Anna

.... and my favorite, Mickey Spillane.
Agenda driven examples of ANYTHING are only generalizations, that may .. OR MAY NOT apply.
Infinite experiences....
.... Infinite results.
Often as we get older ... not having been able to make the cut as a helicopter or commercial airline pilot causes us to remember that our goal was always to be a shoe salesman.

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

@JackRyan get real man! (I think?)
Surely this is how you view everyone? You posted it!

This is made to sound in the newspaper article as if ALL notes on a judicial matter are destroyed. An official copy of the proceeding is to be kept no matter what. What they want to avoid is the inclusion of multiple notes taken by all the elders that include personal comments, sometimes questions going through their heads to ask or get answered before a decision. Sometimes these, since they weren't meant to be critiqued, can appear to be contradictory or incriminating to one side or another even if they were not intended that way.
Also, it is very misleading to say that the rules require a sexual assault victim to go out and find two witnesses. It shows that they are ignorant of the fact that the victim himself (or herself) is already a witness to the crime. Without a confession of course the idea of a second witness is still very unlikely, but circumstantial evidence will be heard from a second witness, and a second witness can be another victim of the same crime from same abuser.

Why would true Christians expect fair treatment? 
“Happy are you when people reproach you and persecute you and lyingly say every sort of wicked thing against you for my sake." Matt.5:11

So it was! And now, it's changed again!!! Yippee!!

Isn't there a big difference between active condemnation or criticism of the LGBT community and a mere non support of it? Isn't being forced to support that movement or being criticized/ostracized for not supporting it actually interfering with human rights?

Many times Satan does not have to come after us at all .... we embark on courses of applied stupidity and self destruction all by ourselves.

Yes, it reminds me of the Newsweek cover a few years back emblazoning the headlines of recent disasters on all fronts, then concluding (on the cover) with a nice reassuring message for the children , because it didn't want to frighten them: "What the !@!* is next?" it read.
http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2011/04/what-the-is-next.html

It just isn't possible to understand the Bible's code of conduct unless you accept it as of divine origin and obligatory. With that as a basis, then personal difficulties with it's requirements remain in that context, as a problem for the individual to resolve, not a problem with the requirement.
It just isn't possible to compromise the Bible's view on specific LBGT behavioural issues, despite the attempts of various religionists. So there will always be conflict between those who reject the Bible standard for sexual behaviour and those who adhere to and promote it. This conflict extends into the legal arena as the conflict has been blended with a human rights issue which basically excludes a consideration of God's will on the matter.
The Bible does not always give the reasons for why a course of conduct is right or wrong in God's eyes. That determination is left to the individual and may either be deduced by logic or by observation, over time. (Why circumcision on the 8th day? Also, see the book "None of These Diseases").
The basic, ubiquitous reason given for keeping God's requirements is the rather generally stated: "That it may go well for you" but this is just not enough of a reason for many. In fact, no reason is sufficient for those who just do not want to live by the Bible's code of conduct. What is most puzzling however is the fact that those who "do not" seek to impose by force an acceptance of that preference on those who "do". This takes the conflict into the thorny area of state control v freedom of religious expression.
Nevertheless, this conflict will continue. The fact remains that Jehovah's Witnesses do not discriminate against those who describe themselves in the terms of the LBGT movement. However they do discriminate, vigorously, against the sexual practices that identify such ones, and that will never change.
There's nothing new about rejection of the standards of the God of the Bible, and there's nothing new about the attempts on one group or another to introduce a reversal of those standards, even to the point of asserting that the practice once abhorred is now promoted by God. It follows the pattern of behaviour prevalent at the time of the prophet Isaiah and expressed at Isaiah 5:20:
"Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!"

I wonder why they would choose that theme?
Yeah, like how police have shown up in Russia, typically in full riot gear, to arrest members of the faith.

I am not too comfortable with this idea either, only because of the simple fact that Jehovah gave the Bible to everyone, and he gives holy spirit to anyone asking, so that they can understand the Bible.  From experience I have known spiritually mature brothers and sisters express some ideas which were not at the time "officially" taught, but did become so later on. It seems like they had divine insight? Or was it just that they were very good Bible students and reasoned on things logically? Even ones who had not known what Jehovah's Witnesses taught,  like @Gone Away were able to work some things out that were contrary to popular belief in Christendom. I believe it is the capacity of every good Bible student, whether of the anointed or not, to have insight. The important thing is though to have the wisdom to wait if we have reasoned out something which is not an "official" teaching. Are we going to get upset about the 1% or more that we think is not right, and forget about the bigger percentage that has benefited our lives as one of Jehovah's Witnesses? I have know people who had previously been involved in all kinds of religions who upon reading one of JW publications have declared "this is the Truth". One studious lady (a staunch Catholic) who became a very good friend of mine, even flung the "Truth Book" across the room because she could see that what she read made perfect sense and that what she had previously believed was wrong, and that upset her so much. My own mother in-law, who had always been God fearing, after reading the "Truth Book" , said all those unanswered questions she had were answered, and all the pieces of the puzzle came together. There are many, many more examples I could cite, and I am sure you have read the many experiences of people who have benefited from learning from a small group of anointed Christians who collected their perception of what the Bible "really" teaches into publications, which helped them understand the Bible's message more clearly. I think when we start doubting  the "exclusive group" it is good to focus on the positive things we have gained from our "associating" with them.

I am not too comfortable with this idea either, only because of the simple fact that Jehovah gave the Bible to everyone, and he gives holy spirit to anyone asking, so that they can understand the Bible.  From experience I have known spiritually mature brothers and sisters express some ideas which were not at the time "officially" taught, but did become so later on. It seems like they had divine insight? Or was it just that they were very good Bible students and reasoned on things logically? Even ones who had not known what Jehovah's Witnesses taught,  like @Gone Away were able to work some things out that were contrary to popular belief in Christendom. I believe it is the capacity of every good Bible student, whether of the anointed or not, to have insight. The important thing is though to have the wisdom to wait if we have reasoned out something which is not an "official" teaching. Are we going to get upset about the 1% or more that we think is not right, and forget about the bigger percentage that has benefited our lives as one of Jehovah's Witnesses? I have know people who had previously been involved in all kinds of religions who upon reading one of JW publications have declared "this is the Truth". One studious lady (a staunch Catholic) who became a very good friend of mine, even flung the "Truth Book" across the room because she could see that what she read made perfect sense and that what she had previously believed was wrong, and that upset her so much. My own mother in-law, who had always been God fearing, after reading the "Truth Book" , said all those unanswered questions she had were answered, and all the pieces of the puzzle came together. There are many, many more examples I could cite, and I am sure you have read the many experiences of people who have benefited from learning from a small group of anointed Christians who collected their perception of what the Bible "really" teaches into publications, which helped them understand the Bible's message more clearly. I think when we start doubting  the "exclusive group" it is good to focus on the positive things we have gained from our "associating" with them.

I suppose it really is a "take it or leave it" scenario as you suggest. Whatever one's opinion of the "communication conduit" or "media channel", it remains that a large group of people have a peception, based on the Bible, that there is a strong possibility of surviving a world cataclysm to life on a cleansed earth. And they have learned about this from a rather smaller group of people who are convinced of themselves having a rather more immediate destiny in the heavens as rulers with Christ.
Now they didn't make it all up themselves. Clarity on the idea and detail on it's connection with Bible teachings and prophecy was shared with them to a greater or lesser degree. Some, like myself, were able to discern the bare bones of a concept of people living on earth forever, by resurrection or survival, from the Bible,  and certainly rejected the notion of "all good people go to heaven" long before associating with Jehovah's Witnesses. It was refreshing to come across an organised approach to sharing this Bible based view with other people, and to get a lot more detail on the whole concept of it.
Granted, there is a measure of human imagination thrown in as is always the case in matters of understanding God's Word. But, fanciful ideas  have a way of being skimmed off in time, whilst the genuine core concepts remain. There are plenty of critics and criticisms around, exhibiting varying degrees of emotion toward both groups amongst the Witnesses, ranging from a sort of benign and patronising disbelief through to plain vitriolic hatred. Rather like the "intellectual" Greeks at the Areopagus (Acts 17:32) and the hate-driven Jewish leaders at  Jerusalem (John 11:53)., and all manner of in-between shades.
Really, it is simply a case of "take it or leave it". You either believe or don't believe, accept ot don't accept. It is presented as an invitation in Scripture, so there is no compulsion, other than it's appeal, which has persuasive power, but not to everyone to the same degree. It seems, judging from the forum comments, there are even those who have a better understanding intellectually of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses on this matter than do some Witnesses themselves. Yet to them, this only spurs an active disbelief and rejection.
But notwithstanding, the invitation to both groups remains and there is still a response to it. It seems that Jesus's words in connection with the kingdom invitation at the time of his preaching still have a very real application in the current period of time.
"From the days of John the Baptist until now, the Kingdom of the heavens is the goal toward which men press, and those pressing forward are seizing it."  John 11:12

What's the issue here? A group of Christians go to heaven? No issue. A large group of Christians are going to live on earth? No issue.
"an exclusive group have access to this divine insight?" It's in the Bible. Who's this exclusive group? You just reccounted it yourself didn't you?

Not sure how large the lunch would be, but there are some quite basic reasons in the case of a reception hosted by bereaved Jehovah's Witnesses ion the occasion of a funeral of a loved one who has served Jehovah faithfully.
"A good name is better than good oil, and the day of death is better than the day of birth." Ecc7:1. The remembrance of a live well-lived in faithfulness is entirely appropriate.
"Moreover, brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who are sleeping in death, so that you may not sorrow as the rest do who have no hope." 1Thess. 4:13. It is a time to comfort one another with the wonderful resurrection hope and forms part of the healing of the sting death causes.
"But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect." 1Pet.3:15. It is an opportunity to share discreetly the hope of the deceased with unbeleiving friends and relatives of the deceased, where tasteful and appropriate. On occasion, this is an express wish of the deceased.
"Follow the course of hospitality". Rom12:13. Funerals are lengthy and stressful affairs for a variety of reasons. People travel considerable distances to attend at short notice as death does not come by appointment. The provision of hospitality is virtually incumbent.
At the very least, hospitality arrangements that follow the principle expressed by Jesus at Luke 10:42: "A few things, though, are needed, or just one" are quite appropriate in connection with Jehovah's Witness funerals, regardless of the status of the deceased

Because it makes sense and is considerate. Some people have come from afar. Some are in no shape to cook. I don't think it is unique to Witnesses. I think it is more common than otherwise.
In cases of family, I remember in my youth people lamenting that the only time the whole family got together was for funerals., as though love itself would not suffice, but only an obligation. I finally decided to run with it. It is what it is. Death in this system of things is a natural course of life. Use it as a metronome, to reliably bring everyone together from time to time. 
Kill two birds with one stone. Bring everyone together and use the power of family to help the bereaved one heal. Stay the course, and the time will come when there is no death.
 
 

I did not think I would live to see a reason that I might thank @Jack Ryan for a post. Every day God tells me how little I know. I take back one or two of the mean things I have said about him.
 

You aware sir, that this "gospel" is not the "gospel" preached before his coming? The message did change, after he came, correct? We do proclaim his death and resurrection. But what did Jesus himself teach? Was it not the "good news" or gospel of God's kingdom? All we are doing is proclaiming its coming, because it is the hope of mankind. With Jesus as king, he will remove all wickedness from this earth, what he done on a temporary scale while on earth, he will do again with permanent results. That is 'good news'. This ruling government which Isaiah foretold would be given to this child, is what we pray for in the model prayer that Christ Jesus taught his disciples. In the very words,"Let your kingdom come". The arguments the apostles had were about who was going to have the best seats in that government, of which they did not fully understand that it was a heavenly one. So berates us if you want, but understand that we are indeed, proclaiming a 'gospel' worth listening to. It is GOOD NEWS. Do you have any?

This is an interesting concept and has a bit more to it than it's context.
For the congregation, in the absence of an alternative, there is a 2 witness rule. Now the debate about what does or should constitute the 2 witnesses is being tested elsewhere.
But what is it to accomplish? That one judged as guilty as charged and unrepentant is excluded from the congregation. Pretty pathetic sanction when compared with the gravity of the crime wouldn't you say? Aw, the poor little molester's relatives won't talk to him no more What a shame.....not.
There are probably other crimes that could be similarly characterised. The congregation today only has a spiritual role and the sanctions against crime can only be handled in that context. Isn't that why Romans 13:4 says current secular governments serve as "God's minister", and "it is not without purpose that it bears the sword"?
There is no need for 2 witnesses to report an allegation of child abuse to the secular authorities, although the inconsistencies of requirements and conflicting legislation make it very prudent for legally-inexperienced congregation elders to seek legal advice in carrying out this action where it is not specifically mandated.
The congregation is simply neither authorised nor equipped to carry out the kind of investigation and victim support needed, or to try, and if found guilty, impose sanctions that God's secular minister has within their remit  at this time. And if God's secular minister finds such a perpetrator guilty of a crime of this nature, then we can trust that the finding is sufficient once the appeal process has been exhausted. The perpetrator, if found guilty, has carried out a henious crime and will likely find that the hands of Caesar are a lot rougher in the short term than the hands of Jehovah via the current congregational structure, to which stoning is no longer an option.
So it will always be true that Theocratically, we can trust that Jehovah's current arrangement, which allows for the secular authorities to execute judicial decisions, is always going to be better than our own. And, thankfully, they answer to him, not us, as how they are discharging their responsibility.

I agree with this idea, too. And as you mentioned a few other possibilities in your preceding paragraph, the few things that might change in the greater scheme of things could result in some longer-lasting benefits, too. As you said:
And there are also longer-term benefits when any of the "evil" people (perpetrators or deliberate enablers) were in positions of responsibility, as is often the case, or when persons, through a misplaced sense of priorities or naivety, inadvertently contribute (enablers) are put on a correct path. As you said:
I really appreciated that your comment was thoughtful and covered a lot of bases.
 

They did as a whole, however the problem was the total misapplication of 1 Corinthians 6:5-7 by some elders. I personally know of an instance where the elder advised to keep the matter away from secular authorities lest it brought shame to Jehovah. That was the attitude of some in the 80's as far as I know. It was never the policy of the society on the whole though. I am so pleased we have a concise, transparent document now which informs not just the elders, but also the publishers and anyone else of how cases of child abuse should be handed. Every one can be on the same page now. I particularly like par. 10 because it makes a clear distinction between congregational matters and secular matters of the same same instances:
"Child abuse is a serious sin. 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.
This is also good for instances where congregationally a perpetrator is not disfellowshipped because of lack of evidence or some other reason, but if the perpetrator is convicted of a crime by secular authorities, especially the crime of sexual abuse of children, then this notoriety may warrant disfelowshipping.
For those who haven't read  the document yet:
https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal-resources/information/packet-jw-scripturally-based-position-child-protection/

They did as a whole, however the problem was the total misapplication of 1 Corinthians 6:5-7 by some elders. I personally know of an instance where the elder advised to keep the matter away from secular authorities lest it brought shame to Jehovah. That was the attitude of some in the 80's as far as I know. It was never the policy of the society on the whole though. I am so pleased we have a concise, transparent document now which informs not just the elders, but also the publishers and anyone else of how cases of child abuse should be handed. Every one can be on the same page now. I particularly like par. 10 because it makes a clear distinction between congregational matters and secular matters of the same same instances:
"Child abuse is a serious sin. 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.
This is also good for instances where congregationally a perpetrator is not disfellowshipped because of lack of evidence or some other reason, but if the perpetrator is convicted of a crime by secular authorities, especially the crime of sexual abuse of children, then this notoriety may warrant disfelowshipping.
For those who haven't read  the document yet:
https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal-resources/information/packet-jw-scripturally-based-position-child-protection/

I can't for the life of me see why this kind of topic should be presented in such a sinister and threatening manner.
At the worst, investigations could reveal nothing. 
At the best, evil people who have wormed their way into the congregation will be exposed and ousted. The naivety of those inadvertantly contributing will be shown up and addressed. Processes will be reviewed and refined. Hopefully, victims will be acknowledged and gain some real benefit from the whole experience (although, sadly, this is not guaranteeed).
Admittedly, there are implications in terms of financial costs, time and attention of a large number of people, emotional impact on victims and their associates, reputational issues around perpetrators exposure, issues around mishandling and injustice due to distorted exaggeration driven by the bias and prejudice of opposers and those easily swayed by opinion, and the inevitable media brouhaha.
But really, what's to fear or to lose? Nothing changes in the greater scheme of things, but the immediate benefits far outweigh the costs.
I mean I am sure Bro Rutherford's experience was unpleasant at the time, but what was lost? And what was gained?

Claims of irrationality have always been levelled against witnesses who have experienced Gods great gift. "And we are witnesses of these matters, and so is the holy spirit, which God has given to those obeying him as ruler" Acts 5:29.
Compare: " “He has gone out of his mind." "Mark 5:21
                   " “You are going out of your mind, Paul!" " Acts 26:24
 If you believe that Jesus would have followed the superstitious and insulting pattern set by religious leaders in Israel of excluding God's personal name from His own word, then I feel you may well be spiritually floundering in human tradition.
For example, to think that Jesus would have quoted from Ps.110:1and intentionally ommit to include his Father's personal name beggars the imagination, and indeed is an affront to the "Faithful and True Witness"!
Why, even The Catholic Living Bible (with Impramatur) includes a pronouncable version of the holy name of the True God at this verse, "Jehovah said to my Lord the Messenger, "Rule as my regent - I will subdue your enemies and make them bow low before you." Ps.110:1. Was this an addition to the text?
Then, sadly, they acquiesce to the weight of religious traditionalism and, with red letters, render Jesus's use of this verse as "God said to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet." Matt.23:44.
No, the restoration of God's name in a pronouncable and specific form is to do justice to the text, and to follow in the pattern of someone of far more worth than scholars with their inconsistency , someone who stated in prayer to his heavenly Father "I have made your name known" John 17:26.
(I have included this response to your reference to NWT restoration here as you raised it here, but, with respect, I think the discussion around the inclusion of God's name in Scripture belongs elsewhere as a topic.)