Anna

I remember Armageddon Ernie!!!
It must be wonderful to go in field service with you!
Why do you keep trying to defend something which the GB have themselves admitted as being a mistake on their part?

It's been very interesting following Eoin and JWInsider's conversation, and some insightful thoughts from Comfortmypeople. All raised some good and valid points. This topic is probably exhausted, (and some new ones started) but I would just like to express a few thoughts. It seems clear that there is no doubt that oversight and leadership is inevitable and necessary in order for an international organization like ours to stay united in the same mind and in the same line of thought (1 Cor 1:10) otherwise we would be no different to Christendom. To believe that each congregation should be autonomous (as some opposers have suggested) is foolish because this would never work. Although congregations have their own unique personality and chemistry, the teachings are always the same. It is remarkable really, that you can travel halfway across the world and end up with same lessons like at home, just in a different language. So I would say the question isn't so much in the shepherding i.e. the organizational structure, but rather in the interpretation of scripture. Are we to follow the interpretation of scripture of a body of men, even though we know this interpretation might not be correct? This was the main thought I was trying to raise, and indeed this is one of the biggest bones of contention with our opposers, as we know.... It is understandable if we take it at face value; why should some men dictate what we are to believe?  Or why should we believe what some men are telling us to believe? Especially if we know they can err, just like any one of us can err. And we can also see where they have erred, partially by their own admission and partially from experience. JWInsider touched on this subject a number of times and brought out that this (relying exclusively and unconditionally on the words of the GB) would actually be unscriptural.  Is it not the responsibility of each Christian to make sure that they are in line with the scriptures as far as we can understand them and in the most core and fundamental areas? (make sure of all things) Do we need to have the scriptures partially digested for us and then spoon fed? Didn’t Paul say we should grow in spiritual maturity and eat solid food?  In fact we would be foolish if we were to take every utterance by the GB/Slave as “gospel truth”. But is there really a problem with that? “Witness” tried to suggest instances where the GB/Slave have caused damage by what they said. (and Comfortmypeople has mentioned some in his new topic). It’s easy to point a finger, but is there any substance to that claim, besides mere opinion? In my many years as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses I have not had any reason to be distrustful of the GB. What did change though was that as the years have gone by, I have developed a more balanced and reasonable attitude towards them.  My main issue I guess is what Comfortmypeople brings out in this topic so I will just move over there and see where it's going...

I remember Armageddon Ernie!!!
It must be wonderful to go in field service with you!
Why do you keep trying to defend something which the GB have themselves admitted as being a mistake on their part?

It's been very interesting following Eoin and JWInsider's conversation, and some insightful thoughts from Comfortmypeople. All raised some good and valid points. This topic is probably exhausted, (and some new ones started) but I would just like to express a few thoughts. It seems clear that there is no doubt that oversight and leadership is inevitable and necessary in order for an international organization like ours to stay united in the same mind and in the same line of thought (1 Cor 1:10) otherwise we would be no different to Christendom. To believe that each congregation should be autonomous (as some opposers have suggested) is foolish because this would never work. Although congregations have their own unique personality and chemistry, the teachings are always the same. It is remarkable really, that you can travel halfway across the world and end up with same lessons like at home, just in a different language. So I would say the question isn't so much in the shepherding i.e. the organizational structure, but rather in the interpretation of scripture. Are we to follow the interpretation of scripture of a body of men, even though we know this interpretation might not be correct? This was the main thought I was trying to raise, and indeed this is one of the biggest bones of contention with our opposers, as we know.... It is understandable if we take it at face value; why should some men dictate what we are to believe?  Or why should we believe what some men are telling us to believe? Especially if we know they can err, just like any one of us can err. And we can also see where they have erred, partially by their own admission and partially from experience. JWInsider touched on this subject a number of times and brought out that this (relying exclusively and unconditionally on the words of the GB) would actually be unscriptural.  Is it not the responsibility of each Christian to make sure that they are in line with the scriptures as far as we can understand them and in the most core and fundamental areas? (make sure of all things) Do we need to have the scriptures partially digested for us and then spoon fed? Didn’t Paul say we should grow in spiritual maturity and eat solid food?  In fact we would be foolish if we were to take every utterance by the GB/Slave as “gospel truth”. But is there really a problem with that? “Witness” tried to suggest instances where the GB/Slave have caused damage by what they said. (and Comfortmypeople has mentioned some in his new topic). It’s easy to point a finger, but is there any substance to that claim, besides mere opinion? In my many years as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses I have not had any reason to be distrustful of the GB. What did change though was that as the years have gone by, I have developed a more balanced and reasonable attitude towards them.  My main issue I guess is what Comfortmypeople brings out in this topic so I will just move over there and see where it's going...

It's been very interesting following Eoin and JWInsider's conversation, and some insightful thoughts from Comfortmypeople. All raised some good and valid points. This topic is probably exhausted, (and some new ones started) but I would just like to express a few thoughts. It seems clear that there is no doubt that oversight and leadership is inevitable and necessary in order for an international organization like ours to stay united in the same mind and in the same line of thought (1 Cor 1:10) otherwise we would be no different to Christendom. To believe that each congregation should be autonomous (as some opposers have suggested) is foolish because this would never work. Although congregations have their own unique personality and chemistry, the teachings are always the same. It is remarkable really, that you can travel halfway across the world and end up with same lessons like at home, just in a different language. So I would say the question isn't so much in the shepherding i.e. the organizational structure, but rather in the interpretation of scripture. Are we to follow the interpretation of scripture of a body of men, even though we know this interpretation might not be correct? This was the main thought I was trying to raise, and indeed this is one of the biggest bones of contention with our opposers, as we know.... It is understandable if we take it at face value; why should some men dictate what we are to believe?  Or why should we believe what some men are telling us to believe? Especially if we know they can err, just like any one of us can err. And we can also see where they have erred, partially by their own admission and partially from experience. JWInsider touched on this subject a number of times and brought out that this (relying exclusively and unconditionally on the words of the GB) would actually be unscriptural.  Is it not the responsibility of each Christian to make sure that they are in line with the scriptures as far as we can understand them and in the most core and fundamental areas? (make sure of all things) Do we need to have the scriptures partially digested for us and then spoon fed? Didn’t Paul say we should grow in spiritual maturity and eat solid food?  In fact we would be foolish if we were to take every utterance by the GB/Slave as “gospel truth”. But is there really a problem with that? “Witness” tried to suggest instances where the GB/Slave have caused damage by what they said. (and Comfortmypeople has mentioned some in his new topic). It’s easy to point a finger, but is there any substance to that claim, besides mere opinion? In my many years as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses I have not had any reason to be distrustful of the GB. What did change though was that as the years have gone by, I have developed a more balanced and reasonable attitude towards them.  My main issue I guess is what Comfortmypeople brings out in this topic so I will just move over there and see where it's going...

Melinda. I always enyoy your illustrations!

On looking back, it looks as though everyone was given some kind of bait so that they could ramp up their zeal for the end of this system. But not exactly. They said they were "not saying".   See quote in previous comments.
People at that time including JWs were not so independent in their thinking; they were glad to have someone to follow - in this case a large worldwide organization. In fact, independent thinking is not encouraged up until now. So we can agree that it was wishful thinking - most people wanted to believe that a group of men could know when Jehovah would bring the end to this system - although Jesus had clearly said (and they had read it themselves)that "no one knows the day of the hour - neither the angels of the heavens or the Son but only the Father". And they wanted to see it in THEIR lifetime regardless of who were in danger!
(Despite everything we are still  hearing shouts of the last memorial and the last convention!)
Well, I was not deceived about 1975 but I used to deny that any kind of bait was given. I would tell people that all that was said in the chart on page 31 of the book, "Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God" was that it said that 6000 years of man's existence will end in 1975. That's all!! But recently I saw some other quotes. Well I was young and interested and I read everything but I did not have the time to digest things as I do now.
JWInsider said his father used to laugh, but I remember a fairly heated discussion with my mother and my quoting the scripture at Matthew 24:36 to her. She agreed that the Bible said that, but went on to say that the Witnesses were right in 1914 (referring to the War and world change) and that they could be right again (about 1975 being the end). (I wonder how many Witnesses know that other Bible students arrived at that chronology leading to 1914 and not just the Bible students associated with Russell.) Well the best of us can be misled if we are not thinking clearly.
There is no point dwelling on that now, but we can press ahead and prepare for what Jesus actually said:
Matthew 24:42-44: "Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. But know one thing, that if the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. On this account you too prove yourselves ready, because at an hour that YOU do not think to be it, the Son of man is coming".
But why would He allow us to be able to work out the year? It is simple, Jehovah does not want us to know. Respect that. But he gave some signs through his Son and told us to be ready. In other words serve him out of love every day. That is what we say we will be doing in the new system forever.
So it is clear that even his true followers will be surprised when it comes. So we cannot go back to sleep we need to improve every day and keep serving with right motives - not thinking of economics, convenience, etc., but simply being ready every day. Serving Jehovah out of love - like Comfort said a few days ago. If we are ready every day, we will be ready when He comes. That is not to say we are no longer interested in the end or that we don't care when it comes. It is like a worker at his workplace. If he really knows and enjoys his work and keeps his work area tidy he will not be embarrassed if the boss brings a high executive rom the Headquarters of the company to sit near his desk, or asks him to explain his function for the benefit of the visitor. Neither would he be a clock watcher. In other words we will have nothing to be ashamed of.
Meanwhile we continue to pursue excellence in every thing we do and continue to apply these two scriptures:
Revelation 3:2: Become watchful, and strengthen the things remaining that were ready to die, for I have not found your deeds fully performed before my God".
Yes, Jesus commended the congregations where they merited commendation and encouragement. But he said the above words which apply to all of us. Jehovah has lovingly allowed us the time to strengthen ourselves and others, to improve where we are weak so we will be workmen with nothing to be ashamed of. We need to have our deeds fully performed before Jehovah, Jesus' God.
The apostle Paul was also loving in his advice at Ephesians 4:23,24: (Ephesians 4:23, 24) "And you should CONTINUE to be made new in your dominant mental attitude, 24 and should put on the new personality that was created according to God’s will in true righteousness and loyalty."
Yes, we have a lot of work to do on our personalities. We are a work in progress that Jehovah is molding. He is allowing time for this, because he said he is not slow concerning his promise but he is patient with us because he does not wish to destroy us but desires us to attain to repentance so he will find us finally spotless, without blemish and in peace. He also said to consider his patience as our salvation. (2 Peter 3:14,15)
So we need this time to help ourselves and others so we can be found approved by Him. Let's show by our actions that we appreciate his patience and that we love others who have not yet come to know him through no fault of their own. He is the Master of the Harvest and he knows when the harvest will be over. Agape.

Well...we won't find fanaticism listed in Gal 5:22-24, although fanatics might say zeal is not there either.

@JWInsider
Don't misunderstand me either. My apparent escape from "1975-ism" does not mean I see it as a minority fad amongst more irrational eccentrics in the congregation. Not at all. Your description of your own experience shows how one could be "embedded" in a "world" governed by this particular attitude. In your case, it appears all-encompassing, with ancestry, family, peers and role models, religious environment, career and education path, all governed by this thinking on the end time. It also illustrates to me also the world of difference in experience between those who are born into the world of Jehovah's Witness and those, like myself, who have sought out the movement as an adult. Something like the difference between the man and the travelling merchant at Matt.13:44-45.
I am well aware of the tendency among many brothers to sensationalise endtime speculation. This is reflected in the rather clumsily constructed 1968 WT expression you quoted above "one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end." I can almost hear the accompanying table thump! Even lately I have encountered responsible brothers who press for my agreement with the view that we will be unlikely to have our next Regional Convention in this system of things. And this in the face of the fact that the Society is already arranging the bookings for those delegates attending the 2017 Special Coventions abroad!
This 1974 article was not specific on a "1975"  reason for postponing child rearing and showed that many had made such a decision for secular reasons. However, there will of course be those who did let a date unduly factor in their life strategy and who may well have made sacrifices on the basis of a faulty criteria. But there are also those who made, and still make, similar sacrifices without undue influence from a distorted view of "times and seasons". There are still others who chose not to make such sacrifices but who continue to serve Jehovah acceptably.
Jepthah had not considered the full implications of his vow had he? And as for his daughter? (Judges 11:30-40).
Notwithstanding the reasons any have for serving Jehovah to whatever extent they do, surely Solomon's words hold true, and this is how we should encourage our brothers: 
*** Ec 8:12-13 ***
I am aware that it will turn out well for those who fear the true God, because they fear him. 13 But it will not turn out well for the wicked one, nor will he prolong his days that are like a shadow, because he does not fear God.
Hmm. "Incited" or "inflamed" more like.
Perhaps a new topic could be "What is the difference between zeal and fanaticism. Illustrate."

You made some very good points. I was not referring to the type of people who cancel a life insurance policy, or stop paying their loans back on time, sold their homes, or put off all dental appointments and elective surgery, etc. I did know about people who claimed they were putting off the dentist for the next couple of years, but this was often said in jest. I knew of only one person who took that a little too seriously (the Gilead missionary) and I remember it because my father had hired him to work in one of the engineering labs at the university. I often hung out in the electronics labs in the afternoons after pioneering, and this brother's enthusiasm for 1975 was a little too embarrassing for my father. He had to tell him to tone it down, and I then heard them get into a discussion that turned toward the idea of why everyone else had faith in the "1970's  date." But "many" according to the Awake! made significant life-altering decisions:
*** g74 11/8 p. 11 Is This the Time to Have Children? ***
The evidence is that Jesus’ prophecy will shortly have a major fulfillment, upon this entire system of things. This has been a major factor in influencing many couples to decide not to have children at this time. They have chosen to remain childless so that they would be less encumbered to carry out the instructions of Jesus Christ to preach the good news of God’s kingdom earth wide before the end of this system comes.
 
Even my own parents sold their house to move into a rental near the Kingdom Hall. They also talked my brother out of using a full scholarship to a nearby university (he was good at electronics) so that he ultimately opened up an office cleaning business instead. But this might have happened anyway, and I still never think of this as related to 1975.
For myself, I was to graduate in 1975 and was allowed to quit school if I passed the GED (high school equivalency) to start pioneering in May 1973. I know full well that my own experience was related directly to 1975, because I had a serious discussion about it with my parents who were split on whether I should finish high school or not. My mother was not a fanatic about it, but often said she believed it was more likely to come in 1974 since everyone would be looking for it in 1975 and after. My father, the congregation's presiding overseer at the time, spoke about living a reasonably ordinary life because we hoped the end would come as soon as possible, perhaps even tomorrow, but we can only know that it will come within this generation, which could last from 1914 to 1994 for all we knew.
My father had been given district assembly parts in the past, but had not even been assigned a circuit assembly talk ever since he was disciplined by a district overseer for toning down a pro-1975 talk at a 1970 or 1971 circuit assembly. (These assignments started up immediately again in 1976 or 1977.) I heard my father discuss that experience with my uncle who was a circuit overseer in another circuit at the time. I know that the discipline was based specifically on his addition of Matthew 24:36 to the talk, and he was reminded about the Watchtower's comments:
*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end.
 
We were in Missouri at the time, but yearly we visited my uncle who was a circuit overseer in California, and he was of the opinion that 1975 should be promoted strongly (this was in 1973) because even if the end doesn't come in 1975, we still know that it will be here before the end of the 1970's (1979). I didn't get involved too much in the conversation, but I must have believed about the same thing, because I remember thinking that even if it didn't come by then, I would like to apply to Bethel, and could even be there from 1976 and beyond the four years I had originally intended.
Immediately after the 1976 Watchtower, however, ideas changed completely, and everyone's view seemed to suddenly normalize. My mother claimed to never have put any weight on 1975. My uncle said it was never really emphasized that much anyway. It was surreal to me, and by the time I got to Bethel, there was absolutely no talk of working the rest of our careers at Bethel, this side of Armageddon. Mentioning 1975 was a taboo, and the July 15 issue quoted was one of the very first issues we studied for the Bethel Watchtower study after I got there. The comments by the conductor were just as surreal about putting the blame on the brothers who read too much into the "Life Everlasting" book. 
But my point was that, if you were spiritually mature, you were expected to make changes in your life based on the idea that the 1970's would bring the end of the generation, and that this idea, along with the end of the 6,000 years, would make it the "appropriate time for God to act." If you had Bible students you were expected to give them an ultimatum about making up their mind within 6 months. If you didn't believe the end would be here by the end of the 1970's you were pretty much required to believe it would be here by the end of the century (1999/2000).  
Our family also knew Brother Toutjian in California and we laughed at the way his own experience was toned down from a "1975 rootin'-tootin' Toutjian" to the way he states his own experience in a 1984 Watchtower:
*** w84 2/15 p. 25 Always Ready for the End ***
Decades of expanded activity passed quickly, and the question now was, What will the 1970’s bring? My two sons, Duane and Jonathan, and my daughter, Carmel—a fourth generation—were grown and had families of their own. We were expecting that 6,000 years of man’s existence would be reached in 1975. Would this date bring us to the start of Christ’s Millennial Reign? That possibility intrigued us.
Now we can look back on that year and appreciate that the words of Jesus at Matthew 24:36 do not allow us to fix a date for the end. 
At the time, 1984, my father admitted to me that he laughed at that line about how "that possibility intrigued us." By then my mother, still pioneering, had forgotten all memories of 1975 fever, and was already claiming that the Society never said anything about 1975 even being a possibility, even though Brother Toutjian was probably still on tape somewhere (from a 15-year-old assembly talk) embarrassing himself. 

Dear Eoin Joyce, I fully agree with your words, when you mention that we’re all enjoying of a spiritual banquet. For example, the last regional convention with its videos, our new Life and Ministry Meeting, the Broadcasting… and many others. And I also think you’re completely right when you think about some of us as a little bit children if we concentrate on the icing, the dressing and so. Ten points my brother -you make me smile while reading your words-
And, in agreeing more with your statements, if we focus in the cake, the meat, the salad in our spiritual table, any other things pale. And what you probably mean with the “meat of our banquet” well, I feel myself privileged, as we all JW should feel. The teachings of the “slave” class in the last century and more, have had an enormous influence in our lives. Positive influence. And I’m not only talking about the Bible and God’s help (obviously the main factors), but also the help of the brothers on charge of the worldwide work. I would be ungrateful, very unfair if I did not acknowledge that.
Now, let me point out one example, following your argument, with which I agree. Take us the example of the resurrection. I think we, the JW, should be grateful to the teaching of brothers, from Russell epoch until now, because in spite the Bible is the universal book any Christian church read, all these churches believe in life after dead, hell fire, soul immortality and many other false teachings that invalidate the basic, wonderful truth about the resurrection. Truth that, therefore, I thank first to Jehovah, but also to his servants responsible to discover these truths and teach them to the brotherhood. Do we agree?
Perfect. This is the meat. Now, here they come these individuals (perhaps myself, or JWI) with our worries, perhaps, what I’ve mention in my post regarding the adjustment about the resurrection of unborn babies. My complaint in this post is the lack of humility I found in the brothers with responsibilities in producing the information. Yes, of course, I am the main example of pride! How I dare to criticize! What I was trying to say is that if, for example, I offend you in my post, you correctly would expect I apologize, right? Then, my complain is, if some of our information, our teaching has produced some unnoticed damage, why not recognize it? Yes, perhaps is the icing.

I find this experience regarding the 1975 furore quite intriguing. Although I did pick up on excitement about the end of 6000 years earlier, (probably 1972 was my first encounter with a brother who had cancelled his life insurance on that basis), this kind of thinking I found to be the exception rather than the rule in my (possibly) narrow field of experience.
Of course there were those who expressed their conviction centred on that date. In fact, there was one prominent brother, know affectionately as "Armageddon Ernie", who had made very strong statements about the proximity of the end for years, earning that nick-name. But these type of views were seen rather as eccentricities than doctorine in my circle.
I was aware of the statements that are now collected as lists by those who still harp on about the Society making false prophecies about 1975. My first encounter with that date was the chart in the ‘Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God,’  book which, apparently, when released by Bro. Knorr at an assembly in Toronto caused discussion of 1975 to overshadow just about everything else. Bro Franz views about the same time were published in the WT: 
*** w66 10/15 p. 631 Rejoicing over “God’s Sons of Liberty” Spiritual Feast ***
‘What about the year 1975? What is it going to mean, dear friends?’ asked Brother Franz. ‘Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It could! All things are possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. Does it mean that the attack of Gog of Magog is going to be made on Jehovah’s witnesses to wipe them out, then Gog himself will be put out of action? It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975. But the big point of it all is this, dear friends: Time is short. Time is running out, no question about that. 
Later though, there was this comment:
*** w68 5/1 pp. 272-273 par. 8 Making Wise Use of the Remaining Time ***
Does this mean that the year 1975 will bring the battle of Armageddon? No one can say with certainty what any particular year will bring. Jesus said: “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows.” 
James put it plainly in his letter when he said at 3:8 that "no human can tame the tongue". And Pro.10:19 states the simple truth that "When words are many, transgression cannot be avoided". And it cannot be successfully argued that Jehovah's Witnesses are short on words  in any respect, official or otherwise! So there are bound to be mistakes, over-emphasis, etc. Add to that the tendency of humans  to hear what they want to hear, and to seek "official" confrimation for "pet" theories!
So it seems to me there are those who became unecessarily frothed up over the prospect of a date for the end of the system, and there are those who did not. And all sorts of in-betweens. And that on the basis of the same information. 
We are all feeding at the same spiritual table, and that includes the WT writers and GB members. And are we not all agreed that, despite adjustments and changes and developments related to the spiritual food served at that table, it still constitutes: "a banquet of rich dishes, a banquet of fine wine, of rich dishes filled with marrow, of fine, filtered wine." Is 25:6.
But regardless of clever argument, fascinating detail etc.,  it is only the word of God that is alive and exerting power in all that spiritual food. (Heb 4:12). Concentrating on anything else would be like eating the icing and ignoring the cake, drinking the gravy and leaving the meat, lapping up the dressing and leaving the salad! Bit like children (compare Heb 5:14). 


 

 

Who is more loyal?
This is a real conversation I had with a brother. He insisted I should follow some instructions in our congregation. I agreed but I also mentioned this arrangement was silly. Then, he insisted, if I were more loyal I would not think it was silly. So, I gave him one example:
One person is blind, and his master demand him: “take this envelop and deliver it in the house at the end of this road.” So, he does, helping himself with a walking stick, happy whistling while is serving his chief.
What the blind servant ignores is that the road is flanked, surrounded with deep cliffs. But as he didn’t see anything was very happy and confident.
Now. The boss orders to another employee doing the same thing, but this time the servant see perfectly the riffs. And still worst, he is afraid of heights.  But this second servant also obeys the master. This time without whistles, but swallowing saliva and sometimes closing the eyes.
Then, I asked to my interlocutor: who is more loyal?
And he insisted, “both sowed the same loyalty.” What’s the opinion of you, the reader? Who was more loyal?
A very difficult situation.
Sometimes, I putted myself in the next situation.  I am one of the men following David when he was persecuted by Saul. Then I get shocked, the anointed of Jehovah I admire give a very strange order: “let’s kill all Nabal’s house.” I immediately think this is a terrible injustice but, I ride the horse with the other 400 and obey the anointed. What a relief when Abigail stops him!
Years later I’m serving in the army under Joab. Then, my general give me strange orders from the King: Uriah must be abandoned in the middle of the fight. I think: “what, this is a murder.” But, of course, the order comes from the king anointed by Jehovah, sure the king has more information than me. Perhaps Uriah is a traitor. I feel terribly wrong, but I obey.
What I’m proposing is: if I want to be loyal, must always agree with the instructions from the “slave” class? Have I the right to think some orders, explanations, directions from these brothers are silly, sometimes completely wrong?
I follow these teachings, of course, but, please, don’t force me to always agree with them!

Holly, I'm afraid I do not subscribe to the beliefs of Christendom. To me, their leaders are counterfeit Christians, and most of who follow them, or profess to be Christians are such in name only.

Thanks for your comments. I see you have a lot of first hand information. Very interesting all you mention about these different matters. And I'm glad I understood more or less accurately!
The same you mention about the brothers in the headquarters is the same I've seen in my own country, regarding some deeds of our branch. I find it normal, because I've done the same myself as elder. Yes, we're humans... 
 

I know it is probably my bad, but I don't care about these things. What's the present understanding? I'll spin it that way out of loyalty. Should the understanding change someday, I'll spin it the new way. It doesn't affect my basic relationship with Jehovah or his Son.
I don't recommend that attitude, or hold it out as some example. But I just can't get too worked up over such things. They are 'cool' but not essential.

But you have to remember that the returnees, or those in exile, were not commanded to return to Jerusalem. That was left up to the individual. This was much different than the release from Egypt, when the Israelites were slaves, held under compulsory service. But as exiles from their homeland, many were given service in the government, some even became wealthy doing business in the territory. So when Babylon fell and the Word came to return, many may have weighed that call against what they had gained. But it was a false assumption, because again they were not putting spiritual things first.
Their return was not for their relief, but to rebuild the temple and Jehovah's named worship center. Not their own relief and homelife, which was what Nehemiah found when the work slacked, but their own homes were decked out. So those whose heart was true to true worship as Isaiah wrote, for righteousness would be on this road, being protected by Jehovah on the trek back home.
So some indeed stayed, but those 'seeking first' spiritual things left to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple and the wall and gate of the city, which had been burned by fire.

But we won't stop trying ....will we??

Of course this is the ideal situation and assumes that both sets of parents are spiritually mature, emotionally stable and promote a healthy and functional family environment. In such cases a predator has no chance and he knows it. The problem is that where either or both parents are spiritually immature, mentally unstable and the general family environment is unstable and dysfunctional (as was the case of the family of Candace Conti discussed above) then 1.They will fail in the three key responsibilities you mentioned, and 2.these kind of families are ideal targets for predators. They are the very families the predator will seek out. So already we have a problem, the stage is set for abuse.
So although I more than agree with the above, because it's a great recipe for prevention, and what's better than prevention instead of a cure...BUT it will not always work. Realistically, in this system, one will still be left with the "cure" and how to handle cases of child abuse focusing on helping the victim and protecting others from further abuse....

Thank you for putting my thoughts into words

Note the 'Russia Legal Update' at JW.org. Note the restraint and respect our people show toward government, even when treated abominably. No one is called a thug. A good example to imitate in lands where people are routinely abusive over less provocation.
Note the resolve of our people to be poured out in full, if need be, as first-century Christians were, as Paul was, as Jesus was. Pray for them and for us, that we may be so firm should our time come.
Some, hearing of Russian #persecution, are exuberant, others supportive. It's a good example of dividing into sheep or goats, foretold at Matthew 25.
 
 
Tom Irregardless and Me.  30% free preview 
 
 
    LikeShow more reactions CommentShare

This is a sad argument about the repercussions of the indefensible and despicable behaviour of people who call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses.
The monetary and reputational sanctions against all who are associated with the organisation is an additionally sad outcome for the extraordinary naivety displayed by all participants in this disgraceful scenario.
Hopefully, instructions like this:
and this:
"In all cases, the victim and her parents have the absolute right to report an allegation to the authorities.—Galatians 6:5."
and this: 
"If any congregation elder learns of a case of child abuse in which a child may still be at risk of significant harm two elders must contact the Legal Department at the branch office for legal advice on compliance. A report to the police or other appropriate authorities will be made immediately by the congregation elders if it is determined that a child is still at risk."
will be the start of a worldwide trend rather than an exception. (It is noteworthy that this policy is available to all members of the congregations in UK wishing to see it.).
The outcome of action as instructed will have serious impact, especially where allegations are involved, but (in my opinion) this will be just recompense for any engaging in questionable conduct of this nature, and similarly for those who even skate close to the boundaries of propriety in this regard.
Romans 13:3-4 can be be applied appropriately here.
This is a welcome move in the right direction despite the fact that methods to be applied for the appropriate determination of risk appear vague, and there is little on supporting victims. However, the UK branch of Jehovah's Witnesses appears to be less encumbered in this area than than the current UK Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse:   http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/636/636.pdf
The outcome of the Australian Royal Commission deliberations scheduled to start in March 2017 will be of great interest.
This debate continues.....sadly. 

I can tell already that the point I was making is going to be mostly lost. But it doesn't matter that much because my point really was unnecessarily negative, and now wasn't the right time to bring it up.
But thanks for catching on to the basic point. I'll use your comments as an excuse to go ahead and explain my reaction to the CNN article. There were about half-a-dozen points that crossed my mind.
This news story was not included to create a topic for a specific set of religious beliefs. It's in a general news section. In my response, therefore, I didn't mention the other verses specifically because I thought they could be viewed negatively, but because they might have just as well been seen as more appropriate, and sometimes even more important to the circumstances. There was obviously nothing wrong with the other verses I pointed out, and a good, appropriate sermon could have been made on those verses, too. Every part of the open Bible could have been used to bring comfort in the storm, or a reminder of Jehovah's might. The verse chosen was perhaps the easiest one to work with.  The story also reminded me of the joke that goes something like: "A man went and said 'I'll open the bible to a random verse and use it to guide my life. He opened it and it said "and Judas went and hung himself" he opened it again and it said "go ye and do likewise." ' " It reminds me that the exact same type of story gains traction when steel beams fall, and create the shape of a cross as they did in famous photos taken from the World Trade Center disaster. It also reminded me of the fact that sometimes there are deadly storms or airplane crashes, and many other man-made or natural disasters where many people die, and often one person, perhaps an infant, or photogenic child, will survive. The news often picks up on these stories and highlights the angle (through comments and interviews) that there must have been something special about that particular survivor, and God must have something in mind for them. Perhaps these stories work very positively for 99% of listeners, but another 1% are made to wonder if there is a certain hypocrisy in focusing on the "value" of the life of the survivor that, in effect, dismisses the "value" of those whose lives were horribly and violently ripped away. For some sincere believers, it even creates a false dichotomy about Satan being allowed to do a lot of bad, while God was able to intervene to do some good. It's a faith-strengthener for some, but a problem for others, because it's built on a false premise: Jesus apparently dealt with the problem that disasters were often surrounded by superstitious beliefs even when the disaster was actually random: (Luke 13:4) . . .Or those 18 on whom the tower in Si·loʹam fell, killing them—do you think that they had greater guilt than all other men who live in Jerusalem?
Superstitious beliefs affected the view of every form of human suffering: (John 9:1-3) . . .As he was passing along, he saw a man who had been blind from birth. 2 And his disciples asked him: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, so that he was born blind?” 3 Jesus answered: “Neither this man sinned nor his parents, . . .
Superstition is commonly utilized to explain coincidence, and if the subject is positive and upbuilding, we accept it as true and spiritual instead of superstition. The problem is that if the same superstition were used to explain negative coincidences, then the same type of thinking would be seen as "magical" or even "demonic." The existence of a very positive coincidence without superstition is actually difficult for us because we want to make sense of the world and believe that Jehovah is directly involved in all the good things of our material life, and this might require that we blame Satan for all the bad things of our material life. There is a depth of wisdom in Ecclesiastes that surpasses superstition, even though it does not discount the idea that Jehovah is still in full control of the universe:
(Ecclesiastes 9:11, 12) . . .I returned to see under the sun that the swift do not have the race, nor the mighty ones the battle, nor do the wise also have the food, nor do the understanding ones also have the riches, nor do even those having knowledge have the favor; because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all. 12 For man also does not know his time. Just like fishes that are being taken in an evil net, and like birds that are being taken in a trap, so the sons of men themselves are being ensnared at a calamitous time, when it falls upon them suddenly.
Many religions with holy or sacred writings often have members who treat the writings with a kind of superstitious "bibliolatry" where the sacred books like the Quran or Bible, for example, are treated like a kind of Ouija board. The person closes their eyes and opens the book to some random point, lets their finger drop to a verse, then they open their eyes and try to make sense of the verse, usually out of context. It's the basis for the joke in point #2, above. This doesn't mean that it will lead to anything bad (as in the joke above), but it might also mean that we are depending on a kind of magical rather than rational thought process, which is related to idolatry. (Romans 12:1, 2) . . .present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason. 2 And stop being molded by this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
P.S.
*** w81 1/1 p. 22 par. 19 “Engaging in the Holy Work of the Good News” ***
“I asked the householder what motivated her to study the Bible with Jehovah’s Witnesses. She said that often she would open the Bible at random, point her finger at a verse and read it. But she seldom could understand what she read.
“One day she was very depressed over serious family problems. Again she opened her Bible and picked out a verse. She could not understand it, and in her depression and disappointment began to cry. She prayed to God to send her someone to help her understand his Word. Just as she said that, the doorbell rang. Answering it she found a Witness, who began, ‘Would you like to understand the Bible?’ The householder pulled her inside and quickly a regular study was begun.”
 

Anna, I think your question is a very valid one. Let me share with you this point: Antioch congregation and Peter.

Quoting partly (some comments and emphasis added) from *** w78 6/15 p. 7

“When Barnabas and Paul brought this letter [from Jerusalem, resolving the circumcision issue] back to Antioch, there was great rejoicing in the congregation. —Acts 15:3-31.

It may have been after this that Peter visited the Antioch congregation and freely associated with uncircumcised Gentile believers. But, then, when certain Jewish brothers came down from Jerusalem [perhaps, again, teaching about the obligation of circumcision -Acts 15:1 -], Peter withdrew from associating with Gentile converts and spent time exclusively with Jewish brothers. Even Barnabas got unbalanced and did the same thing. But all responded properly when Paul reproved Peter, making clear how wrong such a course was. —Gal. 2:11-14.  

Well, it was clear that these two prominent brothers err in their judgment seriously. What I’ve never heard is the fact, I believe, that perhaps this was not a matter of declining some invitations for lunch. Imagine you’re a gentile sister in the middle of that congregation. You feel so happy because have the chance to preach with so valuable brothers, Paul, Barnabas and, imagine, Peter is going to visit your congregation. More speeches, more opportunities to preach with, perhaps, the most famous of the apostles.

As soon Peter arrives you make arrangements to go to some visits with him, he agrees and you enjoy listen his conversation. Later, you also enjoy hearing him giving speeches in the “kingdom hall.” But as you know, as soon the jews brothers arrived, Peter began to ‘withdrew from associating WITH YOU.’ Next congregation meeting arrives and you can feel the tension. The apostle Peter takes the word and you start to hallucinate. He’s is trying to justify his actions, even with scriptural basis, as the brothers from Jerusalem did: (Acts 15:1) ‘began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”’ Thank goodness Paul had the courage to resist him!

So far so good. I mean this is very known. But what happened 15 years later approx.? God inspires Peter to write his letters. Now theses letters arrive to Antioch y you are in the middle of the meeting, listening their reading. Now, you have two options.

1. How is supposed follow the advice in the letters from this man that everyone in the congregation knows committed a manifest judgment error? How is it possible God continues to use him?

2. Well, Jehovah has forgiven him. So, the same should I do.

I’m not sure if you’ll find these comments meaningful. Nevertheless, it still remains an important point: Peter’s letters were inspired, GB not. But, for now, my time is running out, I’ll try later.