Anna

....like a blind pig that occasionally will find an acorn  .... I suspect you are right on THIS one.
 

Jack Ryan is getting a little carried away, perhaps he needs to go for a jog or take up some kind of sports...?

Yes. I understand the confusion. I'm not sure of your native tongue, but likely you have a separate word for what is meant here. You know that the rather ambiguous language of English has many meanings attached to individual words. We call them "synonyms". Only regular usage helps with finding your way through this linguistic maze.
Anyway, the most appropriate synonym in this case would be (IMHO): "well known".
It makes sense that reporting defection by "well known" (prominent) brothers would be calculated to have the potential to alarm a greater number of faithful adherents than if such negative reporting was focussed on names of individuals that no one had ever heard of. I mean, isn't that why naming and attacking the reputation of members of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is an attractive pastime for those who wish to discourage the morale and activity of Jehovah's Witnesses in general?
 

Then of course our understanding in context would have to be informed by whatever meaning the KGB attached and whatever criteria they used in deciding who was or was not "prominent".
For those with an interest in applying bible definitions, the counsel Jesus gave at probably stands up whatever the language used. "But the greatest one among you must be your minister." Matt.23:11.

These elders, it appears, broke the law.

What some also fail to see is that Child Abuse is all over, at the same time, people are trying to make Pedophilia legal, and the firestorm that will ensues should such ones succeed in their conquest for such a thing will cause quite the chaos in the states, we already have the drag-queen situation among children already and they have won.
The same way we teach kids about strangers, we do the same on teaching them about Child Abuse early, for this is something of high importance, for even children teach others on the matter. But it would seem instead of fighting the issue in itself, people will often gun for the a whole community for the actions of a single person.
As I always have said, no one is immune to child abuse, even Jehovah's Witnesses for Pedophilia is common and is unexpected, and it is known that abusers always, 100% targets religious and education institutions as well as clubs for the majority of the abuse case is done by a member of the family and or a close friend of the family. If the abuser is a woman, they tend to get not a strong of a sentence vs. an abuser who is a man, mind you, there have been some abusers that have gotten off the hook or a very small sentence depending on how good they look, for if said abuser looks like a Barbie, expect the judge to obviously take it easier on her, which sparks conversation of double standards within the justice and legal systems, this also goes for the race of the individual as well at times.
Learning of the signs and to teach it to others if they are not well equipped for this is the best course of factions, mainly when it comes to finding a way to mix this in a way of out a community already operates, but sadly to others, they would have to learn after the crime was committed. Weeks ago a man whom people looked up to be a hero among children and helping them out, turned out to be a a man who took a very uneasy interest in kids, turned out to be a Pedophile.
But the thing is here this is among the states that have quite the rules for age of consenting ones, another factor, mainly for this case is if the minor victim is male and the older person is female, cases in this sense whereas the abuser is an adult female tends to be tricky ones because of double standards in sentencing.

A few weeks ago, I mentioned another case, still in progress, where it was a 16-year-old female and about a 25-year-old brother. In this case the congregation is in legal trouble for having asked the girl to claim it was consensual, but the 25-year-old went on to abuse again. I don't know for sure, but I don't think in this case, there is an attempt to go after the elders, based on the assumption that the directive came from HQ.

The problem with this is that the state considers the age of consent to be over 16. Not only that but according to a legal website: "Delaware considers having sex with someone under 16 rape. Having sex with someone under 18, if the offender is over 30, is also considered rape. Compared to some other states, the penalties for violating Delaware's age of consent laws are very harsh".
So in view of that, the fact that the 14 year old boy is considered a "consensual participant" by Jehovah's Witnesses, isn't going to go down too well.....
 

There you go! Unfortunately not tired, as I had hoped. 
Misquoting, misleading, blundering blather.... I'm not sure how to suggest a remedy for this kind of penchant for misrepresentation, other than to quote from your own post: " it sets the tone of the remainder of your opinion"

You neither understand nor correctly report my position on this matter and, frankly, appear to demonstrate incompetence in both reading and comprehension by a pathetically shallow response. You're probably tired. No one could exhibit such inability intentionally. 

This is as good a place as any to post a letter that does not specifically address Delaware but does the overall situation. It is a response to three incendiary articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer. It starts here and continues on my blog, as it is very lengthy:
“The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote three incendiary articles about Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Wow! did they ever make them look bad! Probably that was the intent, though it is hard to say for sure because nobody would ever say that the subject is nothing. It is the topic of child sexual abuse, the most white-hot topic of all.
“As much as Jehovah’s Witnesses would love to say that child sexual abuse has not occurred within their ranks, they cannot. They can say, and do, that it is relatively uncommon within their ranks, but just try telling that to one who has suffered from it. There is no experience that determines one’s viewpoint more than this one. It is exacerbated by the Witnesses being said to be an ‘insular’ organization, and this ‘crime’ of being insular is pushed pedal-to-the-medal by the Philly reporter, who returns to an anti-Witness website after articles, where he is lauded as a hero. Perhaps he has 20 more of such articles up his sleeve. But it is little wonder that he is lauded: some of these gathered at the site are ones who have been victims.
“The overall stats for child sexual abuse do not speak well for humanity. One of four girls and one of six boys will be sexually abused before they are 18 (in the U. S, according to InvisibleChildren.org)—this, despite decades of battling the evil…”
http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/07/three-incendiary-articles-from-the-philadelphia-inqurer.html

Fotr the life of me, I cannot see why this issue is such a thorny matter.
If one of Jehovah's Witnesses, even an adult, was assaulted by another, and injured, then regardless of "rules", surely a referral would be made to the medical profession, and to the police for investigation of a criminal act, regardless of witnesses?
Every human institution, including the family, appears to be involved in this whole shoddy business which is clearly not limited to one group. No one appears to be able to get a consistent procedure together to deal with historic or ongoing issues. This is a hands down failure across the board.

"ALvi LanguorE iNsanabili: From the very first sentence, right up to the last one, you have reminded me of Allen. I would not have said anything except that the most famous member named Allen has also hinted that he may not have much time for this world due to serious health concerns. I hoped that the Latin was not a commentary on your condition.
At any rate, what you have repeatedly done here, so far, is exactly what I was hoping no one would do here. You keep claiming things like "some of Gerard Gertoux's claims can be considered fake news" without any examples or any evidence. With several opportunities to provide something substantial, making claims without evidence can "backfire" and even make it appear (to some readers) that Gertoux's position, in this case, might seem even stronger and more reliable than it really is. I'm sure that this is not your intent, but unsubstantiated claims come across just as empty as the ad hominem.
On the issue of "peer review" Gertoux has stated to me that scholars in this field refused to express their personal convictions on this topic, fearing reprisals due to the fact that religious institutions often fund their research and can therefore control the ability to get published. Gertoux himself says he was personally attacked and had to defend himself in the French courts.  ( https://univ-lyon2.academia.edu/GerardGERTOUX/CurriculumVitae ). Via email, he says this is why he has "become extremely careful and [will] only publish in peer-reviewed journals." Note his last article, for example:  http://www.peeters-leuven.be/toc/9789042937130.pdf .

Just because (as a general rule ...) prostitutes and murderers wear shoes ... does notmean that everyone that wears shoes are prostitutes and murderers.
Although it would be imitative and suggestive to wear a brown shirt during the Nazi reign ... does not mean that today wearing a brown shirt indicates one is a Nazi.

The trick will be, through social media and the like, to make this the beating known around the world. It won't be easy, because atrocities are a dime a dozen today. Countermanding this is the fact that everyone knows Jehovah's Witnesses have done nothing deserving of this. There will be none of: 'Well, he must have done something wrong.' Everyone knows he did not. You can be sure that those doing these things would like to do it in secret. Do not let them.
   
 

So far, you have not demonstrated in what way post-funeral hospitality amongst Witnesses is in any shape or form bound up in superstitious or pagan practices, or that it is a "worldly" practice.
"Worldly" weddings are also "connected to folkloric, custom, beliefs, superstition . . .   And here we have great variety of customs around the world."  We don't eschew weddings simply because some of the customs worldly people include originate in superstitious practices.  We omit what would be offensive to Jehovah.  Likewise with funerals and association thereafter.

When I was visited by two elders because of my association with an adult child who no longer was professing to be a Witness and whose life choices meant she would have been disfellowshipped if only they could contact her, I asked, "When I am old and need help will you be over here taking care of me?  Because I know my daughter will."
The subject was never brought up again.  And I'm still in good standing, but then my congregation elders have never been hardliners. 
 

I think its a cultural thing too. Some countries do this, others don't so much.

Yes, customs are quite different in different countries.
In Ireland weddings and funerals are usually accompanied by 5 days of very heavy drinking Irish whiskey.
The difference between an Irish Wedding, and an Irish Funeral is ....
(wait for it ...)
.... one less drunk.

I think you are saying that the Watchtower's research here is already beyond impressive. I agree that on this topic the Watchtower's research is especially impressive. We have excellent explanations for the reasons the NWT contains God's Name so many times, and numerous examples and manuscript facsimiles to help us understand the LXX examples which have informed the decisions made for adding "Jehovah" to the Greek Scriptures. I think you are also saying that we shouldn't think of a single scholar's work as impressive, or at least we shouldn't think of Gertoux's work as impressive. This is just a statement, however, unless you are ready to counter the lines of evidence used or his conclusions. But again, I hope that this topic does not turn into a debate about whether a particular person or his research is "impressive." I hope that we can look at the evidence itself without reference to what we think of the people behind it. It will always happen to some extent but let's deal with evidence, not with general statements that supposedly allow us to be dismissive of someone's work.
Yes, I agree that this isn't impressive either, just as you imply since it's not so different than just another form of Yahweh, which is already known and accepted. Of course, I'd also like to see a link evidencing this "new interpretation" by the Pope.
Absolutely.
I didn't see any examples or evidence that they have done a poor job, or not. I hope to avoid empty claims. I might offer some of these myself because we all bring our opinions to the table. I hope someone will point out the places where I do the same. There will be times when some of us can agree with each other that something appears to be true by consensus or "common sense" and we can move on without going to the trouble of finding evidence to back up our opinions. But when it comes to merely denigrating the qualifications of a person or group, I hope we can back up such claims with evidence if asked.
The work of Wilkinson seems like it's another useful resource which I would be willing to discuss as "another place to start" for exactly the same reasons that I thought Gertoux's work would be a good "place to start." I hope you will feel free to explain what you think he brings to the table that might be useful.

I have downloaded several that I never read. His papers on specific Bible-related chronology issues are interesting but I haven't completed them, and he keeps more papers coming.
A quick word on my own personal bias here. As I told the author: "I am very much aligned with your work on the topic. Naturally there are a few specific things I question, even if I end up with an overall conclusion that is generally like yours."
I think that when I bring up questions, just as I have on several issues coming from the WTS or GB, there are always a few persons who believe this is highly disrespectful, and they make it clear that to question the GB is tantamount to questioning God. Of course, I not only consider it our Christian obligation to question, it also serves the purpose of refining. Even the questioning by various sects helped refine Christian truth according to Paul.
(1 Corinthians 11:19) For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. This fits the idea in Greek that testing is the same as refining.
(1 Peter 1:7) 7 in order that the tested quality of your faith, of much greater value than gold that perishes despite its being tested by fire,. . . The NWT in the footnote here says that "tested" could be translated as "refined."
So I propose we should put any argument through the fire. It's not a sign of disrespect for the author. (Abraham didn't think it was such a bad thing to question God!) It can mean just the opposite, that we are treating someone's words the way we would treat nuggets of newly found gold . . . to refine them and make sure that what holds up is pure. Mostly, however, I think we should question and test and put all ideas through the fire so that we can have a better understanding ourselves, and thus be better prepared to defend what we believe. (1 Peter 3:15)

I am quoting here from that long sentence that begins the essay found here: http://areopage.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Gertoux_UseNameEarlyChristians.pdf (which contains copyrighted material).
Gertoux packs a lot into this sentence, and this is just the first part of it. To begin, Matthew 15:3 says:
In reply he said to them: “Why do you overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition? And then Jesus goes on to say in verses 9-11:
9 It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’” 10 With that he called the crowd near and said to them: “Listen and get the sense of it: 11 It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.” The natural instinct is to think that since Jesus had just given an example of what the hypocrites do to dishonor their mother and father, that this applies even more so when we think of ways in which we can honor our heavenly Father. And one of those ways would be to call him by his personal name in the way that the Hebrew nation had done for  1,000 years, since Moses around 1500 BCE, or even since Abraham, more than 500 years before that!
But, for the sake of argument, we might also want to put ourselves in the shoes of the Jewish nation and try to figure out why this idea of not pronouncing God's name ever caught on so widely in the first place. There is very good information in the Insight book on this topic under "Jehovah" but it admits that we don't know the reason for sure.
*** it-2 p. 5 Jehovah ***
When did the superstition take hold? Just as the reason or reasons originally advanced for discontinuing the use of the divine name are uncertain, so, too, there is much uncertainty as to when this superstitious view really took hold.

Thanks @JW Insider, it should be a good discussion. I have already got a few of Gerard's papers downloaded from the academia website when we were discussing the controversial "desolation of Jerusalem 587/607" subject. But that's another topic.....
I will take a look at this paper

Actually, had she passed on the Summer Olympics, the verbiage you favor would be close to appropriate. Wasn't it a couple hundred of those young girls who were molested by the team doctor, now serving several lifetimes in prison?
Imagine, the sister passing on such a priviledge. What in the world is wrong with her, Jack?

Jack. I think you are trying to say that experience is bogus because it doesn't make complete sense to you. And it appears like a contradiction when we consider those famous persons who have been associated either as Witnesses or those who may have identified as JWs due to the influence of their Witness parents or family members.
I understand the cynicism about some of the experiences. I have previously shared my own discomfort when I watched  a committee of brothers enhance the experiences of Witnesses who provided experiences for the special Bethel "Family Night" gatherings. It smacked of dishonesty to me, but there was always a grain of truth in what they were enhancing, and they were usually quite careful with the wording so that it was not technically or legally an untruth. But for "Family Night" I watched the committee edit the person's own story and his own recollections with facts not in evidence just to make it sound better, and it was clearly to enhance the reputation of the WTS, and to change something just slightly so that it would not detract from that same reputation. At Bethel, I had also learned how the resume of Fred Franz' educational background had been enhanced in ways that were never corrected until the Proclaimers book came out.
But I don't know that this story in particular is enhanced. I see some potential problems, and a wise person will not simply believe everything he hears. I think the story might be perfectly true. "She was asked to take part in the Winter Olympics . . ." There is nothing unbelievable about this. Many very talented people have been on their way toward stardom and have given it up for religion or ideology or rethinking what it would mean to their life. But notice that no one is claiming that this person was invited to participate as an athlete to represent her country. It may have been that a coach wanted her there to watch. Perhaps, she showed promise as a skier, and it was a parent who asked her to go on to another few years of training to be able to take part in the Winter Olympics. This could be construed to create the statement that she was asked to take part.
Or perhaps she had already trained, and was ready, and was considered a viable competitor, but was also completing her studies with the Witnesses and was preparing for baptism. A single statement from the person studying with her might have made her change her mind. The statement in the WT above may be perfectly legitimate and not enhanced at all. I'm sure you see this as a possibility, too, even if you disagree with the decision she made.
There are non-JW experiences like this too. I remember hearing about a professional basketball player named Robinson, I think, whose mother told him he had to graduate a four-year college even though he had been asked to sign on professionally right after high school. He was offered a multi-million dollar contract, and had to give it up, and who knows what change of direction his life might have taken during that four years. He could have lost his contract, he probably cut four years of his earning potential away, but he did it for his mother, or for his agreement with her particular ideology about life and priorities. Others look at this and say B*S* because he could have played for 4 years, made millions and then gone to college if the basketball "gig" didn't work out, right? But younger people often don't know how to handle fame and money, and there are countless bodies of evidence, sometimes dead bodies, in support of this fact.
On the other hand, what is the overall point of the experience? It's the same point that should be pointed out to any who wish for fame when there are other more important things that could bring potentially more satisfaction. There is also the drive for fame and money that many young people are not realistic about. They could end up spinning their wheels for a lifetime in pursuit of something that was not really attainable. Or even if it was attainable, it may be much more transitory than they realized.
One of my daughter's good friends from high school was  a young model who was asked to work on a soap opera. She did this for two years, and did commercials, and photo layouts for fashion, and was on a billboard for years in the NY diamond district. But it only lasted for about 5 years. Although she can be proud of her work, she is today ... get this @James Thomas Rook Jr. . . .a shoe salesperson. Literally. She works in London selling Louboutin shoes, making good money, and she seems happy. Only her parents and siblings still push for her to try to get back into acting and modelling as if it were some pinnacle of achievement. (On a side note, my wife and I are in Paris right now, with my daughter, and we expect to see this same friend of hers next weekend.)
What about being the ability to be both satisfied and happy with something different than fame or money? Something that is better for oneself and others in both the short run and the long run?