Anna

Well, how to make a dog's breakfast out of a basic statement???
Let's untangle this. Let's speak about you. As you have used the personal pronoun "I", "you" features in my response. 
If "you" say something wrong unintentionally, thinking sincerely "you" are right, then this means "you" are not deliberately sinning. It means "you" have made a mistake, misunderstood a matter, made a decision with insufficient or incorrect data etc.
Your point here: "You gave reasoning, I am not deliberately sinning and not made sin" is a distortion of what I said. A statement was made by @John Butler proposing that if the GB endorse something which later is found to be incorrect, this must be deliberate sinning. My response was that this is not sinning as such (deliberate) but is more correctly termed and evaluated as a mistake as described above. A mistake of this type can certainly be termed a"sin" in the sense that it "misses the mark" of truth. But it is not deliberate.
I will not go to such lengths to untangle reasoning of this type in the future, so, respectfully, I request that you give a little more thought to your reponses. ?
 
 
 

She will. ThatÂ’s all that really matters.

Here lies an underlying feature of this mindset it appears. I do not share this perception of Armageddon that you have. For me, I survived my personal armageddon. This was a day of regeneration with a prospect of life. I can see you have a different perception, whether learned or originated. The big Armageddon for me is also a day of regeneration and of life. For you, I see, it is different.
For me this fits with Paul's words at 2Cor.2:15-16 "For to God we are a sweet odor of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the latter ones an odor issuing from death to death, to the former ones an odor issuing from life to life."

Not if they believe what they say. Getting something wrong is not a sin as such. Everybody makes mistakes. I have never subscribed to a GB inspired club.
Armageddon will always be a few years/months (etc) off until it comes. The important thing is to keep in expectation of it, which (for me) means "get your priorities right".  One old brother said to me many years ago "your armageddon came the day you dedicated your life to Jehovah". I found that a very useful viewpoint and consequently (since then), I have avoided "end-time frothing" . By "end-time frothing", I mean emotional debate about the end being near, taking too long, not coming as expected, being falsely predicted, not coming at all....etc.etc.etc.
The whole point of the excercise for me is to live now as we will live once it has come so that it doesn't come as a shock when this old world's structure is no more. Of course that includes making use of the world as it is now, but not to the full. 
Armageddon will only be an account, not an experience, for the majority of humans in the future. So it's significance is not human-centric.

@Anna Or certain posters could discipline themselves to STAY on topic 

By the way John, @JOHN BUTLER I never created this topic. It was the Librarian @The Librarian I wish he would stop doing that without asking! And if he wants to create a topic he should put his own name to it.

@JOHN BUTLER
First of all I want to say I am very sorry you had such terrible experiences as a child. I understand more now how this issue must affect you.
Also I think we’ve had quite a bit of misunderstanding here  as well. I am sorry I doubted the pedophilia  problem was the only reason you left JW.  You make a lot of accusatory statements  but you don’t back them up with facts.  I know, this would take a long time so here are just a few facts that I am familiar with; Yes, there is no doubt that some elders mishandled child molestation cases. I know of one personally in my old congregation in England which involved an influential elder.  When his disgusting behaviour was found out (he actually never had sex with his victims, but he was a groper) he was merely removed from his position as Elder but remained a full time pioneer.  This happened  sometime in the late 80’s. I was  a teenager busy with my teenage life so I didn’t pay much attention at the time. I just remember the notoriety and rumours surrounding this man. Even my mum told me some stuff about him. Anyway, a few months ago I got to talking to a friend on FB.  I will call her Jane. She had faded about 25 years ago and is no longer attending meetings etc. The conversation turned to a  mutual friend of ours from the same cong. and I said I had the feeling that her dad had abused her as a child and that is why she was messed up.  Jane then proceeded to tell me that when she was in her early teens this elder would grope her inappropriately while having Bible study with her. She never said anything to anyone then.  Some months later the same Elder made a big mistake by groping the breast of another friend of mine while she was breastfeeding her first child (at an assembly of all things!). When the father of that sister found out he went ballistic and said if he ever sees that elder he will kill him. (I remembered that).  This got the attention of the elders in the hall and they began to handle the matter. In the meantime my friend Jane did a #metoo and I believe another sister came forward as well.  Like I said, a judicial committee was held in another city, with the CO involved, but all that happened was the elder got stripped of his position. Jane told me that she had to sleep with the lights on for weeks in fear that this elder would get her because she ratted on him.  I didn’t know anything about this at the time. She also told me that she holds no grudge against the org. That they did the best they could in those days as it wasn’t the custom in society ( I mean society in general)  to deal with those things the same way as they are being dealt with now.  She told me her parents weren’t discouraged from going to the police, but they never went.  I guess because it didn’t involve rape.  (The father was not a JW).  Why I am telling you this real life story is because it highlights a few factors.
 1. Child molestation (sexual or otherwise) was not discussed in society in general some decades ago.
2. What happened and how/if things were dealt with in the congregation was very much a matter of how much fuss there was made. This depended on:
3. People. The congregations are comprised of all kinds of people, some very shy and others very outspoken. The father of the sister who was breastfeeding was very outspoken. My mother, if anything like this would have happened to me, would have been very outspoken, no questions asked she would have caused an almighty fuss. And if she deemed it necessary she would have marched to the police, no questions asked.  And she is a very spiritual and zealous JW and the elders respected her very much.
I am sure you have heard of the Candace Conti case while you were doing your research. The Conti case was a classic example of a dysfunctional family that was not fully aware of what was happening in their own lives, never mind that of their child (Candace).  My friend Jane’s parents were not bad, but they were different to my family. Had the elder groped me while having Bible study I would have gone straight to my mum and told her what happened. I know I would have done that because my mum and I have a very close and communicative relationship. In fact an uncle of mine (not a JW) groped me one day ( I was 14) and I went straight to my mum and told her about it. She went straight to her sister (my aunt, also not a JW) and told her what her husband did to me. So my aunt went straight to the uncle, furious. Needless to say my uncle never touched me again.
You see it takes all kinds of people who make up a congregation, and that is why no single case is the same, and why some cases never come to the fore until decades later, and why some cases drag on and never seem to get resolved.
What I take away from all this is that of course no elder or publisher or parent, or anyone in their right mind wants to shield child molesters. Of course the org. doesn’t want to shield child molesters.  No one does. (Why would anyone want a pedophile running lose in their congregation?! The elders have children too!) The only people that are protective of child molesters are those who are in the child porn and human trafficking industry.  And if you want to look at it from a very logical perspective, why would Jehovah’s Witnesses, with their ultra high moral standards, of all people, would want to willingly shield someone who was practicing the vilest of moral depravity?
For decades JWs have been publishing magazines on the dangers of moral decline and the dangers of child sexual molestations and took it even further than “stranger danger” by drawing attention to the fact that this danger can come from  people the child knows, and even from family members. I still remember that Awake magazine. Did the dysfunctional families that needed to read this information read it? Probably not....
There is no denying the child sexual molestation issue was not always dealt with in the correct way, but it seems none of the ideas (like not reporting to police) came from instructions from the org. but was decided on by the body of elders, or sometimes even just one dominant elder. In the past, the elders were not required to call the branch for advice like they are now, and they pretty much did their own thing. This is the reason why now elders have to call the branch as soon as anything like this comes to light, so that they get consistent  instruction on what to do.
And yes, I believe the ARC did us a good service. I believe it was because of them our child policies have become transparent across the board in the shape of the Child protection packet:
https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal-resources/information/packet-jw-scripturally-based-position-child-protection
As for the two witness rule, well that is not much different to secular authorities implementation of "innocent until proven guilty". But notice in par 10 of the document it mentions this: "If an alleged abuser is a member of the congregation, the elders conduct a Scriptural investigation. This is a purely religious proceeding handled by elders according to Scriptural instructions and is limited to the issue of membership as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. A member of the congregation who is an unrepentant child abuser is expelled from the congregation and is no longer considered one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (1 Corinthians 5:13) The elders’ handling of an accusation of child abuse is not a replacement for the authorities’ handling of the matter".—Romans 13:1-4.
So in view of that, the two witness rule applies only in a congregational setting. If secular authorities find enough evidence to convict said perpetrator, and this is where it gets interesting, then even if elders have not gathered enough evidence to support their decision to disfellowship or not disfellowship, then the fact that said perpetrator has been charged with sexual molestation will automatically warrant a disfellowshipping. So either way, the perpetrator will not escape punishment.

By the way John, @JOHN BUTLER I never created this topic. It was the Librarian @The Librarian I wish he would stop doing that without asking! And if he wants to create a topic he should put his own name to it.

@JOHN BUTLER I don't have time reply in any detail now (I will some time later) but I just want to let you know I am neither American, nor an elder, nor an elder's wife . The closest I come to an elder is my step dad is one.

WE ARE NOT!!!!!

She did not do this.
What she essentially said is that you are too close to a tree to properly assess the forest.

I think we may be understanding what "family unit" means differently.
family unit - Collins English Dictionary.
(ˈfæmlɪ ˈjuːnɪt)   noun sociology a social group traditionally consisting of parents and children the traditional family unit of mother, father and two children  ----------------------------------------   Once the children leave the home, usually they set up their own family unit when they marry and have children. They are no longer part of the original family unit. Of course that is not to say this always happens. There is a sister in our congregation who has her 32 year old unmarried and disfellowshipped son living back home with her after 5 years.   In that case, it is up to her how much or how little she communicates with him, but no doubt she does communicate with him, except for spiritual things. Also, since he is living in her house, he has to abide by whatever house rules she imposes of course.  

This is the oldest argument. And the oldest lie is based upon it at Gen.3:4-5. It does need some qualification, as subtlety of meaning is an effective instrument in the wrong hands, as the arch-interferer is well aware.
However, I do agree with de-mything the nature of Jehovah's involvement in the affairs of men. He is no genie in a magic bottle, and neither does anyone, servant or otherwise, have a charmed life.
As the originator and definer of "freedom", Jehovah never "interferes" in the the affairs of men, but he does" intervene" in a such a way as to thwart the purpose and plans of those who seek to "interfere" with his. Part of the core message Christians proclaim in connection with the "kingdom of God" is a notification of this very fact.

It's the English language again. When someone says in this context that they don't believe (or believe) something, doesn't mean they think the other person is lying, it merely means I am expressing my opinion on the matter. In this case I don't think the only reason for John's leaving was the child abuse problems, although John might think so. Perhaps when John really thinks about it he may realize that there were other things in the religion that he was unhappy about and this was just the last straw. I am sure our research is similar.  But the difference is, although I am aware we have made mistakes, I am not prepared to "throw the baby out with the bath water". I sincerely believe Jehovah's Witnesses are the true religion, with all their faults. I have had quite a lot of experience in life and I have seen some bad stuff happen in congregations. And as you know, I do not agree with everything. I have experienced other religions, and seen how the "world" does things. So I think I have a pretty broad outlook. But  @JOHN BUTLER has decided that the religion is not for him, and that is his right. Yes, we all reach different conclusions, because we understand things differently.

I've heard of this type of thinking. My father was the presiding overseer when a wayward Witness was running around with a group that that got arrested for committing an armed robbery. My father called the Society's Service Department in Brooklyn for advice, and our Circuit Overseer called him back shortly and asked, in effect: "How quickly can you get him disfellowshipped?" To my father, this meant, how soon could you make contact with the arrested man, and ask the kind of questions that would allow this "fallen" brother to admit that he had recently been repeatedly committing sins without a proper level of remorse. Also, I think even in those days, my father would have to arrange for another "servant" in the congregation to be secretly listening in on the line.
As I recall the idea of acting on this so quickly kind of fell through anyway. Even though this was around 1970, I was 13, and it didn't occur to me at the time that this was really not just. At that time, we were still saying that a disfellowshipped person would die at Armageddon by default. Another case like this, I recall from another congregation happened around 1978, and another one I was told about (unconfirmed, though) from just a few years ago.

Not long ago we had a situation in our congregation with a brother who was addicted to prescription drugs to the point where he got in serious trouble with the law. The nail in his coffin came though when he decided to come to the meeting for FS when the CO was here, inebriated. Yes, you read correctly. Anyway, the brothers wanted to take him home, short of manhandling him to stop him from driving off,  but they didn't succeed, so the CO and another brother followed him in their car to make sure he got home safely.  On the way, the inebriated brother managed to mount the sidewalk and crash into a traffic light post. Thankfully no one was hurt. But what I found curious was that the CO quickly made sure all our literature was out of that brothers car before the police arrived.
My husband and I later discussed this and realised that this was a good example of the mentality we have, to always give the appearance that we are morally on a higher ground, have the cleanest buildings, best equipment, perfect little families etc. (I recalled when you gave the experience of Bethel not wining the first place in cleanliness award (or something like that) and how one of the brothers was extremely upset about it).  It is no wonder then that we get dishonest when things are not quite so. But on a much more serious note, as you mentioned, it also causes us to cover over things that should NOT be covered over, such as child abuse. 

It is a heavy burden "carrying the utensils of Jehovah" and yet being riddled with the imperfections that plagues every single human being on earth.
It would be nice if one day we can be candid, open and honest about our failings. I think we are trying, in an indirect way. The last WT lessons pointing to the failings of Moses and Aaron and others shows that no one is exempt, not even those in leadership roles. And of course we know the "Slave" has put in print that they make mistakes (no kidding ). But this mentality, that we have a reputation to uphold, regardless whether actual reality is different, is deeply ingrained.

I know of an elder who had an extramarital affair for 10 years, while serving as an elder. I wonder how he justified it, especially when sitting on judicial committees and disfellowshipping people for immorality. The mind boggles....
He is no longer an elder and has been disfellowshipped. Anything that is hidden will be revealed, sooner or later.

I think I know where you are coming from on this, but the example needs a bit more thought.
In John 8:22 didn't the Jewish religious leaders accuse Jesus of being on a suicide mission? "The Jews then began to say: “He will not kill himself, will he? Because he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come.’’”
It seems a bit insulting to suggest that Jesus was on some sort of Kamikaze stunt. Even the term "suicide mission" seems to be wide of the mark in view of it's definition: "a task which is so dangerous for the people involved that they are not expected to survive."
It seems out of harmony with the thought of Psalm 16:10 "For you will not leave me in the Grave.You will not allow your loyal one to see the pit."
If Jesus had not been absolutely and correctly convinced of the resurrection in order for him to compete his mission, then surely he would literally have been "pitied more than anyone."?
The "known "suicide mission"" perception would only be in the mind of an unbeliever, surely?

I'm afraid not according to the "life and ministry meeting work book" 2017-06-08
 

it’s not our job to judge who will or won’t be saved. That assignment rests squarely in Jesus’ hands.—John 5:22, 27.

Nevertheless, possible. I've never been one for what seems the straight(forward) path always, as it can often be the opposite, with an undesirable outcome. However I will acept that there could  be some in Corinth who did not share Paul's censure of that man's wrongdoing  in view of the  earlier tolerance.  

Paul's letters to the Corinthians provide many real-congregation examples of ideas that did not have full agreement behind them. The factions for Cephas, Paul, Apollos, superfine apostles, and concern for who baptized whom, for example. The disorder amongst congregants regarding taking turns when speaking, teaching, interpreting etc. The talk of Paul's advice sometimes being rejected. Paul's words about sects coming in so that the approved will be more easily made known. etc.
Even here in the context, Paul had just compared ALL [in the congregation] in a way that showed a sensitivity to the potential for exaggeration. As Holman translates the previous verse:
Holman Christian Standard Bible
If anyone has caused pain, he has caused pain not so much to me but to some degree  — not to exaggerate  — to all of you.
And in the next verse, the wording is just as careful with a word telling us that it was "many, but not all"--more specfically, a majority.
The possibility for your suggestion is there, but it's not the most straightforward or most likely reading. It requires the creation of an ambiguity which is not necessary as there are clearer ways of stating what you suggest. These kinds of ambiguities are always possible --and I don't think anything in the original Greek would forbid that understanding-- but when we rely on the least likely meaning too often, it smacks of "special pleading."
There are some online commentaries available for this verse, and I've never seen one that that attaches the meaning you suggest. Although I don't doubt that one might exist. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_corinthians/2-6.htm
Another way to look at it is that even if this particular verse means "all the rest of the congregation who were not involved in the immorality," or something like that, the basic point about individual shunning (as opposed to full congregational shunning) is still very likely even without the support of this verse. The quotes from Matthew 18 (and in some cases, even 2 Thess 3) can show that even just one individual may be involved in the shunning of one other individual. No reason to try to get others to join as it could be a matter between the two of them.

Surely you jest ... and I will stop calling you Shirley.

What helps me stay in, generally, is that I expect NOTHING from anybody, and consider everybody no damn good.
I put up with them ... BUT THEN .... they have to put up with me.
We're EVEN.

Most assemblies don't word it quite that way. I have seen only a couple that made my eyebrow raise a little.
I think most people don't realize how much it costs to run an assembly hall too.