Anna

If they wanted to hide it, wouldn't it have been easier to not even document it? Or if it was documented, wouldn't it have been better to destroy it?
There were no specific laws on how to handle child sexual molestation put in place by governments for a long time. It is relatively recently where governments have begun to investigate this problem in an effort to implement effective remedies.
As far as I am aware Zalkin has many of the documents already, but has been ordered by the court to keep them confidential, and locked up. I am no lawyer but it's evidently not just a simple matter of handing over documents that's the problem. 
How you think the GB apply this to pedophiles makes no sense. How would "hiding" the truth about pedophiles protect the organization? The principle of "hiding the truth from enemies" or from those "who had no right to know" was to protect lives. Pedophiles, just like any other Witnesses who are Witnesses in name only, bring shame to the org. but nobody is that naive to believe that these individuals do not exist within the org. and hopefully no one is that dumb to believe that such individuals are purposefully protected and shielded from punishment. 

If they wanted to hide it, wouldn't it have been easier to not even document it? Or if it was documented, wouldn't it have been better to destroy it?
There were no specific laws on how to handle child sexual molestation put in place by governments for a long time. It is relatively recently where governments have begun to investigate this problem in an effort to implement effective remedies.
As far as I am aware Zalkin has many of the documents already, but has been ordered by the court to keep them confidential, and locked up. I am no lawyer but it's evidently not just a simple matter of handing over documents that's the problem. 
How you think the GB apply this to pedophiles makes no sense. How would "hiding" the truth about pedophiles protect the organization? The principle of "hiding the truth from enemies" or from those "who had no right to know" was to protect lives. Pedophiles, just like any other Witnesses who are Witnesses in name only, bring shame to the org. but nobody is that naive to believe that these individuals do not exist within the org. and hopefully no one is that dumb to believe that such individuals are purposefully protected and shielded from punishment. 

Giannis 
You sound frustrated, Maybe its the language that is insufficient.
Anyway, apologies if I misunderstand you due to that.
With regard to the latest points you raise.
Giannis: In ancient Israel the congregation of Israel knew everything about everyone.
I find this statement too extreme. The Awake you quote is interesting, but only as a comparison between Mosaic and American legal standards. 
Obviously, Israel was a sovereign state with a judiciary, as is the USA. So there are legitimate comparisons in their legal systems, the right to public trial being one of them. However that provision does not substantiate your statement. In fact, even today there are situations when the public is excluded from legal procedures.
But, as Paul made clear in Rom 13, currently "Caesar" or the state "bears the sword" and serves as Gods's minister for good or bad toward his servants. We are all relatively subject to Caesar's laws and, as far as secular matters are concerned, generally, public trial is still a provision of that system should we fall foul of the law or indeed be a victim of crime.
So you do have the right to a public trial today..in "Cesar's" courts.
However, the Christian congregation is a spiritual arrangement and actually is not constituted as a sovereign state in the way of ancient Israel or the modern USA.
Elders have a responsibility to keep the congregation spiritually and morally clean, and also to keep Jehovah's name and the name of His Son clear of reproach. This will necessarily mean dealing with wrongdoers, making assessments regarding wrong conduct, taking action to clear out badness from the congregation, and helping repentant ones regain spiritual health. At times, this may include mediation between congregation members to maintain peace in the congregation. @JW Insider has adequately outlined reasons for confidentiality in an earlier post in this thread. 
Where the breaking of Cesar's law is a component of errant behaviour amongst congregation members, then victims are completely at liberty to invoke the provisions of that system (bearing in mind Paul's counsel at 1 Cor. 6:6-8). Indeed, there may well be a legal obligation to refer such matters to the one "that bears the sword".
Is this the account you refer to?
To take a true-life illustration of recent months: A certain youth professed to be a Christian minister. Yet he was carrying on homosexual acts with professed friends of his. When he found it expedient to travel to another part of the country he missed his homosexual friends. So he wrote one of them threatening to expose him if he did not come to where he lived so that they could continue their homosexual relations. But it was not long before this young professed Christian made some overt acts that exposed him and today he is under a ban of at least three years from any Christian congregation of Jehovah’s people.
 
This article discussed the hardening power of a practice of sin and the account illustrates the lengths a person could go to and the consequence when following such a course. I can't see any reason why further explanation would be required here, other than saying that the reference is 46 years old. Hopefully, that person learned, albeit the hard way (1Cor.5:5, 13), and has since been restored to the congregation. 1 Cor 6:9-10.
I think @JW Insider has indicated above how you could go about making your grievances public. You seem to have already embarked on this course anyway.
I do hope you can resolve your issues without cutting yourself off.

All the more reason to apply the scriptures I suggested.
You cannot find the true picture from anecdotal evidence.
The Awake article is interesting but only as a comparison between Mosaic and American legal standards. I am not sure it supports the idea that  " In ancient Israel the congregation of Israel knew everything about everyone."  (my italics). I would need more specific examples for that conclusion. The statements in the article are not supported by examples.
What scriptures give you the Christian right to a "public trial"? And, if permissible, may I ask, what have you done to require such a trial?

It is not possible to support these statements with fact.
Yes to both. However, with regard to following scripture, in the spirit of Apollos. Acts 18:24-28.
Where is the scriptural proof of a requirement to indiscriminately publicize the reason for disfellowshipping or dissasociation?
Have your elders used 2Tim.2:23 or Titus 3:9 to support their dislike for your questions? Have they attempted to provide answers to them?. I suspect even if they have, you have not been satisfied, as your many posts in this forum seem to indicate.
Why not apply the principle in Ps.4:4? It's all about attitude really. (Compare Ph. 3:15, the principle, not the immediate subject matter).
I recommend the advice provided by JW Insider quoted below:
I would also add that the work of preaching the good news of Jehovah's established kingdom in the hands of His anointed king, Christ Jesus, should be the main focus of our efforts at this time. I would add that to the list of activities in JW Insider's comment above.
For many honest-hearted ones, getting to know Jehovah and his son Jesus, learning about the ransom, the kingdom, the truth about life, death, sin, getting free from the deceptive domination of Satan in their lives, and coming into association with the worldwide congregation of Jehovah's people, is the best thing thing that could ever happen to them. And, if media reports are anything to go by, it appears that there are greater opportunities in your country to share the good news of the kingdom than many others of us have at this time.
I do hope you can resolve your difficulties, if not your questions.
Do you have this saying?
Ας μην καίμε τα χλωρά μαζί με τα ξερά. 

@Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης,
I do not know any specifics of your particular situation or the situation in your congregation. No matter what the case, Jehovah knows your heart, and no humans or organization actually holds the final word of judgment. What I can say is that I'm aware of why there was a time when we once announced the reasons for disfellowshipping or disassociation. Then it turned into "conduct unbecoming a Christian" or "so-and-so no longer wishes to be associated . . . " often with a related talk given within a week or so, designed to remind the congregation of the need to remain morally clean, and the specific worldly or immoral elements the congregation had shown vulnerability to were usually emphasized. 
It should be obvious why this has changed. We do not wish to embarrass the person over a specific wrong or reason that they may later wish the congregation had no specific knowledge about. Most persons disfellowshipped are somewhere in a process of repentance. The elders do not believe the process is ever perfect, but they especially do not want to create a situation where a person might regret having everyone else know what weaknesses they overcame. There are issues of fairness and justice to consider when a congregation may know all about one party in a wrongdoing but nothing about a second party to the same wrongdoing.
I don't think I need to spell out all the ways that one person may be hurt more deeply due to the unfairness of allowing a different level of information for two different persons where the wrongdoing may have been equal. The other side of that coin, is the case where two persons were involved in the same wrongdoing, but one person was much guiltier than the other, yet the announcement sounds pretty much the same for both. The best solution has appeared to be the minimization of all announcements, allowing persons to keep more privacy and dignity.
Perhaps in your case, you wish to "give a witness" about why you are choosing to disassociate. Because you have been a Witness, your motivation is understandable, but you are asking for an opportunity to explain yourself in ways that might be considered detrimental to the spiritual well-being of the congregation. The elders are there to take care of the spiritual interests of the whole congregation. Most persons do not join a Christian congregation to get a sermon from someone who disagrees with the teachings that they joined to hear more about. You don't go to a meeting to have your belief system torn down, but to be built up. If you feel you have important points to make, why not write a book, or write to elders, or branch personnel, or go on the Internet, so that the congregation in general will have a choice as to what kind of information they risk exposing themselves to.
 
 

Why you want this is your business, not ours. If any one will gossip then they are no better than you, really. Your beef was the same I had with Jehovah himself for the death of my father because the system had not come yet. I was so pissed. But why was I angry? My father erased his debt of sin by his death and will awaken at the hearing of Christ voice during the resurrection. Also why would I want him to extend his life here, suffering with cancer, wasting away in pain truly not living, when Jehovah has promised a life so much better. Think of what you are saying. What mediators? They are just guides, showing us that path Jesus told us to take that would lead to eternal life. I want to stay on it because in Jehovah's love I will be able to see both of my parents again.
 When Jesus choose the apostle's, they were not perfect, fussing and arguing most of the time. Peter was headstrong thinking he was all that, but when the stick hit the fire, he denied his Lord and Master 3 times, how do you feel he felt when he caught eye to eye contact with Jesus when that cock crowed?
 Those who have the responsibility the same as those apostle's then, have to watch over us, make mistakes do we grumble, point out those mistakes and cry foul wanting to leave? Leave where? Their mistakes points us to what better place? Judas betrayed Jesus, did the others leave due to his mistake? Peter denied Jesus, did the others deny him when Jesus himself forgave him and Peter went on to serve faithfully till his death?  And when the Gentiles became part of the congregation, there were many new changes, for Paul had to set standards to meeting arrangements. As we grow, diverse with different cultures and continue to love one another as a true brotherhood, we will find we will change. If God's Word is alive should not his organization be also, vibrant with ones different but the same in our worship of Jehovah? 
Would not want you to go based on what you are saying, but do not stay either. Make up your mind and heart, it is Jehovah we are serving, so should you. And it's in his love we want to be. That is the road that leads to life. Any other will not get you there. It's a tributary leading off into destruction. I know been there and back. I can said from first hand experience. So I call to you, as I have. Read your Bible, ask the questions, pray about it, humble yourself to Jehovah's way, not our own way. That's what Satan did, right? Be like Paul and reason from the scriptures. Most of the questions you have will go away, for you will have answered them before you speak them out loud! Have a good evening my friend!

I looked at several of your posts and some of them appear to take outdated issues, or overblown issues, and treat them as if they are currently having a direct effect on people. I think Melinda Mills pointed out that you were making an issue out of a prior incorrect view on the exact definition of porneia. But this issue would usually only have been of a practical concern for a few months before the wrong idea was corrected. (Edited to add: the issue arising from an improper understanding had been there for many years, but I'm told that it was rarely invoked, and a big issue was only being made out this for a few months, and that it was the very raising of the issue that also helped raise concerns about changing the practice.) Similar issue with being disfellowshipped over transplanted organs. I had specifically asked a person who would have known about all the decisions about disfellowshipping over that issue, and he told me it only happened a couple of times. (There is a tendency to be lenient when a person is suffering and might die from a rejection anyway. Also there was a strong belief in those days that even if a blood transfusion was not necessary for an organ transplant, that you had to agree to the possibility of accepting one, which is still a serious offense.)
At any rate, what is the rush to disassociate? Can you not find love in the brotherhood? Do you personally have to think of humans as your "mediators"? I believe there is room for a lot more diversity of thought, as long as you can keep a clean conscience, and avoid causing divisions by insisting on a view that others find unacceptable. Over time, many of the views that opposers have held, have finally been accepted. We are not here strictly for a set of doctrines, we are here to find opportunities to love and care for our friends, relatives, family, and extend that same love to those related to us in the faith (our spiritual brothers and sisters). 
 

This has no place in controversial posts. This is the reality of the organization. 1000s of unreported sex case allegations.

This is excellent
The only honest response is "bring it on!"
Can you see how this applies?: 
“Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. In the same way, if Satan expels Satan, he has become divided against himself; how, then, will his kingdom stand?"
Matt.12:25-26

Let's not do whataboutism. The organization has frequently used the pedophile cover ups in the catholic church and secular institutions to support their moral superiority and divine backing. So should we now accept that this organization is no better than them? Isn't the whole point that our org is BETTER than these other religions/organizations because we are a spiritual paradise?
I understand that child abuse is a problem that cannot be stamped and is present in all large organizations. BUT the organization has done itself no favors by doubling down on their messed up policies which have allowed abuse to continue in congregations. And they have been completely zip-lipped with their own members--refusing to be transparent about this ongoing problem. JWs are owed transparency on this matter. It's the least they could do.

...... may I suggest that as the issues are debated, that full and complete quotes IN CONTEXT be provided to strengthen one's points being asserted .. with citations for check-able references..
Bad scholarship is still scholarship ... but it is bad in that it is designed to deceive... or deceives by default.
Try to be clear enough so that the evidence or fantasys asserted are irrefutable, as if what you write will be used in a court of law to either exonerate you ... or convict you of a Capital Crime, and if you fail, you will be impaled butt first on a wooden stake while still alive.
The hours of our lives are too painfully few to suffer fools ... or in good conscience ... be a fool.
 
 
 

Fair enough. I'm looking forward to a substantive discussion when you get the time.
AlanF

I think you'd get on really well. At the mid week meeting last week I asked him what was so outstanding about Bathsheba. He said she was out, standing under the shower.

I must admit I found that paragraph strange. I raised the issue at the table (we had hospitality for our friend who gave the talk, his wife and in laws were also with us, the other in law being an elder too) and everyone didn't get why this particular song was included either. I mean what about the song "listen obey and be blessed"? And other songs which also tell people what to do. It was just very odd, and I wondered why this issue was even raised. (some of your ideas may be valid, but why make a point of it this way in the paragraph, it almost makes me want to write to Bethel and ask for the "real" reason behind it. But it's not important) My husband had a good point as well. He said he's never known in his life any sister to be bothered about telling people what to do. Everyone cracked up and agreed.

"What does Jehovah doing things in certain unusual ways have to do with child abuse?"
This was the thinking also of a certain other poster on a similar thread, and I hate saying this, but perhaps this kind of mentality has been the reason for non reporting and other inefficiencies regarding the handling of child sexual abuse. Yes, it is true that Jehovah should figure in our trying to solve problems, since being a JW is a way of life, but when it comes to handling of child sexual abuse, "waiting on Jehovah" and other perceived theocratic sensibilities just don't seem appropriate in this situation.

He wasn't talking about religion. He was talking about being a spokesperson for God.
Here is the exact quote:
Question:   And do you see yourselves as Jehovah God's spokespeople on earth?

G. Jackson:   That I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to

  say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using.

  The scriptures clearly show that someone can act in harmony

  with God's spirit in giving comfort and help in the

  congregations, but if I could just clarify a little, going

  back to Matthew 24, clearly, Jesus said that in the last

  days - and Jehovah's Witnesses believe these are the last

  days - there would be a slave, a group of persons who would

  have responsibility to care for the spiritual food.  So in

  that respect, we view ourselves as trying to fulfil that role.

 

@Gone Away HA! we posted at the same time!

Great minds...................................................

Better marketing maybe, but you must understand that you are addressing a VERY limited audience. Although 8 million could be considered a fair number, many of those are skeptical and won't read anything published by a brother unless it comes with Bethel's blessing. Maybe that's who you need to talk to! Just kidding. But you must admit, I do have a point. (I still want to order a book for my mother in law, which one would you recommend?) 

I watched the video, and to be honest, if you were one of those people attending the convention where the second speaker was giving the address, you would be hard pressed not to get excited, and NOT look to the date 1975..
Of course, the friends who attended that convention were just some, out of the rest of the brotherhood and not all who attended the convention would have been convinced, just like not all are convinced about some ideas today (the overlapping generation ).
I am wondering if after this series of talks, the Slave realised they had taken it a bit too far. There must have been discussions by brothers who pointed out the scrioture which makes it clear the Bible gives no date (like the brother in the video of the last convention) so then when the idea reached the UK it was perhaps already more watered down..
My step dad sold his skis because he thought he wouldn't use them again, he was living in central Europe, but my mother living in the uk at the time doesn't even recall anything special going on, and neither do I. But I was only very young...

I just got this in the mail today! Now to find time to actually read it.....
 
 

I just got this in the mail today! Now to find time to actually read it.....
 
 

Why another topic about 1914 and 607?
Because we could use a topic where we can all agree a little more easily. Seriously. In this topic, we don't need to worry about whether 607 is correct, or 1914 is correct. No one needs to say why it does or doesn't make sense to them. Let's just see if we can review the possible and probable sources that were influential, and ultimately resulted in 607 and 1914 being accepted as a Bible-based fulfillment of prophecy.
No one needs to jump from another thread about 607 and Biblical evidence over to this one. In fact, I just read a couple of books last night for the first time, and I had some questions that I couldn't find an answer to, and hoped that someone from that other thread, or anyone really, might have run across the resources that might have answered the questions. I'm reading one more book first, and don't think I'll finish it tonight, so consider this topic to be kind of a placeholder for a couple days.
So this is the purpose of the three current threads:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/5510-607-bce-is-it-biblically-supported/ a place to discuss mostly the Scriptural evidence for or against the 607 portion of the 1914 doctrine. https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/51655-607-bce-is-there-any-secular-support-for-the-watch-towers-view/ a place to discuss mostly the Secular evidence for or against the 607 portion of the 1914 doctrine. And this current one: a place to discuss the sources that were influential in the WTS accepting the 607 date as part of the 1914 doctrine. One place to start is with a couple sentences in the "Proclaimers" book (next post). I personally intend to avoid a certain book by COJ for this topic, to avoid unnecessary controversy, although anyone should feel free to use any resources from anywhere they wish, as long as it appears to be a statement of fact. Again, this is not about questioning the correctness of the doctrine.

Good points and good questions, too. I am just working through some of this material myself. Last fall, I clicked a few pages onto my iPhone of several books to check out in full at a later time. These included Wright's (2009) "Inventing God's Law - How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi." The book is partially previewed on Google Books. Some of the other pages of material are only on my iPhone, though. I'm not planning to buy the book. It's at several libraries.
I should say that the book appears to break new ground on tying the Mosaic Law (he abbreviates CC, for Covenant Code) to the Laws of Hammurabi (he abbreviates LH). But a book that breaks new ground is also, in part, only one voice against several. So it would be good to acknowledge a few of the other major views about the relationship between CC and LH. Note, too, that LH becomes a kind of shorthand not just for the Laws of Hammurabi exclusively, but also the Laws of Eshnunna and other similar sets of laws with a relationship to LH.
One point is that we don't really know the exact dates of either the LH or exactly when the last adjustment was made to the CC either. Another point is that we should expect similarities in both oral traditions, legal needs, and legal practice with respect to the lifestyle of Semitic and Mesopotamian nations. All had similar issues with respect to slavery, marriage, divorce, murder, rape, theft, land, livestock, accidents, etc.. As Wright himself mentions:
For example, the Covenant Code, the Laws of Hammurabi, the Laws of Eshnunna, and the Roman Twelve Tables, all have burglary laws that speak about killing a burglar (see chapter 9). These cannot all be related by literary influence. Several of the other points made in comparison to the view of other scholars are not applicable to a faith-based view of the scriptures (textual redaction theories, etc.).
Wright makes a distinction between the "do this/do that" (apodictic) laws, and the "if this...then that"(casuistic) laws, and this distinction is useful for his thesis. But you are apparently right, @Gone Fishing, that the 10 commandments themselves stand outside these sets of laws as unique.