Anna

A lot of this are what I'd call "Red Herrings". They're the "noble reasons" that the guy in prison gives for why they stabbed the guy. (the truth was the look on the other guys' face)
Let's suppose you're right. That all this was a power issue. Whom did they have power over? What did it get them? Money? Fame? It wasn't until much later that I even knew any of their names. I could have cared less.
I never once believed something because the organization said something was so. I never burned a pinch of incense to them. I read their arguments and some of them I agreed with completely and others I could see multiple ways. I didn't see the point with arguing about "tabs vs spaces" as it all compiled the same. I wasn't baptized into the WTS.
Now to current issues. I do think that the issues w/pedophiles and the like is extremely important. I don't think any JW doesn't think it's important. How each case was handled? I don't know. How the organization has handled it - probably could have done it differently and they certainly know it now.
Was the issue the "two witness"rule? Perhaps, and this is where you have to ask whether this was taken in the wrong context and it created this situation. To me it always seemed a matter of principal, that you didn't convict someone w/o good evidence, not a literal reading of the mosaic law that you had to have two witnesses.
Does the fault lie with a corporation, or with individuals and individual congregations?
It's being treated as a corporate crime and I know people have been hurt. Clearly this isn't just an issue w/JW's but also w/any group as the problem is a problem w/in society as a whole.
Did we expect to remain untouched by the problems in the world? I'd say that would be unrealistic.
I know that the training we had as well as the reporting was in our case always above board and legal and ethical. There was a case once where a young man about 15 was over at another families house and something happened with another young girl who was also underage, maybe 13 at a pool party. How was it handled? The police were called, and they investigated. That body investigated the circumstances as well. Nothing legal ever took place and the young man never had any further issues, though he changed congregations.  About 15 years after this he was being considered as an MS. Well this family heard of it and raised a stink. We had a meeting and some of the brothers seemed to not understand the issues here. 1. This was looked at by the police. 2. This was over a decade ago. 3. He had no contact w/the family or girl since that time. Yet some imagined we needed to examine this over again. I had to underscore that the "issue" was the issue of slander, not this thing which was investigated years ago. 
 
He did get an appointment and he's married and doing well as far as I know. The other family hasn't fared so well. Was this all the fault of the 15 year old boy invited to a poorly supervised pool party? That doesn't seem reasonable.
On the other hand continued abuse and neglect of serious situations clearly have taken place and been grossly mishandled. I can't imagine the suffering that these have had to deal with and no JW I know would want any of this to take place - yet it isn't outside the realm of possibility that corrupt elders and other corrupt people will find a home somewhere. You can see them looking sometimes to check out a congregation to see its spirit to see if this is a place where they can get away with things. No doubt some find a "home". It's terrible. You can have CO's who travel and they're supposed to check up on things and elders and elder bodies can disguise what's happening. That can happen.
What does this mean? To me it means people are imperfect, some are evil and some are imperfect and evil and you may even run into them in the congregation. You get the sense of who a bro or sister is by a lot of things, and people gravitate towards the ones they resonate with. That's why you have to keep an eye on yourself and your brother.
I remember one older elder grabbed me and took me into a room (I wondered why) and it was because he was accosted by this DF'ed sister who wanted to talk to him (he said he made a rule never to be alone w/a woman not his wife) and I thought that wise.

Everyone has to decide. Do they want to go it alone and try to be a Christian by themselves for fear that the contact with others or an imperfect organization will taint them? Turn them from the way? Or, do they want to be part of a group with whom they are in the most agreement that they can be recognizing that all these things which are wrong in human society can also be wrong and will be wrong in that group?

This is true. I remember in the movie Die Hard, the baddies appear to have a noble cause; to exchange hostages in order to free.....can't remember who exactly, lol.  Then the moment when it dawns on Bruce Willis's wife that this is not their intent at all because in reality they are nothing but "common thieves" and this hostage situation was just a cover up and to buy themselves time. Their true intent was stealing billions.
 
 

Or also...the tabs vs spaces nazis...
 

You remind me of people who say "I don't use GUI tools. If you can't do it at the command line you don't know what you're doing."

Are we not to be "imitators of God as beloved children"? I'm not a muslim who believes morality doesn't apply to God and that anything God does is by definition "good".
As to "playing the game" I'm saying that you're making accusations as if you have knowledge of the contents of another person's head. You don't, so you can't call it a "lie" unless you can prove the intent was to deceive.  The "game" is one you're playing. I just lobbed the ball back in your court and then you appear to be saying "See! You're playing the game!".
It could also be (like Jesus) that I'm answering you not for your benefit, but for anyone else who might be reading this.

Nice dissertation xero 🙂. I suppose what you are saying is that those who teach the Trinity, (I am talking about spiritual leaders, not laity) do so not because they can "prove" it is true, but because it is "tradition", because that is what the church was founded on and decided upon in the 4th century. It is true, if you've read any of the secular books on the inception of the trinity doctrine you realize what a political scam it was. Of course, most of these books are written by authors who are against the doctrine. There are many books though written by those who defend the trinity and present arguments for it. These theologians surely must believe with all their heart that the trinity is true. After all, they present "proof”. What then? I think the criterion for ascertaining the genuineness of such a person is; how would they react when presented with simple Biblical proof against the Trinity doctrine? Just for the sake of example, if the Pope was presented with simple, and logical Biblical proof, would he still hold on to his belief tooth and nail? That perhaps would be the deciding factor whether I should join his religion, whether this religion was the right one. That is what I meant when I said that the true religion should be able to change their erroneous teachings when finding out that they were indeed in error. So in this case, the Pope would go ahead and declare the some 1600 year held doctrine null and void and introduce Biblical truth. Obviously, for something like this to happen is unrealistic, that is why it is a strictly hypothetical example just to illustrate a point.. (what is possible of course is for the Pope to resign, but this would not change Catholicism).
So I still think that the measuring stick to finding the true religion is its willingness to change its teachings, and not whether it is teaching the truth per se. As Witness* brought out, we have not always taught the truth. Not only that, but we are still learning. The Bible itself says the light will keep getting brighter, until full daylight. Perhaps full daylight will not be achieved till the new system? You may have noticed on this forum discussions regarding 1914. There are many discrepancies regarding this “doctrine” if one cares to look. Your average brother or sister will be teaching this from how it is presented by the GB, without questioning it, or without looking at evidence against it.   

(*Witness is no longer a JW herself, so naturally most of what she says is in direct and bitter opposition to what she used to believe to be the Truth). 

I've read a lot of writings from the preachers from the 19th century and they all fail when it comes to the Trinity. They argue for it, but when they get beat, the do like Spurgeon and say:

Yes, willingness to change has to be there. The question is whether the change is coming from a more accurate understanding of scripture in context (biblical archaeology, textual analysis) or the change is coming from external forces in human society.
FYI https://archive.org/details/publicdiscussion00plum
The above is the text of a debate that took place in 1842 in Ridley, PA between Frederick Plummer and William McAlla - In it you can read the use of every argument for and against the trinity which I've ever read. (Of course I feel Plummer won hands down)

Nice dissertation xero 🙂. I suppose what you are saying is that those who teach the Trinity, (I am talking about spiritual leaders, not laity) do so not because they can "prove" it is true, but because it is "tradition", because that is what the church was founded on and decided upon in the 4th century. It is true, if you've read any of the secular books on the inception of the trinity doctrine you realize what a political scam it was. Of course, most of these books are written by authors who are against the doctrine. There are many books though written by those who defend the trinity and present arguments for it. These theologians surely must believe with all their heart that the trinity is true. After all, they present "proof”. What then? I think the criterion for ascertaining the genuineness of such a person is; how would they react when presented with simple Biblical proof against the Trinity doctrine? Just for the sake of example, if the Pope was presented with simple, and logical Biblical proof, would he still hold on to his belief tooth and nail? That perhaps would be the deciding factor whether I should join his religion, whether this religion was the right one. That is what I meant when I said that the true religion should be able to change their erroneous teachings when finding out that they were indeed in error. So in this case, the Pope would go ahead and declare the some 1600 year held doctrine null and void and introduce Biblical truth. Obviously, for something like this to happen is unrealistic, that is why it is a strictly hypothetical example just to illustrate a point.. (what is possible of course is for the Pope to resign, but this would not change Catholicism).
So I still think that the measuring stick to finding the true religion is its willingness to change its teachings, and not whether it is teaching the truth per se. As Witness* brought out, we have not always taught the truth. Not only that, but we are still learning. The Bible itself says the light will keep getting brighter, until full daylight. Perhaps full daylight will not be achieved till the new system? You may have noticed on this forum discussions regarding 1914. There are many discrepancies regarding this “doctrine” if one cares to look. Your average brother or sister will be teaching this from how it is presented by the GB, without questioning it, or without looking at evidence against it.   

(*Witness is no longer a JW herself, so naturally most of what she says is in direct and bitter opposition to what she used to believe to be the Truth). 

The message that Jonah gave the people, "in the strictest sense", was not a lie.  They heard the message that originated with God, and they repented.  Where is the lie?  
If you were a prosecutor, the fact that this didn't happen was a "lie".
You see how people can play this game?
Reminds me of a scene from the Pink Panther.
 

A - I would say expecially w/regard to the trinity, that you have to have (to get all epistemological about it in the Gettier sense), to have knowledge of something, to have true, justified belief (to have knowldege, it has to be true, you have to believe it and you have to have good justification for said belief).
To believe something is to be able to provide a rational belief, an account of your belief. If you say "I believe in the trinity", that's not proof of your belief. That's a statement. You have to provide justification.
If you say "I believe in the trinity because the Pope says it's true, or because my preacher says it's true, or because I don't want to be called names." We all know those are not valid reasons, any more than if a person were to say "The governing body says it's true, therefore it's true and those are my reasons". These may be reasonable in the sense of these "reasons" being correlated with the proposed belief, but to believe something you have to internalize the thing in which you ostensibly believe.
I see a cat. I believe I saw a cat. I touched the cat. I form a "catness" analogy in my head as to when something has passed into the zone of catness and when it's no longer a cat. My belief has boundary conditions, and is potentially falsifiable. But at the moment I say "I'm holding a soft, purring kitten" and you see it, and acknowledge it, then we have some grounds for saying we believe me when I say "I'm holding a soft, purring kitten".
The justifications are my sense data and your agreement w/my sense data.
What is it that this person is even talking about, when he says "I believe the trinity to be true."?
The word and it's use is so ambiguous as to require a lot of qualification. Most people are satisfied, like the reasoning book says when you say "I've accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, and I believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Holy Spirit is God's power." (paraphrased) People will say "Mighty fine!, Mighty fine!". You could even preach a sermon in their church - take an outline like "God's View of Sex and Marriage" and give it in any nondenominational church and you'd get no argument.
So do they believe the trinity? I don't think they even have a clear idea as to what they're talking about. You can't teach what you can't clearly define any more than you can believe it. It reminds me of an 8 hour discussion I had w/a pentecostal minister one long Saturday - like playing whackamole w/scriptures. I ended up eating dinner w/his family - nice people and all, but at the end he just had a Mona Lisa smile on his face like some carnival worker who took all my money so I could finally get a stuffed pony.

True that there are people who go along w/things. I see this more in the "raised-in-the-truthers" where the "make the truth your own" is something they have yet to do. And true also that tyrannical elements exist in the organization as there were too in the 1st century. People said things, and "leaders" said and believed thing which weren't true.
"2  However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ+ and our being gathered together to him,+ we ask you 2  not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement*+ or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah*+ is here." 2 Thes. 2:1-2
Peter had to get straightened out by Paul. Priscilla and Aqulla had to strighten out Apollos. There were people pushing circumcision. There was a fascination with angelology. There was the "sect of Nicolaus". People came and went. I'm sure there were people who thought certain the end was in sight then and preached to that effect.
People get things wrong a lot. Especially where God is concerned. Some have problems admitting being wrong, and maybe today you have some overly concerned w/lawsuits (guess what, there were lawsuits in the 1st century too).
At any given moment you have people w/a certain spirit about them. Is it their desire to tell the truth, or to trick you? People fool themselves 1st before they fool others. It happens all the time.
That's why you have to keep testing the inspired utterances, because there will be utterances and you have to keep checking to see if you are really in the faith.
Me? I think I'm doing good sometimes and then ten minutes go by and I'm like pig-pen from the Charlie Brown cartoons. I spiritually floss one tooth and the others get loose. It never ends.
I think of this written by Paul and feel the same way....
"21  I find, then, this law in my case: When I wish to do what is right, what is bad is present with me.+ 22  I really delight in the law of God according to the man I am within,+ 23  but I see in my body* another law warring against the law of my mind+ and leading me captive to sin’s law+ that is in my body.* 24  Miserable man that I am! Who will rescue me from the body undergoing this death? 25  Thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So, then, with my mind I myself am a slave to God’s law, but with my flesh to sin’s law.+" - Ro. 7:21-25
So to me w/organizations no matter what, you have yourself either alone and on your knees praying alone or you associate w/organizations who mostly appear to be doing their best.
Maybe some are being idolatrous w/organizations and maybe some are uncomfortable w/the ambiguity which comes from a living, breathing and imperfect faith and so they tighten up - well guess what? It's never stopped being that way and won't until Jesus intervenes in this system in a way that's undeniable to the entire planet.
 

I agree with everything you say...but could this not be said of most religions? What they teach, do they not believe it is true? For example the trinity doctrine, do those who teach it not believe that it is true? (Now of course it would be a different matter if they believed it was false, but taught it as truth). So really, it seems that the WT is slightly erroneous in stating that "the truth" is what makes a religion right, and you have already highlighted the reason why this is erroneous.  What I see as more important is the second part, where Jesus says that those who are like greedy wolves are false teachers. So it is the behavior, and consequently the fruits of a religion, that identify it as true or false.
Also, I would say that being eager to correct previously held wrong beliefs identifies the true religion as well. 

Why not? Because Brahma was born from a golden egg...... Later to  come forth from a lotus that issued from Vishnu’s navel.
Because Zeus was a child born of a couple of Titans, whose father ate five of his other siblings.
Because the flying Spaghetti Monster is the stuff of imagination just like the two previous mythological creatures. You and I can both come up with our own imaginative being and call him god.
You obviously believe that the Bible God, as you call him, is also the stuff of imagination. Considering how imaginative people can be, then the origin of God as presented in the Bible is positively boring. The description of creation is also boring. The only time the narrative gets a little adventurous is when God and the heavens are described in books such as Ezekiel and Revelation. But then we are told that these are merely visions and symbolic depictions, not that angels really have wings and God rides in a chariot with wheels that have eyes.
The Bible presents the creator in a completely unique way, compared with the description of all other "gods" in mythological writings. The Bible is also completely unique compared with the gobbledygook of other so called spiritual texts.

Well I don't get into name calling, but I do think there are hierarchies of interests and hierarchies of concerns. But, to play the side which is presented we could suggest the same of many in the Bible. Take Jonah. Did Jonah preach a lie?
3  Then the word of Jehovah came to Joʹnah a second time, saying:a 2  “Get up, go to Ninʹe·vehb the great city, and proclaim to her the message that I tell you.” 3  So Joʹnah got up and went to Ninʹe·vehc in obedience to the word of Jehovah.d Now Ninʹe·veh was a very large city*—a walking distance of three days. 4  Then Joʹnah entered the city, and walking a day’s journey, he was proclaiming: “In just 40 days more, Ninʹe·veh will be overthrown.” - Jonah 3:1-4
Now granted he got a direct message as the scripture says to tell Nineveh what would, in the strictest sense would be - a lie.
(But...they repent (now there was no conditional "Nineveh will overthrown in 40 days UNLESS you repent))
He even as much as said so later that he knew it was a 'lie'.
4  But this was highly displeasing to Joʹnah, and he became hot with anger. 2  So he prayed to Jehovah: “Ah, now, Jehovah, was this not my concern when I was in my own land? That is why I tried to flee to Tarʹshisha in the first place; for I knew that you are a compassionate* and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in loyal love,b one who feels grieved over calamity.
So I think that you have a point in the strictest sense, but even in a courtroom the intent, the mens rea is taken into account.
Did the ones saying such things in 1907 not believe them to be true? If they did was it a lie? Is simply teaching something which one believes to be true (but isn't) equivalent in all ways to "teaching lies"?
I don't see it that way.
 

No. It was an outlier congregation in every way. Even the guys wore makeup.

Naw, his was that rouge congregation we used to hear about where even a ministerial servant appointment required a 6-year degree.

Yes. But they stopped pointing to the end of the century back in the late 1980's as far as I remember. So in the 1990's one could only get this by implication, not from anything directly. So you didn't have a bunch of people actually getting closer to 1998, then 1999, who would start to say it must be by the year 2000 or 2001.
And it wasn't the GB trying to get attention by continuing to "cry wolf" as you said above. That would be a sure way to get people to stop paying attention, just like it works out in the story of the boy who cried wolf. It more likely shows that the GB were so sure it was true that they were willing to risk revealing how sure they were, and therefore risk not being paid attention to. I think they would only do that if they thought it was important.
On the other hand, I wish they didn't think that telling us how close we are to the end was so important. The point should always be how close we might be to the end so that we are prepared --not by thinking about signs and chronology-- but so that we are prepared by thinking about what sort of persons we ought to be. Development of true Christian character (i.e., love for God and neighbor) has always been much more important than trying to find visible signs upon which to hang our faith in the promises.

I'm not aware of anything like this in any congregation I've been part of. If I even suspected something like this I know our local boe has a different attitude. One bro said only half joking. "I'd invite someone like that to go on a hunting trip w/me. 'accidents' CAN happen while you're out hunting."

Many ex-JWs and opposers obsess over the fact that the Watchtower promoted these same expectations for the mid-1970's with a focus on the year 1975. My 3 children were all born in the period from the mid-to-late 80's, and I saw this same view beginning in my own children, matching that of the 11-year old "version" of the girl above.
To those of us who had been Witnesses during the 1975 period, most of us probably thought it refreshing that there was no longer a specific set of years being pointed to any more, and we seemed "safe" from date-setting. But even young children picked up on the idea that all this "suffering" for the sake of the kingdom was only for a few short years, and there would never be a need to learn how to make a living in this system of things. It really did change their outlook on school and career and marriage and providing for one's family. "Jehovah will provide" became a catchphrase of sisters who assumed that brothers with good jobs would be coming into the truth in time to make good marriage mates if somehow the system lasted long enough for them to need a husband with "means." I dreaded that this kind of attitude would influence my own daughter.
My own experiences with respect to 1975 might be considered sad to outsiders, but I don't look back at them with any remorse. I was baptized in 1967, and was still 15, almost 16, when I quit school in 1973 to begin f-t pioneering. I took to heart the Watchtower's counsel and advice that the system had only a few months after this 1975 period, not years. The commendations for selling houses and pioneering affected my family too. My father didn't believe in the 1975 hype, and even got in trouble (from the D.O.) after a circuit assembly talk, by adding that Jesus' words (about no one knowing the day or the hour) showed how we should also be balanced. That was rather unforgettable, but my father still sold our house and moved us into a rented house in 1974, so that my mother could begin f-t pioneering, too.
My brother started an office-cleaning business in 1974 as many other pioneers had done. Only, he didn't pioneer himself but kept expanding the business with more accounts and ended up providing jobs for about 20 pioneers. He finally sold the business for about $20,000 to a full-time pioneer (in '77).  I'm sure that the number of new businesses across the country called "Pioneer Cleaning Services" shot up considerably in this period. A lot of people probably don't know that "Rug Doctor" was started this way, and my brother was good friends with the Witness founder. Their web site only says that it was started more than 43 years ago (implying before 1977) but it was actually started in 1974/5.
In 1977, my Bethel roommate, my brother, and the daughter of one of the Rug Doctor partners were the only people I knew (at the time) who had been invited to Bethel without any full-time pioneering experience.
They had all involved themselves either in learning computer science or electronics (programmable microprocessor controllers) in my brother's case. So after Bethel, I got a bachelor's degree in computer science. The congregation and the elders were very prejudiced against it, but as long as I kept full-time pioneering during college I got away with it.
Times are a bit different again, and college is definitely no guarantee of a better job. It often brings unnecessary debt and stress. But I never discouraged college for my three children and, as things turned out, I'm currently glad I didn't. But there is still a lot of prejudice against pioneering in most congregations I know.
My kids all had music, orchestra, and choir in high school, and kept their skills up for another few years in college. They would draw the line at national anthems, too, but rarely bowed out of any other songs or performances. So much music is permeated with religious or political foundations anyway that it would be impossible to completely separate from it without getting out of orchestra or choir altogether. I think that most Witnesses compromise and hardly realize it when they participate in American high school music classes especially.

I think a lot of people who have left and a lot who have stayed have a lot in common. They haven't made the truth their own. Instead they either abdicate their free will to an organization or they blame an organization for their having left. In either case if the shoe fits is that "each one must carry his own load". Now you can't look at someone and know what box they fit into, but obsessive focus on the organization and the GB is, of course a clue. Supposedly we're supposed to be intently looking at and studying the perfecter of our faith - Jesus.
Elders aren't magical wise men, neither are members of any governing body. You can of course cherry pick and create whatever movie you want to play in your own head as the manner of your life and whether you're happy with it or not - still it's your own bed - you made it, you continue to make it and you must lie down in it.
Happy people will be happy, and unhappy people will be unhappy. As soon as people "stop kicking against the goads" and know that they are solely responsible for their own choices and the consequences which flow from these, they can begin really living. (as much as living can be living in this particular rendition)