Anna

I think we need to be reasonable though. I know there was all kinds of trouble surrounding the initial project, and I don't know a lot about it, but my impression was that since it wasn't our fault (we had not caused the pollution) it would be fair to expect that we should not have to be responsible for financing the clean up....
I think in these and similar instances if we take advantage of any secular means or provisions that help us achieve our goal, we are only doing what some of Jesus's disciples in the first century did also.

I think we need to be reasonable though. I know there was all kinds of trouble surrounding the initial project, and I don't know a lot about it, but my impression was that since it wasn't our fault (we had not caused the pollution) it would be fair to expect that we should not have to be responsible for financing the clean up....
I think in these and similar instances if we take advantage of any secular means or provisions that help us achieve our goal, we are only doing what some of Jesus's disciples in the first century did also.

Does anybody think that way?  We know not everything the UN does is evil. Not everything the Governments do is evil either, as Paul brings out; "Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it;  for it is God’s minister to you for your good". Wanting to do things "green" is a good thing, so there should be no reason for a Witness to lobby against that..

*** w20 November pp. 14-15 Take Courage—Jehovah Is Your Helper ***
HELP FROM INDIVIDUALS IN AUTHORITY
...
13 What help do we receive? When it is in harmony with his purpose, Jehovah may use his powerful holy spirit to cause people in authority to do what he desires. King Solomon wrote: “A king’s heart is like streams of water in Jehovah’s hand. He directs it wherever He pleases.” (Prov. 21:1) What does this proverb mean? Humans can dig a canal to divert the water of a stream in a direction that fits their plans. Similarly, Jehovah can use his spirit to divert the thoughts of rulers in a direction that is in harmony with his purpose. When that occurs, people in authority feel motivated to make decisions that benefit God’s people.—Compare Ezra 7:21, 25, 26.
14 What can we do? We can pray “concerning kings and all those who are in positions of authority” when these individuals are called on to make decisions that affect our Christian life and ministry. (1 Tim. 2:1, 2, ftn.; Neh. 1:11)
I notice that the Watchtower also includes this within the idea of paying back Caesar's things to Caesar, and even the idea of "being ready for every good work" is subsumed under the idea of performing "government" sponsored works:
*** w90 11/1 pp. 11-12 pars. 7-8 The Christian’s View of the Superior Authorities ***
7 Further, Paul’s exhortation to be in subjection to the superior authorities is in harmony with Jesus’ command to pay back “Caesar’s things to Caesar,” where “Caesar” represents secular authority. (Matthew 22:21) It also agrees with Paul’s later words to Titus: “Continue reminding them to be in subjection and be obedient to governments and authorities as rulers, to be ready for every good work.” (Titus 3:1) Hence, when Christians are ordered by governments to share in community works, they quite properly comply as long as those works do not amount to a compromising substitute for some unscriptural service or otherwise violate Scriptural principles, such as that found at Isaiah 2:4.
8 Peter also affirmed that we should be subject to the secular authorities of this world when he said: “For the Lord’s sake subject yourselves to every human creation: whether to a king as being superior or to governors as being sent by him to inflict punishment on evildoers but to praise doers of good.” (1 Peter 2:13, 14) In harmony with this, Christians would also heed Paul’s admonition to Timothy: “I therefore exhort, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, offerings of thanks, be made concerning all sorts of men, concerning kings and all those who are in high station; in order that we may go on leading a calm and quiet life.”—1 Timothy 2:1, 2.
Srecko brought up a point about how neutrality might be equated with lack of knowledge, but it is clear that knowledge would be necessary to distinguish whether those community works requested by authorities are not some form of compromise. 
It's easy to imagine a group of Witnesses who are told by government authorities that they must clean up a polluted lake or waterway before undertaking some large building projects on its shores, or that they must clean up the toxins that can carry runoff into the water to protect animals depending on it. In spite of the recent article about neutrality, when such situation occurred, Witness lawyers (and others) actually lobbied the relevant government authorities for favorable rulings. Lawsuits were initiated by the WTS to overcome the costs of some of these decisions. I know that brothers were called in to gain a lot of knowledge about the situation before some of these actions were taken. But I also talked personally with one of the lawyers involved and it was my assessment that the spirit of Jesus' words here were not taken to heart:
(Matthew 5:40-46) . . .And if a person wants to take you to court and get possession of your inner garment, let him also have your outer garment; 41 and if someone in authority compels you into service for a mile, go with him two miles. 42 ... 43 “You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing?
In the future, if WItnesses are told to build buildings that meet certain "green standards" to meet certain SDG's (Sustainable Development Goals) do you think that some Witnesses might rightly lobby against it, because these SDG's were suggested to governmental authorities by the UN, who only promoted them because they were a way of promoting "peace and security"? And we all know that when we support anything that combines "UN" with "peace and security" we are supporting Satan's schemes?
A little bit of knowledge won't hurt us. We should not be ignorant of Satan's designs either:
*** nwtsty 2 Corinthians Study Notes—Chapter 2 ***
we are not ignorant of his designs: Paul does not just say that “we are aware of his designs.” Rather, he uses a figure of speech called litotes, that is, an understatement made in order to give emphasis by saying that the opposite is not true. (An example of litotes can be found at Ac 21:39, where Tarsus is called “no obscure city,” which means an important city.) Accordingly, some translations render this phrase “we are well aware of his schemes” or “we know his wiles all too well,” which conveys similar emphasis.
This is a double-edged argument. Arauna is correct therefore to look to whether any of these "community works" are actually compromising. She correctly said she would have to "go along" with some of them even if she hated where they were coming from. But since we all stand individually before the judgment seat, we should all have a reason for the stand we take.

If you have a definite statement to make, you do not start with “maybe.” Your statement sheds no light on anything other than you hate the JW organization, which we all knew already.
In fact, if the counter.org article that began this thread is correct, there were none that did follow their view of USDA. They all had food distributions in their parking lots, you had to fetch the food quickly before it rotted, and run through a gauntlet of prayer services or ‘soul-salvations’ in the process. Only the JWs complied with the requirements of the program, insofar as the article states.
I have no idea where this comes from. I think Witness just made it up. It is not in any of the articles cited and if there are any statements about food being discarded, they are not associated with JWs. At the same time, if there were to be found any instances of this I would hardly be shocked. Have you ever had food in the fridge go bad because you did not eat it (or distribute it to someone else) in time? But on a large scale? No.
However, if you want me to state that the Watchtower did not go all out to fix the world’s broken system, I will concede the point. That does not mean that they abused anything, and it seems from the counter.org story that they were the only group that did not.
Can we agree that since JWs comprise .01% of the world’s population, what they do or do not do will not make a difference to the world’s success? If they did nothing but offer flowers to passerby on the street, they would not spoil the world’s efforts to save itself.
Frankly, I don’t see what’s so horrendous about even the “abuses” the article attributes to some church groups. Even if I find those abuses distasteful, still food is distributed to anyone who comes to fetch it. The counter.org article just reflects jealousy, in my view, that people of faith will do more to solve ills than do secular people, who are more apt to address it through massive agencies and then spend the rest of their lives on lawyers prosecuting the abuses and corruption that inevitably occurs. If people of faith want to call attention to what implants the generous spirit within them, why should the humanists not be able to live with that? They just loath God. Sometimes I think they would rather let people starve than to see them fed but preached to.
The problem with getting the food out is one of distribution, not supply. Here, Witness reveals herself as the hateful wench that she is as she repeatedly says, “Who needs organization?” Duh. That is exactly what is needed—it is not a supply challenge, but one of distribution—and that’s what Jehovah’s people excel at, and that is why they get the food out more effectively than anyone else. 
Now, to take up Witness’s statement again as a speculation, not as an indictment that it obviously lacks the strength to become, though she thinks it does—let us entertain it as a speculation, though the counter.org gives no hint of it...
The counter.org is a secular humanist organization, and as such I can readily believe it would pass over without comment any faith-based organization doing the work “properly.”. They are just jealous that people of faith will do what they cannot motivate their own to do on a scale large enough to get the job done, and so they malign the people who are getting it done. Even the Watchtower, with its firm stand on God’s kingdom as the ultimate answer, will say things of the greater world like, “True, some good has been accomplished, but....” But the counter.org article highlights nothing but what it thinks is bad.
So I’ll entertain Witness’s thought as a speculation: 
Maybe. What she means is that maybe there are some faith groups who are helping the world’s broken distribution system and keep their mouth’s shut about God as they are doing it. And maybe there are. More on this later, hopefully today, but maybe not till tomorrow or even Monday. My wife is after me to do some things that she foolishly thinks need doing. After I wet-vac all the rainwater in the house, hopefully I will have time to complete this comment.

I understand why they don't if pushback is to be understood as a defense in order to sway the "enemy" to your side. They know they will never convince the "enemy" so what's the point in trying? BUT if it was done for the benefit of those who are not "enemies" but genuinely want explanations and answers to those charges, then I think it would be a good thing. But they're not looking at it like that.....

Judging by the few comments in response there are ones who understand where you are coming from and are even grateful for ones like you, as one of them said: "My study conductor was always unsure about the what to say to the questions I'd bring. So I began looking for jehovah's witnesses that were/are responding and thankfully I found a good few, including yourself ....... and to be honest I'm not 100% certain that I would have continued if I hadn't been able to get answers to questions and honest perspectives on being a Witness".
In my opinion honesty is the key. Are we willing to admit mistakes and not try to justify or gloss over them? Why would we even want to justify mistakes? Wouldn't it be like saying we do not sin?  "If we make the statement, “We have no sin,” we are misleading ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous so as to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10  If we make the statement, “We have not sinned,” we are making him a liar, and his word is not in us". 1 John 1:8-10
For there is no righteous man on earth who always does good and never sins.  (Ecclesiastes 7:20)
So what's the problem, really? In fact the sooner one understands that, the less chance there is of being stumbled or shocked and leaving.

Oh dear, as someone here would say. I don’t know whether it is worth your time or not but I do know I will miss you if you leave.
As for me, I’ve tried to leave numerous times but the old hen always sings her siren song and lures me back:
”Oh mother, tell your children, not to throwww away their decorum,
Spend your life in sheer misery on the old hen’s world media news forum.“
 

I don't think the scripture meant that we need to pray out any particular persons or schemes, only that the men in high positions who make decisions that might affect us, and our preaching work, will make decisions that result in the kind of peace and security that have a net positive effect.
There's something to that, I agree. We get the necessary peace when they stay out of our way. But the verse can mean a range of things to different persons in different circumstances. Some get more specific in their prayers than others. I think we could even pray that someone comes up with a vaccine for Covid19. Some would say no, because that's like praying for a worldly medical institution.

No. I never saw any evidence provided by the UN with respect to this man from Ethiopia. I never saw any evidence from you either. Just a claim with no evidence.
Your assumption and judgment are both wrong in this case.
Perhaps you have been watching for a longer time, and perhaps, as you say, you don't have the kind of time to watch. But I get the impression that your sources are not from watching the UN anyway, but they come from conspiratorial, racist, lying and/or biased sources. I like to look at the viability of as many sources as I can, and I agree that this can be very time consuming. And I also don't think people should merely repeat slanderous accusations without taking some time to research these claims first.
It's easy to claim things you don't agree with are simply "irrelevant." If you have evidence, point to it. Show it. Give a link to the person who claimed that the WHO president genocided his own people, for example. I think there is none. But there is quite a bit of evidence that this was a lie from racist and politically motivated sources. I go where the evidence takes me, and it's not my fault when evidence for one way or another seems to "dominate."
We all have more important things to do. But I don't have anything against providing evidence. Evidence can come from scholars on all sides of a controversy. We can listen to all of them. And evidence doesn't have to come from just scholars and experts, either. An average person like me can take a video of something and it provides good evidence, too. An average person can track down an expert's contradictory statements, or admissions of making false statements, and this can provide evidence, too. (I just found an amazing admission of false statements by someone this morning and I'll make a post about it when I get time.)
I've given up on this forum a couple of times. But it's the only forum I use. I have a FB account I haven't written on in 4 years, and I have a Twitter account to read news, but I never write anything there. Also, this is a diverse group willing to talk about a lot of different subjects. I don't think any of us know many people at our Hall that would be comfortable with a lot of these topics. So I typically tend to come back after a few days.
I hope your move goes well, and I hope to see you on these pages again.

The problem is that I told the elders I wouldn’t do it. But because I believe the second part of your statement: 
I don’t beat myself up when I break my resolve. And I very much appreciate your kind words on the value of meeting specific accusations. From time to time I get emails stating the same.
When the elders met with me after the meeting, I had no thought at all of putting the experience online, as I have done above. That occurred to me later. 
I just came to think I’d let it stand as a real time example of responding to counsel even if I don’t agree with every aspect of it. The only examples of meeting with the elders that ever appear online are those written by unruly persons already on the edge, like Dathan and those guys, who rail at the attempt at “mind control” and cry ad nauseum over their right to free speech, missing every spiritual point in the process of making theIr dominant fleshy one: “No one’s telling me what to do!”
I don’t resent the counsel at all. I take it for just what it is—loving oversight.  I both accept and appreciate that Jehovah leads his people via a human agency, and I am grateful that there is something that corresponds to verses such as Hebrews 13:17, to “be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.”
As such, I accept they have the responsibility to counsel in line with scripture, and I don’t carry on as though my toes are being stepped on or my rights infringed upon. They represent the human link in the divine/human interface, they do not demand lockstep even though they give pointed counsel. I don’t consider myself above them. They are above me as regards authority.
I appreciate their efforts to check me, and as stated, I would be far worse in the absence of godly counsel to not engage with those who show by word or deed that acquiescence to Jehovah’s standards and all that is entailed is repugnant to them. It does me good to be checked by them, for I do believe that we become who we hang out with. We may not become it instantly, but we do so eventually—if not in point of argument then in forfeiting the Christlike manner—and often even in point of argument, as they are all based on following the trends of the day.
I would like it if there was a little more organizational pushback on some of the charges leveled against us. I’ve said it many times before. But you can’t always get what you want. You can’t always get what you want. You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need. 
And I have. I can’t go charging like an enraged bull. But that kind of conduct can get a guy skewered anyway. It does me well to do what I do under the discipline of conforming to theocratic counsel, even if in a few aspects I am not a stellar example of it. I am in other aspects.

They all close after two weeks. Partly it’s a concession to the old hen, who was concerned about my “spamming“ and so I assured her I would take hardly any comments and only for a short time—I’m not trying to lure from her site, which is a valid concern of every webmaster.
And then, too, I just don’t have the time to respond to everything. And while I don’t ban malcontents entirely, I keep a pretty tight rein on them—and that too takes time I don’t have.

Judging by the few comments in response there are ones who understand where you are coming from and are even grateful for ones like you, as one of them said: "My study conductor was always unsure about the what to say to the questions I'd bring. So I began looking for jehovah's witnesses that were/are responding and thankfully I found a good few, including yourself ....... and to be honest I'm not 100% certain that I would have continued if I hadn't been able to get answers to questions and honest perspectives on being a Witness".
In my opinion honesty is the key. Are we willing to admit mistakes and not try to justify or gloss over them? Why would we even want to justify mistakes? Wouldn't it be like saying we do not sin?  "If we make the statement, “We have no sin,” we are misleading ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous so as to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10  If we make the statement, “We have not sinned,” we are making him a liar, and his word is not in us". 1 John 1:8-10
For there is no righteous man on earth who always does good and never sins.  (Ecclesiastes 7:20)
So what's the problem, really? In fact the sooner one understands that, the less chance there is of being stumbled or shocked and leaving.

You probably are reading it and 4Jah is writing it. Off course they’re not paid.

Alas, Cesar, sometimes I feel that I am becoming one of them.
I told the elders that I would not get into squabbles with these characters, and I said that so as not to be oblivious to theocratic counsel. Yet here I find myself making sporadic ad hominem attacks. Of course, I don’t beat myself up too much over it—If these characters worked on their ad hominems a bit more, it wouldn’t happen. And it is also true that in the absence of theocratic counsel, I would be much worse. But even so, I am allowing personal exasperation to throw barbs here and there after I said I would not do it.
The long response was okay to this thread, of course, because that constitutes as though a letter to the editor. Maybe even the first retort to you-know-who can be overlooked since she is so much the way she is. But the third one was unnecessary and just reflects personal lack of self-control.
“I find, then, this law in my case: When I wish to do what is right, what is bad is present with me....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.  Miserable man that I am!” (Romans 7)
I have to behave better. I said that I would:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2020/01/a-bad-boy-turns-over-a-new-leaf.html

(Sigh...there goes my fine resolve.)
It has not been, you idiot. Examples of that are scarcer then hen’s teeth.
In plenty of other outfits, it is the rule. In fact, there is no mechanism in those outfits to even to detect abuse within the rank and file.
Please NOTE. Stay on topic, and do not pounce breathlessly on an example illustrating something else to bludgeon everyone once again with what you’ve said countless times already.

Seriously, would that not constitute a violation of neutrality, to be praying for the success of human schemes? It is enough not to be praying against them.
The little quip with the rabbi I threw in as a joke, but it is more than a joke. That’s how 1 Tim 2:1,2 should be understood, I think, that the governments come to understand our apolitical nature and thus leave us be to do our Bible education work.
As much as I am willing to acknowledge the nobility of many human intentions, it is the implementation that is always the problem, not the lofty goals in themselves, which may indeed be lofty. But the implementation falls short, due to Jer 10:23 about man being incapable of directing his own step.
What sticks in my craw about all these human goals is theIr assumption that it is head education (without mention moral sense) that is most needed.  I think back to that brouhaha with Annie O over her preferred CSA video—the one that drew circles around areas of a child that no one ought touch. It’s as though if a child is touched anywhere, he/she ought to consult the chart in his mind’s eye to decide if he should feel bad over it. Better the WT video that speak of a conscience—a conscience that will develop when ones are immersed and take to heart a godly atmosphere.
It was only icing on the cake when her pedantic video brimming with the wisdom of trusting education declared that it was okay if a doctor touched you in one of those hotspots. (whereas the Caleb and Sophia video said ‘let no one touch you inappropriately) “Ask the young women of the US Gymnastics team which video they think would have protected them more,” I said.

Well, I am not sure that I would go that far:
”Rabbi, is there a prayer for the czar?”
”A prayer for the czar? Of course: May.........God.......bless.......the.........czar—and keep him far away from us!”
Just trying to scratch out a little tune, here, without breaking my back.

He didn't make it up. It's all in the Bible as you very well know.
2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
7  But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels  8  in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9  These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength.
 
 

Happened in our service group too. Some older ones thought the same, but it was explained to them. Our congregation received a total of 50 boxes and all were distributed promptly by assigned brothers and volunteers.
Happened here too. No one wants to waste food. If the box contained half a dozen ears of corn on the cob and you had just bought an armful, the logical thing is to give them away to others who might not have any.
I wouldn't know either, but it does sound like she has a chip on her shoulder, as you insinuate.

Happened in our service group too. Some older ones thought the same, but it was explained to them. Our congregation received a total of 50 boxes and all were distributed promptly by assigned brothers and volunteers.
Happened here too. No one wants to waste food. If the box contained half a dozen ears of corn on the cob and you had just bought an armful, the logical thing is to give them away to others who might not have any.
I wouldn't know either, but it does sound like she has a chip on her shoulder, as you insinuate.

He didn't make it up. It's all in the Bible as you very well know.
2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
7  But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels  8  in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9  These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength.
 
 

You ridiculous woman!
Did he said he was going to do it himself, or is it not rather his expression of faith that God is going to replace human rule of the earth with his kingdom?

Trump himself passed them out in our congregation.
[No, I’m kidding—there will always be someone to take it seriously] 
And if there was anything hush-hush about the program, that never reached my ears. I posted both here and on my own blog of it.
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2020/05/produce-from-the-usdaisnt-that-nice.html
In our service group, when an elderly sister remarked on how the brothers had bought this food, the one with oversight told her it was not they—they were just distributing—it was a government program that they had signed on to.
I do get the concern, (not of Witness, for she just wants to deride her rivals) but of the ones who originated her source material, that maybe there is someone who needs the food more. And that certainly could be. The part where Bro Hendricks says ‘we advised those who received packages not to turn them down’ and later presents the rationale that they will be inclined to underestimate their own burden—“downplaying any private struggles with food insecurity”—I can see that, too. (My wife and I are not destitute, but we are retired and we do live off social security—living modestly as Witnesses do, so that the stipend is far from huge) I responded the same way that Hendricks suggested some might respond: there will be others who need it more—and we were told that if that is the case, we could share with neighbors and others. I know of ones who have done this. How many? No idea. People of faith tend to take to heart Jesus’ counsel to not let the right hand know what the left is doing and not to blow a trumpet in front of them whenever they give. At some point you have to put faith in the “little people” to do what is right.
Since JWs are the lowest income group of all faiths (and Witness sneers over that too, no doubt), even if aid went no further than they and their immediate associates, it would hardly be a travesty. But, as indicated, they were encouraged to share if they felt there were others who could benefit more.
The trick is finding these ones. The solution of leaving it up to the individual to share with cases that he/she personally knows of is probably as efficient as any, and It may be the most efficient. If you are poor, you will likely live in a poor neighborhood, and will know of serious cases of need. If you are a Witness not poor, you will know of some who are, because Witnesses are a tightly knit community, and can find out about such hard cases through them in the event that none are in your immediate area.
Witness’s concern is only to slam JWs, but the tone of the article is irreligious in general, and whatever potential abuses of USDA rules it describes are not those of Jehovah’s Witnesses, even of such lesser charges as swapping the government logo for a religious one. The box we received plainly said ‘Farmers to Families—USDA.’ (and I am glad I took a picture of it for my prior post, because you know that Witness would not mention it)
Those church outfits will have to speak for themselves, and I noticed that some had no comment, in contrast to Hendricks, who did. Still, doesn’t jealousy account for much of the article’s tone, that communities of faith are motivated to have effective distribution channels that far outstrip those of non-faith, those purely secular? Says the article: “Many food banks and other nonprofits have complained that they’re incurring significant, unexpected expenses related to storage and last-mile delivery.” Not to be unfeeling, but whose fault is that? 
Faith, love of brother, and love of neighbor has moved ones of the JW organization to overcome these “unexpected expenses related to storage and last-mile delivery.” The packages I’ve received have been delivered directly to my door, and I have indeed shared some with others who were not recipients. JWs thus set an example showing secular outfits how it can be done. All those outfits need to do is find similar selfless people.
Of course, they do have some. I’ve nothing but praise for secular food relief organizations. But they don’t have such selfless ones in anywhere near the abundance as does the Witness faith-based community, and that is why massive lines have accompanied some distributions—one wonders if in some cases the aid received is not offset by the cost of gasoline in retrieving it. 
In the early days of the pandemic, before monitory relief came from the government that temporarily took the pressure off many, I wrote a check to one of these food banks. I don’t like the idea of people going hungry. I wanted to give, and I did so. Yet, as I did so, I had to come to grips with the certain knowledge that inefficiencies built into such programs would dilute my contribution. It pains me that this is the case. I wish it were not. I wish they could draw upon enough people in the overall community to solve distribution issues—it’s produce, after all—it can’t sit around forever. At heart, the issue is that non-faith does not move people to be selfless to the same extent as does faith, and the article seems to me an expression of jealousy that such is the case. Is it so shocking that that when people of faith give they want to call attention to what implanted that generous spirit within them? The article appears even to have even political overtones, complaining at the perceived shortfalls of a Trump administration program.
Of course, if there are abuses of the system, then someone ought lower the boom on whoever is committing them. “Saving” people in the parking lot, soliciting donations for the program, offering prayer sessions as a condition, things that Witnesses do not do, does sound as though it might violate the spirit or even letter of the program. And are parishioners poor to start with, as JWs in the aggregate are, or are some well-off? All proper matters to look at, it seems. But at present, this looks to me like another article—I have seen many—that highlights the abuses of some churches and by headline suggests that Jehovah’s Witnesses are the worst of them, even though Witnesses steer clear of such shenanigans.
I wouldn’t know just what is the case with “Heather,” whose complaint triggered this article. But I reflect back upon when I was working in a group home that hired a new assistant manager. In short order, I began to feel some heat, and in time I went to the house manager about it. “For some reason, I think she is trying to get me fired,” I told her. The manager thought that unlikely. She asked me why that would be, and I truthfully told her I didn’t know. But I then mentioned that it turns out she and I know hundreds of people in common, for she was once a member of my faith. “Oh,” the manager said, and instantly her tone changed. She said no more, I said no more, and I heard no more, until a week or two later that that asst manager had been discharged. The hostility of some ex-JWs is hard to fathom.
 

Yes, and one of those standards is the two witness rule.

Just last night, my hubby and I were watching a series on "Evil Murderers". This particular episode was about a man who tortured and murdered 8 women. He was caught and admitted to the murders, not only that, but as proof he gave the police the names and details of what each victim had been wearing. He also told them the name of one victim who got away 15 years earlier, describing in detail how and where she got away. The police checked their records and found the surviving victim, and exactly matching details of what she had reported. The woman, who had been 21 at the time, had not been believed all these years, even though she had marks on her body. Her own mother said she made the story up. The woman ended up in counseling for years, and said she even started doubting herself. Imagine how she felt when 15 years later she was finally  vindicated. The murderer was convicted, and put on death row, but even when the criminal admits to the crimes, and even where there is undisputed proof of guilt, the criminal can appeal many times. As a consequence the appeals process takes decades to complete, and costs the taxpayer millions of dollars.

Why am I telling you this story? You will only say "we'll that is the world, you guys should be better anyway"  Well yes, I should hope we are better, and when the death penalty was in existence during Israelite times, this guy would have been executed immediately. Today, we (JWs) don't execute people obviously, however, the consequences for a crime can be severe. You all harp on about how devastating disfelliwshipping is. Do you not think that before this action can be taken it has to be established that the "sinner" really is guilty? How would you feel if you lived in Israelite times and one person falsely accused you of something deserving the death penalty, and no second witness was required? What about today. How would you feel if one person falsely accused you of something deserving disfellowshipping, and you were disfellowshipped on the basis of that one person's testimony? If you are honest, you will admit that the requirement of at least 2 witnesses would be quite desirable in that case.

As regards CSA, the org. is not in trouble because of some maliciously and wrongfully applied scripture involving the two witness rule. The org. is in trouble because it handled cases of CSA at a congregational level only, without involving outside authorities, (who by the way without adequate witnesses would not have done anything prior to the 00's either, and you know all about that, as you didn't get any justice).