you know, you will be joining Witness in claiming to be the “true” anointed

Everybody knows the book exists.
Pioneer service school also has a book not for general distribution. Everybody knows it exists.
They either know of it specifically or they know of it in the ’Well.....duh!’ sense that they know that any training of any class of any subject in any discipline just may feature a curriculum and textbook not for general distribution.
It is not a conspiracy. The world is not flat. GM did not invent a 100 mile per gallon carburetor that they have sat upon for umpteen years.

They are that these are not your words. Who wrote this?

Do not put words in my mouth. You know ...... societies changes all the time and their values also. Soo wrong attitudes should be corrected so people can use their lives to worship God.  A person who is preaching and living a clean life will not try to shy away from dedicating himself to God. 

Since girls can now get married at age of nine or ten I guess these views will soon change.  Why am I making this statement?  Because society changes and the age of a man (when he is viewed as mature enough for highly important decisions by free will) ) or when a woman  is viewed as mature is constantly changing. ....  our current circumstances are in the process of changing. 

@AlanF 
While I do try to defend "the organization" as much as possible as a JW, I'm not one of those who feels that mindless unquestioning obedience is a mark of "loyalty." Yes, at times we don't second guess the direction we receive and progress has been made, but it is also true to say that organizationally we haven't always been that forthcoming. The fact is, that at times what has masqueraded as "discipline from Jehovah" has been nothing more than some men in authority silencing whistleblowers who have exposed the wrongdoing of those self-same men in authority - removing or even disfellowshipping those who they perceive as a threat to their position and reputation. (While I have seen that happen, it's important not to paint with too wide a brush here.) Saying one "doesn't have all the facts" in some cases is just utter nonsense. It at times can serve to protect those who should have been on trial while vilifying/diminishing the whistleblower. Yes, I have seen that happen and that's why I don't buy into the idea that Jesus controls everything that goes on in the congregation - especially when God's Word warns us of "wicked men and imposters," "wolves in sheep's clothing," "rock hidden below the surface..." I don't understand why people after reading these clear warnings in God's Word appear to think they can't actually happen. True it doesn't characterize the organization which is full of loving people who sincerely want to do the right thing, but it does happen and to categorically dismiss these things by implying Jesus controls everything is tantamount to blaming him.  
It appears to me that hiding behind the umbrella of "not bringing reproach on Jehovah's name," - which we should totally try not to do anyway, has at times been used by imperfect and sometimes wicked men to protect themselves. I ask: When has Jehovah ever withheld needed discipline because he was afraid of what the neighbours think? Did he forgo discipline to the nation of Israel knowing full well that the nations would attribute the victory to their false gods? No. Jehovah has always been true to himself and his standards - regardless of what puny imperfect humans think, do or say. He wasn't straightjacketed into non-action. fearing "reproach" from others. Still it would be unfair, as stated, to paint with too wide a brush. There are millions of kind, loving, sincere people who are actively trying to serve Jehovah the best way they can. And it can't be denied that despite the bad actions/choices of some relatively few individuals (some of whom may be in positions of authority) this is the best place to be. We recall that all of us are accountable - from members of the Governing Body to the newest publisher. We may not always be in a position to do much about it, but we can have faith in the promises found in God's Word that there will be accountability. Our policies, like our beliefs/expectations on certain things have and are changing - more in some areas than others. 

No surprise there!  
What I do NOT understand is the logic of the men who hate JWs.   They try to prove that we are impure and allow homeosexuality (when we clearly do not) and in the next breath critisize us when we shun unrepentant homxosexuals and fornicators in cases where we DO have sufficient evidence..  They neglect to remember that experts find it hard to gather evidence.
We are too harsh for our detractors when we shun when we have sufficient evidence and  too compassionate when we do not have enough proof.  We are too compassionate when  someone has confessed (the law protects lawyers and spiritual leaders from disclosure of confessions - especially if this can be used against them in court - and the government has not removed this law but wants JWs to act against the law of the land. The police must do their own investigation and come up with the evidence or the congress must change the law...... but I doubt this will ever happen because many high officials are child molesters) ) and JWs are too compassionate to allow people off the street to attend our meetings not knowing if they have been molesters. 
So the best is to do the best possible we can do and leave the rest to Jehovah.  Our detractors are angry because we DO follow the  bible and its principles and the majority DO try to live clean lives .....  they hate it because they want to feel more pure while not caring for bible principals at all  or still adhering to impure teachings such as trinity, immortality of the soul etc. 
That is a blanket statement and that usually is an indication of bitterness and resentment....... 

I'm pretty sure there was never any accusation concerning more than 3 of them out of 17 or 18 contemporary GB members at the time. (Jaracz, Greenlees, Chitty) I do not believe there was the slightest suspicion upon any of the others at the time, nor any of the current members either. Also, even if a child molestor tends to molest boys rather than girls, it is not the same as homosexuality, and this was the accusation against one of the three. Another was long rumored to be homosexual, and was ALSO accused of having been a child molestor. And the third was a man who had evidently been homosexual, but I never knew of any rumor or accusation of an underage partner.

And he finally explained why he sometimes looks orange. Turns out deregulation will solve his orangeness, too. (Not kidding!)
This sounded like something coming out of The Onion, but it was for real!

The above is complete hogwash.  What happened is that Joseph "Judge" Rutherford" tried to butter Hitler up in a conciliatory letter, before Hitler went completely bat-crap crazy ... but Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany almost "to the man" resisted Hitler, and were imprisoned and put to death without compromising any integrity toward God. Many Elders in Germany caved in to Hitler, because they were trying to appease Rutherford, but the rank-and-file JWs actual stand was magnificent, as a whole, and as a group.
And TTH did NOT indicate in any way that he "hated Trump".
You are seeing things that are not there ... BECAUSE it is you, Matthew9969, who has  a case of WDS "Watchtower Derangement Syndrome" and because your reasoning and logic processes are dominated by your bogus agenda, you are seeing things that are not there, and projecting those fantasys as originating from others.
"Be true to your own self, and it follows, you can be false to no man" (paraphrased) .
You have become in your derangement one very sad person to read, and that is why I voted you last two posts "sad"
You waste what intelligence you have.

Oh, and Matthew9969, If you want freedom of speech for yourself, morally, you have to allow for it in others, even if it is what YOU consider bluster and gross error.  To have the moral high ground you can legitimately point out someone's error, or ask them to "prove it", or to act, and call them a hypocrite, with or without a sound basis ... but you CANNOT demand or even contemplate that they "shut up", for not seeing things the same way you do.

I voted your remark "sad" because it truly is.
It is a meaningless non-sequitur with no relevance ... which you think is profound.

John 17:14-16 The comments in the study Bible on John 17:15 say: "Jehovah...could even separate his people physically from the rest of the world and place them in a a safe and peaceful environment. However, regarding his disciples, Jesus prayed to his heavenly Father: "I request you, not to take them out of the world, but to watch over them because of the wicked one." Jehovah has chosen not to take us "out of the world." Rather, it is his will that we live among the general population of this world in order to proclaim his message of hope and comfort to others. (Rom. 10:13-15) But, as Jesus implied in his prayer, by living in this world, we are exposed to "the wicked one." Disobedient mankind and wicked spirit forces cause much pain and anguish, and Christians are not immune to distress." 1 Peter 5:9
So while we recognize we have to live in a world under Satan's control, it doesn't mean we should go out of our way to expose ourselves to potentially dangerous influences and bad association. There are of course necessary things we must do to survive and provide for our families - such as employment, which as you correctly pointed out, can mean rubbing shoulders with worldly people and attitudes whatever level of education we choose. But even on that, we are selective so as to minimize our exposure to potentially harmful influences. It may include being selective as to what type of work we are willing to accept, or whom we work with/for. Many caring parents know they can't completely eliminate bad influences at school for instance (since kids have to have some type of schooling and it is beneficial), but they may choose to be selective as to whom they allow their kids to spend their extra time with. So living in the world, we recognize there are certain things we must do whether we like it or not. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't exercise caution and be selective as to what we choose to involve ourselves in. I could rationalize that I need a job to support myself and my family - a legitimate and necessary need,  but would I choose to work for the mafia to do so? No, I would be selective and cautious. 
I agree with you. I often have the same problem on both phone and tablet. Fortunately I've recently discovered that we can edit and make corrections. I wish I had known that earlier before "auto-correct" ran roughshod over my posts. 
As for my level of education, I provide as little information as possible to identify me. As a "whistleblower" on some things, there would be an opportunity for "blowback" from men in authority who have something to hide. I don't even post what country I'm from. So when I have written that at times there are men in authority who act as wickedly as people in the world and hide behind their authority, I know exactly what I'm talking about. That's why I don't buy into the "Jesus is in full control of everything..." stuff, because I know some of the stuff that goes on is about as unChristlike as you can get. He doesn't cause/control it just because he allows it for a time. I also question some of the decisions men (not Jesus) have made when I am in possession of all the facts - especially when removal or disfellowshipping has as it's objective to silence whistleblowers who expose their corruption. I have never been DF'd, but I know if they thought I was spilling the beens on them, that's exactly what would happen. So I don't mention any names either that would tip them off. Just letting people know that you can still maintain your faith and relationship with God despite the evil that (some) men do - and get away with for now. 
Sorry if this rant is off topic.

Fair enough and I agree with you on that. There is always a risk - even when we try to do the right thing, pray, follow scriptural principles, avoid bad areas... I'm sure you would also agree though, that some actions are riskier than others. i.e. jumping off a cliff is riskier than jumping off a curb - (unless you are jumping off the curb into traffic)  For instance, if you know an area of your city is known to have a high crime rate - especially at night, you might feel it prudent to avoid that area when you have a choice. True you may not be attacked, but the chances of that happening to you are significantly greater if you expose yourself to that environment. Not to flog this... (OK yes, I am flogging it ) One more example. You might not get cancer from smoking cigarettes, but the evidence shows your chances are greater of getting it. And in fact, even if you felt you were willing to take the chance yourself, would you be willing to set that example for your kids by smoking at home? They would see your example and possibly feel it's fine to follow your example, in turn putting them at greater risk of both addiction and cancer. That's the point I was clumsily trying to make. Personally, per se, I am not a dogmatic "opposer" of higher learning such that I would take it upon myself to punish others for choosing that option. But I would also candidly admit from real-life examples I have seen, that it poses a higher risk to spiritual objectives than other grades of schooling (which of course, as I recognize, can come with their own risks.) 

??? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning, but my response would be: "When under trial, let no one say: "I am being tried by God." For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone." James 1:13.  Other than that, I would suggest you look up "non sequitur" in the dictionary. 
Romans 5:10 "For if when we were "enemies" we became reconciled to God..." So God views individuals alienated from him as "enemies" but with the same hope and attitude we have, that they become reconciled to God. We view non-JW people as potential brothers - don't hate them. As Jesus taught us, we love even our enemies - yes, even in times of war. But more than that, MUCH more than that. Worshippers of Jehovah have always had "enemies." The faithful patriarchs, the nation of Israel and faithful men therein, Jesus Christ, early Christians, faithful men who were burned at the stake for producing Bibles, modern-day worshippers of Jehovah... As the recent broadcast mentioned, JWs are experiencing persecution on an unprecedented scale. Matthew 24:9 "Then people will hand you over to tribulation and will kill you and you will be hated by all nations on account of my name." John 17:14 "I have given your word to them, but the world has hated them, because they are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world." John 15:18-20 "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated me before it has hated you...for this reason the world hates you...A slave is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you..." Mark 13:13 "And you will be hated by all people on account of my name. But the one who has endured to the end will be saved." Frankly I could go on, but you get the idea. Do yourself a favour and do a word search on all the times "enemy" is used in the Bible and in what context. The historical, firsthand experience of JW's in countries around the world makes it clear that many non-JW people have acted as enemies, whether it be totalitarian governments, different religions, tribalism, and just plain "haters." And why should that surprise us? What would you expect from a world whose God is Satan the Devil? 1 John 5:19 "We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." Luke 4:6 "Then the Devil said to him: 'I will give you all this authority and their glory, because it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish." Revelation 12 - all of it but vs 17 should suffice: "so the dragon became enraged at the woman and went off to wage war with the remaining ones of her offspring, who observe the commandments of God and have the work of bearing witness concerning Jesus." In a nutshell: if you, while living in Satan's system don't find you have any "enemies," you may want to seriously consider whose side you're on.
I will accept responsibility for your misunderstanding of the point I was making. I wasn't very clear I guess. Sorry about that. It was my mistake. I was NOT making the point that you have to be poor to be happy. in fact, a poor person can be more materialistic than a wealthy person. But if you look to material prosperity as the ultimate gauge of happiness, you will be on a never-ending quest. Wealthy people are rarely satisfied even when they have an abundance. I was making the point that even poor people can be happy. Wealth does not in of itself equal happiness - which is the false hope some have. Psalm 37:16 "Better is the little of the righteous one than the abundance of many wicked ones." Luke 12:16 ""keep your eyes open and guard against every sort of greed, because even when a person has an abundance, his life does not result from the things he possesses." 
I believe the word he used in describing your scenario, was "vanity" or "futile." But that's another discussion...

Are you volunteering as a poster boy for the need for higher education?  

Learning and making money to support oneself/family isn’t a problem. But putting oneself in an environment that promotes standards and objectives that conflict with or are at odds with our own spiritual outlook and objectives CAN be a problem - and it has often been that way in real life experience. Sure, there are exceptions to both sides of the equation. But there certainly is more of a risk to one’s spiritual health on a number of fronts. If one of your primary objectives is to preach the gospel and support yourself while doing that, where would your focus be? Jesus, the apostles, early Christians all made choices that reflected their priorities - even if at times it meant leaving lucrative businesses. Why should it seem so strange that Christians today with the same mandate would choose to do the same? A human perspective that doesn’t take God into consideration would logically pursue a course tilted toward this world’s thinking/reasoning/priorities. But if you have faith in God’s promise to provide what you need when you put his will first, your choices would logically be different. So, if you actually believe that God will see to it that you have what you need, then going much beyond that would be for what are “wants” - and for that you would likely need more money and sacrifices will have to be made on one side to gain on the other. “You can’t serve two masters“ as Jesus correctly pointed out. He lived by what he said. Look at the hundreds of thousands of pioneers in the world today - or even in your own congregation. Sure they have challenges like the rest of us, but are they suffering/destitute or unhappy generally? “Money can be a protection“ but as they say: “Money can’t buy happiness.” True happiness comes from within and having a good relationship with God - we were created that way. The main host of one of the tv travel documentaries was asked: “Who did you find were the happiest people in the world?” (No he didn’t say JWs although that may have been true;) His answer was that the happiest people were also the poorest materially. He referred to a very poor group of people in a village in Sri Lanka whose families often could only afford one meal a day. Poor yes, but also the happiest. I’m not suggesting that we should follow suit, but just making the point that happiness is a quest anyone would want. But this system promotes satisfying essentially spiritual needs with physical “things.” Pursuing higher education is often less about satisfying basic and legitimate needs and more about lifestyle. Wise king Solomon knew the truth about these things. His observations are worth a second look. 
That being said, I would have to admit that taking the choice as to what type of education to pursue out of the hands of parents and individuals and handing that choice to imperfect men who may not be any smarter does sound cultish to me. True, people can actually choose, but it’s like “choosing” whether to jump off a bridge or not, when you will be punished for not making the “right” choice. On the other hand, and to be fair, when people in positions of responsibility set an example of accepting a course that could put one in harm’s way, it could set a harmful precedent. So there’s that.. 

Needless to say.
I like how the JW video “Protect Your Children” pushes just this course. “If anyone” touches you in a way that “makes you uncomfortable” “even if it is someone you know and trust” then “right away come tell mommy or daddy”, who respond pretty much like Anna’s mom did. 
I like the way how that solves the problem. Will reporting Uncle Hands to the police solve the problem? I have my doubts. Especially since reporting outright rape does not necessarily solve the problem—all the time we hear of CSA crimes from rapists who had already done time and were already on the Predator List. That’s not to say it’s not worth blowing these people in—of course it is. But if our goal is to solve the problem, then Anna’s mom and the WT video gets higher priority.
The WT video builds on the bedrock that only godly people will have—that Jehovah gave us a conscience. I squabbled with Ann O'Maly (one of the Three Apostates) a while back about dueling videos. Her video featured circled areas of a child’s body, as though the child of critical thinking should bring that chart to mind in order to determine whether he should feel bad about how he has been touched. Our video featured “a conscience” that God gave us.
O’Maly resisted for the longest time, but the knockout punch came when I pointed out that our video said “if ANYONE touches you” and hers specifically said that it was okay if a doctor touched children in those circled areas. “Ask the young women of the US Olympics Gymnastics Team which video they think would have protected them more,” I told her.

I can respond to that since you appear to be drawing assumptions without having all the facts. I completely agree that one should go to the police when dealing with such issues involving a minor. In fact, the direction we get from the society is to do just that. One of the reasons we are instructed to call Bethel is to make sure we comply with all current reporting laws regarding child molestation. Some of the problems we have had in the past (and I have personally attended in court), have been because brothers had not acted in harmony with the instructions given because they haven't paid attention or been casual about doing their homework. The examples I had cited were from many years ago when the current laws were not in place and in fact, they have been evolving over the years - and in some cases, a moving target. Those individuals affected are now adults with the freedom to choose to go to the police under the current laws if they so choose. However, if what they had done decades ago occurred now, it would be an entirely different story. Our policies have changed as well to comply with legal requirements. 
In my country years ago, both doctors and clergy were simply not allowed to go public with what was then considered private/protected/privileged information and if they did so, legal repercussions could arise. For instance, it wasn't until the '80's that the laws changed and doctors were required to report cases of AIDS for - which was then transferred to a national data-base. One of the reasons for this was that certain individuals were deliberately spreading AIDS and partners needed to be warned. Likewise as molestation cases came to the fore, the laws gradually changed. But even then, at times they applied in different ways and in different areas, or not at all. (i.e. ARC hearings...) We now have more comprehensive laws that address these injustices - requiring/allowing religious authorities to report them without legal repercussions. So to be clear, elders are REQUIRED to report these cases now and the legal department is involved to ensure they do just that. Unfortunately, we have had to learn the hard way what would have been the morally right thing in the first place. But we have made the changes. 
 If anyone in a responsible position is aware of child molestation going on, he is legally bound to report it to the authorities. But if he fails to do so and must face the legal consequences for his non-action, (which as we know can have devastating consequences for the minor) I can't say I'd feel sorry for him. 
Gen. 42:22 "Did I not say to you, 'Do not sin against the child,' but you would not listen?' Now his blood is certainly being asked back.
James 4:17 "Therefore, if someone knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him."

I am not in the U.S. and so cannot confirm or deny your comments. I can say that reporting is mandatory in my country.
I agree with that. After all the GB themselves have appointed men who were not whom they appeared to be (as have other levels of authority within the organization.) As for the rest, I assume you are referring to Deut. 18:20 which JW haters are so fond of parroting. You are going beyond the scope of your reference in your suggestion especially as to how JWs use the term as applying to themselves. The GB put out a video explanation of that for clarification as it seems some JWs needed to be clear on that issue as well. 
I was willing and planning to write a point-by-point response to the things you have written - including those I may agree with. But frankly, now I think it's just a waste of time. You clearly have an agenda that won't be swayed by what I consider "facts" and your hateful diatribe (from someone who apparently doesn't even believe in God in the first place) is to me, counterproductive. I am happy having a purpose in life, a wonderful hope for the future and a warm loving relationship with my creator and many friends. I wish the same for you, but of course, you may already be happy and content with what you have. We will have to agree to disagree - on some points at least. 
Umm...it's called being honest in case you don't recognize it. You noted correctly that I was willing to acknowledge negative things that may happen, but when I wrote what I considered to be reasonable explanations/positive points, you dismissively wrote it off as "excuses." Truly, there is no pleasing people who appear to have a hateful agenda and only see the bad. You are of course welcome to your opinion. It's just that on some points I don't share your opinion. Is that OK? 
I have been willing to honestly acknowledge both positive and negative things about us, but I've only heard negative, hateful diatribe from the naysayers here with not one positive thing to say in all these missives. There are millions of JWs who are good people by any standard, but if anyone bought into your nonsense they would all be viewed as bad or negatively. I may not agree with Muslims, Catholics, Pentecostals... but I can always find points of agreement when engaging them in conversation and things I like about them - even when it isn't a religious discussion.
So as far as I am concerned, you are not only unfair in your blanket characterizations, I simply don't find your association either enlightening, helpful or even fair-minded.

The wicked world will not answer to God? So it is ok if they do bad things? Same with christendom..... they teach many untruths BUT you expect us to be perfect IN EVERY way.  Christ died for us too you know! We are very imperfect but at least we try to live lives that honour God..... and try to stick to His principles.  There are always a few Judas' wherever you go.... even Jesus did not stop Judas.  So there are a few JWs who bring dishonor on gods name and when they are dealt with - we get critisized for that too.  We cannot please everyone - only God. In comparison to others - we are trying.... but nothing is good enough for you.  So let God be the judge. We are only too aware that God will judge us first.... e ven the 144000 will be judged before they are sealed. 

Simply stating an opinion that some people have a hateful agenda doesn't mean they are "brainwashed." It's simply an observation/opinion borne out by what we see and experience. I could just as well say that you are "brainwashed" because you disagree with me. You can either agree or disagree according to your observations - you are entitled to your opinion. Brainwashed has become a derogatory term used too loosely these days and especially apparently, by you when someone disagrees with you. 
Once again, you are welcome to your opinion. And while I agree that mindless unquestioning obedience to whatever is said by imperfect, uninspired men won't always reach God's standards, by the same token, you too are an imperfect, uninspired individual - as is every other human alive. But I'd put far more weight toward what I have learned through JW's than I would with you. So feel free to believe what you want. 
Thank-you for the compliment of being "in line" with TTH and Arauna and thank-you for noticing. Once again, you are going beyond the scope of your reference after that. While it may be true that we compare JW's standards with those of this wicked world (a fair thing to do by the way, as long as you don't leave it at that), we also try to align our standards with what we read in God's Word. That is why JW's are known for being honest, truthful, law-abiding, loving, loyal, peaceful... But you already know that. It seems that for you, it's like coughing up a fur ball for you to acknowledge anything good about JW's.
Yes, I get the picture...that you don't know what you are talking about and that the cute comparison in the context of our discussion only shows you drive cheap and nasty cars. Nothing more. There is nothing cheap and nasty about JWs as a whole (even though there are some bad apples). And JWs for the most part have already made the appropriate comparisons by either being raised in one of thousands of different religions or exposed to the different ideas of those same ideas in the field ministry. 
One thing should be obvious to you by now. Most JWs have heard your negative rants and character assassinations before. In fact, they may have even entertained those same views prior to becoming JW's. So they aren't going to change because some anonymous loudmouth spews vitriolic diatribe over the internet. (I'm not specifically accusing you of that)
Yes, that's all. "Just humans, trying to live our daily lives." So why are you spending your daily life on websites such as this singling out Jehovah's Witnesses? Aren't there bigger fish to fry out there? What about all those religions that go to war killing millions of their fellow worshipers; celebrating pagan holidays; teaching people they will burn for all eternity in hell for some imagined infractions; terrorism and suicide bombers and a myriad other greater infractions? I could go on and on but apparently you seem conspicuously silent on the big issues and big fish.
I wasn't planning on wasting more of my time with people who have an agenda.