ComfortMyPeople

I think it might be useful at some point to discuss the "Letter of Barnabas" ("Pseudo-Barnabas") in more detail. Not to defend it or even to defend its assumption that the Stauros was T-shaped. I think you will have noticed that there have been more statements recently from the WTS, even the recent JW Broadcast, that indicate that we can sometimes find points of value and interest in these "early Christian" writings. And even where clearly apostate, it should not hurt us to be able to discern some of the history of these apostate inroads into pure Christianity.
I read Pseudo-Barnabas and see a lot of problems with it, some of which you have mentioned, and which have been pointed out by scholars for more than a hundred years. But I also see some amazing parallels to the type of thinking that was popularized by Seiss, Russell and Rutherford, most of which later had to be discarded since their time. Most of the letter, as I read it, is tainted, but you can still see what Christianity must have meant to a large segment of Christian-associated society in the second century, who valued this letter. I think the second century was a critical one to understand, especially in light of how Jesus' prophecy about the visitation of judgment on Jerusalem (their synteleia/parousia) was seen in the context of the universal synteleia/parousia to follow. I don't find "Barnabas" to be inspired at all in his take on Jesus' prophecy, and I do find First and Second Peter to be inspired. Yet it's quite possible that Barnabas was written well before these two letters of Peter were completed, and they include a similar topic: a commentary on statements we can find in Matthew 24.
Treating it generally as a "rotting carcass" might make a certain amount of sense, but not so much sense when we compare it with the striking parallels in say Volume 3 or even Volume 7 of Studies in the Scriptures, or later comments of Rutherford. I think the latter were comparatively worse, when it comes to the amount of truth, or "signal to noise" ratio, one could glean from these later publications. And yet I would never think of those WTS volumes as a "rotting carcass," but rather a product of the thinking of a segment of Christian-associated society in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

I suppose you are referring to the fact that most Witnesses think that "spirit-directed organization" refers to the idea that the persons responsible for directing the WT organization would therefore have a greater measure of Jehovah's holy spirit, or at least a special measure of holy spirit specifically for the work of guiding and directing what counts as "spiritual food."
*** wp17 No. 1 p. 15 Is It Just a Small Misunderstanding? ***
The holy spirit also moves more knowledgeable Christians to come to the aid of those seeking greater understanding.—Acts 8:26-35. *** w17 February p. 24 par. 5, 10-14 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? ***
Christians in the first century recognized that the governing body was directed by Jehovah God through their Leader, Jesus. How could they be sure of this? First, holy spirit empowered the governing body. (John 16:13) Holy spirit was poured out on all anointed Christians, but it specifically enabled the apostles and other elders in Jerusalem to fulfill their role as overseers. For example, in 49 C.E., holy spirit guided the governing body . . . .  In 1919, three years after Brother Russell’s death, Jesus appointed “the faithful and discreet slave.” For what purpose? To give his domestics “food at the proper time.” (Matt. 24:45) Even in those early years, a small group of anointed brothers who served at headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, prepared and distributed spiritual food to Jesus’ followers. . . . .  the Governing Body to focus on providing spiritual instruction and direction. Evidence of holy spirit. The holy spirit has helped the Governing Body to grasp Scriptural truths not previously understood. . . .  Surely, no human deserves credit for discovering and explaining these “deep things of God”! The Governing Body echoes the apostle Paul, who wrote: “These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit.” . . . . can anything other than holy spirit explain the rapid increase in spiritual understanding since 1919? Evidence of angelic assistance. The Governing Body today has the colossal task of overseeing an international preaching work involving over eight million evangelizers. Why has that work been so successful? For one, angels are involved. What I think that many persons might find confusing here is that the article specifically used examples of how wrong we have been in the past as proof of the direction of holy spirit, otherwise how would the Governing Body have been able to make so many changes to its own false doctrines. The same article included these words:
The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food. So how can we answer Jesus’ question: “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?” (Matt. 24:45) What evidence is there that the Governing Body is filling that role? Let us consider the same three factors that directed the governing body in the first century. 13 Evidence of holy spirit. The holy spirit has helped the Governing Body to grasp Scriptural truths not previously understood. For example, reflect on the list of beliefs clarified that was referred to in the preceding paragraph. Surely, no human deserves credit for discovering and explaining these “deep things of God”! I think the biggest source of confusion is the contradiction between the idea that we don't yet have perfect knowledge and yet Jesus promised his disciples:
(John 15:26-16:13) 26 When the helper comes that I will send you from the Father, the spirit of the truth, which comes from the Father, that one will bear witness about me; 27 and you, in turn, are to bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning. . . . . For if I do not go away, the helper will not come to you; but if I do go, I will send him to you. . . .  13 However, when that one comes, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own initiative, but what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things to come. The contradiction is pretty obvious:
The Governing Body claims to be directed by holy spirit; The holy spirit was supposed to guide Christians into all the truth when it was poured out in 33 CE after Jesus was no longer present; The Governing Body admits to a long list of errors going back over 100 years; Many of these new errors and false doctrines were introduced after Jesus was supposed to be present again in 1914. The Second Adventists (and Seventh Day Adventist branch) resolved the issue by calling their false doctrines "Present Truth." If doctrines were found to be false and therefore changed, then the new doctrines were "present truth" and those past false doctrines were "present truth" at the time, even if time proved them to actually be false. Clever! It was based on a mistranslation/misinterpretation of 2 Peter 1:12. But in the tradition of Second Adventists, we (Bible Students/JWs) also needed to adopt the same solution, especially because we were promoting pieces of a chronology that was continually being proven false. For many years, the Watchtower used 2 Peter 1:12 to defend the idea of "present truth." We now admit that it was based on a mistranslation/misinterpretation. But it remained in Watchtower vocabulary for many years. At one time the doctrine has been so important it was capitalized.
*** w52 4/1 p. 219 An International Assembly in Rome ***
those who had already come to the truth must keep up with present truth. They must appreciate what the Lord provides through his organization and study diligently. *** yb88 p. 139 Korea ***
The Watch Tower of August 15, 1914, printed a fascinating letter addressed to Brother Russell, stating: “I am a stranger to you in one sense; but I came to a knowledge of Present Truth through your writings just twenty-two months ago. For some time I have been anxious to write and tell you of my special appreciation of the Truth, but circumstances did not permit until now. The real solution, I think, is found in Jesus' words about what the "spirit of truth" would lead them to. Truth is not the same as "accurate knowledge." Jesus said it would focus on three things: the truth about sin, righteousness and judgment:
(John 16:7-11) . . .For if I do not go away, the helper will not come to you; but if I do go, I will send him to you. 8 And when that one comes, he will give the world convincing evidence concerning sin and concerning righteousness and concerning judgment: 9 first concerning sin, because they are not exercising faith in me; 10 then concerning righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; 11 then concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. For other things, like this issue of cross vs stake, we should have absolutely no problem telling the truth about it. The truth is that we cannot be dogmatic. The truth is that we don't really have proof one way or another. It is NOT the truth to say that "Jesus was therefore executed on a single upright stake." But the truth is very accessible. All we have to do is say that, based on current evidence, Jesus may have been executed on a single upright stake, but there is also evidence that he may have been executed on a dual-beamed cross. It appears that both of these methods, and several others, could fall within the meaning of the term "stauros" found in the Scriptures.
So we have no reason to believe that holy spirit has not already led Christians "into all the truth." We even know the truth about cross versus stake.

The PDF linked earlier, "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Cross" Leolaia, 1990, speaks of semantic restriction by which some Watchtower doctrines have developed by focusing on only the simplest etymological meaning of a word like parousia or stauros or xylon, etc. In the case of "hand" there was found good reason to go with semantic expansion to fit our traditional beliefs on the subject.
Of course, this is not the only way that we (and, frankly, all Christian-associated religions  and others, too) solve problems of textual understanding. We could have used the method of resolving apparent contradictions by merely making up a third story that allows for a strict sense of the text to be true. For example, we have two versions of the death of Judas in the gospel accounts:
(Matthew 27:5-8) . . .So he threw the silver pieces into the temple and departed. Then he went off and hanged himself. 6 But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said: “It is not lawful to put them into the sacred treasury, because they are the price of blood.” 7 After consulting together, they used the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. 8 Therefore, that field has been called Field of Blood to this very day. (Acts 1:18, 19) 18 (This very man, [Judas] therefore, purchased a field with the wages for unrighteousness, and falling headfirst, his body burst open and all his insides spilled out. 19 This became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language A·kelʹda·ma, that is, “Field of Blood.”)
To accommodate a strict-sense reading of both versions, we merely make up a third story that makes both versions true. We say that Judas bought the field in the sense that he provided the money even though others bought it. We also say that Judas hung himself but since there is no mention of falling in the first, and no mention of hanging in the second, we say that while hanging himself the branch broke and he died from the fall when his body burst open.*
So the WTS could have solved the supposed problem created by a strict-sense use of the word "hands" by merely adding a third story, not in the text, that Jesus may also have been bound to the stake in addition to being nailed. I read of a Roman slave carrying the patibulum through the public streets on their way to execution and having that patibulum tied to the arms of the slave. The patibulum of course, could become the crossbeam of an upright stake.
The fact that no third story like this, however plausible, has been suggested tells me that "semantic expansion" has been the solution, and this is the easiest idea to support from the Greek and from Scriptural usage of "hand."
*I think it's "funny" that when Papias (60 AD - 130 AD?) went to Palestine hoping to find first-hand corroboration of some of these early accounts he discovered completely different versions. For example, Judas was supposed to have blown up so big and fat, like a balloon, that he burst asunder and all his guts (fecal matter) were spread around. (His weight could have been part of a "third story" solution that explained a breaking branch!) The versions Papias learned told of Judas in this same condition, I think, being run over by a chariot (so that his fecal matter spread around on the ground). Mentioning the spread of someone's fecal matter as a most disgusting death was not limited to pagans. It is very explicit in the account of how Ehud kills "fat king, Eglon." And it's implicit in the idea that dogs ate up the body of Jezebel in the plot of Jezreel.
I saw this at https://www.gotquestions.org/nails-hands-wrists.html
While historical scholars are uncertain of the nail placement in Jesus’ crucifixion, or anyone else’s for that matter, the Bible simply says that Jesus had wounds in His hands (John 20:25-27). The Greek word translated “hands” is cheir, which means literally “hands.” There is no Greek word for “wrists” in the New Testament, even though some versions translate Acts 12:7 to say that the chains fell off Peter’s wrists. But the Greek word in this verse is also cheir. It's possible that the nails may have been angled to enter through the hand and exit through the wrist, but it's just as likely that the nails were driven straight through the hand somewhere near the base of the thumb. Experiments have shown that both ways do work and either way could have been used in the crucifixion of Jesus. I have also read that the "experiments" were some "scientist" nailing up cadavers to test the theory. Evidently just the hands alone actually could support the weight of any corpse he tried. Weird science.

I thought a little about this stake or cross story today. And I came to the conclusion that Jesus has been put to death on a simple stake.
Here is my reasoning:
It seems that the Romans used to leave in the ground the stakes on which they used to hang the convicts. Indeed, why redo a hole each time? Not to mention the stony ground of Palestine and the fact that a stake planted and replanted many times would end up having trouble standing up after a while. So the theory that the stake was fixed is very plausible.
I read that generally the convict carried with him, not the entire cross, or the stake according to our beliefs, but only the crossbar, which was already weighing very heavy. Then the prisoner was nailed to this crossbar and hoisted on the stake. The crossbar was placed into a notch made on the pole. So we have, stake already in place plus crossbar = cross.
Now, if you are an inhabitant of the region and you are talking about the coming execution and you have before you the instrument where the convict will be hang, a simple piece of wood in the ground, would you speak of it as a cross or as a stake? If one shows the stake to a stranger who knows nothing about how prisoners are put to death and call it a cross, the other man would have difficulties to understand what he is talking about since he does not see any cross but a stake and can not imagine that the convict will come with the crossbar.
In my opinion, but I do not have the infused knowledge, since the crossbar was brought with the prisoner, I think it's likely that people were talking about hanging on a stake at the time, the crossbar being a simple support that was not part of the pole itself. The instrument of punishment was therefore the stake. Once the prisoner hoisted up, his hands tied to the crossbar, we had before our eyes a cross. But it is quite possible that they continued to talk about it as a stake, since that's how it was named the rest of the time.
That could reconcile the Jehovah's Witnesses with the rest of Christendom: for the first, Jesus died on a stake, since that's the name given to it and it was the instrument that was under the eyes of the inhabitants of Jerusalem night and day, for the others he died on a cross since Jesus came with the crossbar and once hoisted, we had before our eyes a cross.

Wikipedia shows a simple staurogram on an oil lamp from Caesarea, now at a museum in Israel, that could have come from the 300's CE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staurogram#/media/File:Nahsholim-Tel-Dor-3187.jpg
This was one of the pieces of evidence that made me think that some Christians, especially those with Jewish family backgrounds, might have found staurogram designs to be preferable to the type of graven imagery apparently forbidden in the Mosaic Law.
There is also early imagery like this:
The graffiti is dated to the late second century, likely within 100 years of the book of Revelation. It shows a man looking up to a donkey on a cross and says in Greek: “Alexamenos worships god.”
It's polemic, of course, depicting Jesus as a donkey. The book that @indagator recommended by Frank Shaw, discussed elsewhere, helps explain why Jesus was depicted as a donkey. The word for donkey seems to be a bit like onomatopoeia, like calling a donkey a "hee-haw" or "Eeyore". In Coptic the word for "donkey/ass" was EIO and the divine name known to have been used by Jews and evidently Christians and even pagans for the Jewish God was IAO [Ya'o/Yaho], the equivalent of "Yah" or "Yaho" [cf. Jah, Jaho, Jahowa].
Jewish and perhaps even Christian writers changed the names of pagan gods slightly so that they would sound insulting. (Compare Beelzebul, "Lord of the High Place," to Beelzebub, "Lord of the Flies."). The similarity between a word for "donkey" and the Jewish God's divine name made it a prime candidate for the same type of derision. And the Jewish name for Jesus contained both the divine name "Yaho" and the connected word for "Savior" or "Salvation." (Yaho-shuah/Joshua/Jesus means "Jehovah [Yaho] is Salvation.")
It was not because of the legend that "Your Savior will come riding on the back of a donkey" is the reason for the cross on the back of so many breeds of donkeys:

Maybe there were shades of dictatorship, maybe someone was frightened of something. But the reason I share all of this is because we need to know that people will have the same problems now as they had for thousands of years.
Think about what you might have done if you lived in the reign of King Manasseh or had knowledge of David's immorality before it was put in CONTEXT by the rest of the Bible. Of what about being stumbled by the way men from James, and also John and Peter were acting with respect to the Judaizers mentioned in Galatians 1 and 2. Or if you knew that the "Governing Body" had given a decree including not eating meat sacrificed to idols and then you heard the apostle Paul preach that it was OK to eat meat sacrificed to idols? Or what if you had heard Jesus say you have to eat his body and drink his blood? Or what about all those superfine apostles that attracted followers of men in first-century congregations? What if you heard that Peter had killed 2 contributors to the early congregation for holding back some of their claimed contribution.
These might have seemed causes for stumbling, and we could easily conceive of many brothers backing away from their congregations in doubt or even defiance of false understandings. But what was the correct response? If some might have known better, or saw that something was not really handled Biblically, would merely running from it have been the loving thing to do?
I think some have too high an opinion of what the GB represent, even higher than what the GB are claiming themselves. For those persons, it's good to review the record. For others, too, it's good not to place too high of expectations on humans, but appreciate the truths themselves. The message outweighs the messenger.

It was well-known that he would be threatened with dismissal if he grew a beard, even though his was very neatly trimmed and short. It had happened to others. Why in the world anyone would want to test this was a mystery to me. He didn't even claim it was a skin thing which might have got him a reprieve. He was not disfellowshipped, but he was dismissed from Bethel and remained an elder after shaving. There was no written rule about beards that I ever knew of. Rutherford was adamantly against them, and I think it was just a long tradition, and it fit in with the idea of trying to present ourselves at all times without giving anyone a cause for stumbling.
No, it was forbidden because housekeepers were on the lookout for Bible study material that was not approved and several brothers got in trouble for owning it in their rooms. The crackdown on Bible study in groups was done because someone (perhaps more than one person) thought there was a direct connection between this and the rumors of apostasy. It turned out that there were dozens of such Bible study groups uncovered that had been going on since the early 1970's if not before. I attended two per week, about two hours each, in the room of a member of the Writing Department, and I knew others who had attended others also often in the room of members of the Writing Department, former Gilead Students etc. The ones I attended were discussions of a chapter or two at a time of the Bible in context until the whole book was finished. After every paragraph a brother would ask questions to draw people out, and people would comment about what it seemed to mean in context.
One of these meetings, I think it was the one in the room of Mark Nevajans (who was not in Writing, and might not have even been a Bethel Elder), was turned in for allowing the discussion of alternative doctrines like "great crowd" "other sheep" "disagreement with 1914". I'm told that this sparked a kind of "witchhunt" where everyone had to "rat out" anyone else they knew who was participating in Bethel Bible studies. These studies turned into a big scandal which were actually forbidden. Then ownership of non-Witness commentaries was questioned, and the actual idea of a "commentary" was questioned -- which was the basic mistake made in the book "Commentary on the Letter of James" which made it considered to be "apostate." Bethelite access to the Bethel Library and Gilead Library was also restricted. Those libraries were full of commentaries of all kinds. Very soon, these libraries were both moved to another building away from Bethelite access, and away from buildings that were residences like 124 and 107 CH. They were now attached to the offices of Writing, Service, etc, and were much harder to get to.  Smaller libraries of only a few of the WTS books and a dictionary replaced them for the average Bethelite's use.

I agree, and there was considerable overlap between education in scripture and education in literacy, anyway. I don't see a conflict at all, just an interesting point of discussion when it comes to variations in possible translations of the same Greek word(s).
And although you implied that we should compare all the versions of the NWT instead of just 1984 to 2013, I don't see anything of any importance in such a project. From what I shared above, you can probably see that the types of changes were usually of very minor consequence. Of course, there have also been changes that were deliberate because they were considered very important, such as changing "worship" to "obeisance" especially when the previous reference had been to "worship" offered to Jesus Christ. But these were well explained along the way in the Watchtower, the Appendixes, and the footnotes.
I like the chart. Where would you place the 1984 NWT and the 2013 Revised NWT on such a chart?
I don't see any reason to criticize the Watchtower for revising the translation. I think it was an excellent idea.
By the way, I forgot to mention that the use of "prove to be" (proving to be, proves to be, proved to be) was a common complaint from readers of the 1950 to 1984 version. More than 95% of those instances are gone, but not all of them.

According to the record from the Watchtower Society itself, this is about right, if you don't count some interim corrections to typos, page headings, and grammar inconsistencies. (These are minor, but there have been at least 16 additional versions if you count these minor printing updates.) For example the original NWT of Psalms in the 1963 and 1964 "Fat Boy" NWT had a big bold typo (Psalm 17 was marked as Psalm 71). The large print (bi8) printed in 1971 had some typos, such as switching the font of the verse number itself from regular to bold and back to regular --most noticeable in Hebrews 9:27 where the 2 is bold and the 7 is regular, and even a couple of subject-verb agreement errors that were fixed up until 1984, well before the 2013 Revised came out. When the 2013 came out a heading on a page 267 was wrong, Psalm 51:4 was changed, and there were still some inconsistencies with capitalization and usage. 
Here's one example with the capitalization of "Ark" [of the Testimony]. Exodus 25:22 still has one remaining inconsistency:
(Exodus 25:16-22) 16 You will place in the Ark the Testimony that I will give you. 17 “You will make a cover of pure gold, two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. 18 You are to make two cherubs of gold; you will make them of hammered work on the two ends of the cover. 19 Make the cherubs on the two ends, one cherub on each end of the cover. 20 The cherubs are to spread out their two wings upward, overshadowing the cover with their wings, and they will face each other. The faces of the cherubs will be turned toward the cover. 21 You will put the cover on the Ark, and in the Ark you will place the Testimony that I will give you. 22 I will present myself to you there and speak with you from above the cover. From between the two cherubs that are on the ark of the Testimony, I will make known to you all that I will command you for the Israelites. (2013 NWT) Exodus 25:22 (1972 bi8) . . . the two cherubs that are upon the ark of the testimony . . . (1972-1984) Exodus 25:16 And you must place in the Ark the testimony that I shall give you. (1984) Note that in 2013 every instance of "the Ark" is capitalized except this one in verse 22. Also verse 10 does NOT capitalize it in 2013, but did capitalize it in 1984. And you can see above, in verse 16, that Ark was capitalized in 1984, but in no places was testimony ever capitalized. 
As far back as the 1953-1961 versions of the NWT, "Testimony" was capitalized, but "ark of the testimony" was not always, even in the same context, or sometimes just Ark and not testimony:
(Numbers 7:89) he would hear the voice conversing with him from above the cover which was upon the Ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubs [upon the cover].” (1953) (Exodus 16:33,34) Moses said to Aaron: ‘Take a jar and put in it an omerful of manna and deposit it before Jehovah as something to be kept throughout your generations.’ Just as Jehovah had commanded Moses, Aaron proceeded to deposit it before the Testimony as something to be kept. (1953) (Num. 17:10) Subsequently Jehovah said to Moses: "Put Aaron’s rod back before the Testimony as something to be kept for a sign to the sons of rebelliousness, that their murmurings may cease from against me, that they may not die." (1953) Also note that in Deuteronomy, the term "ark of the testimony" is never used; it's always "ark of the covenant," (a different Hebrew word) but this doesn't ever get capitalized in any NWT of any date. (There are exceptions in quotes from the Watchtower in the 1950's, 1960, and 1976, but not in the NWT itself. ["ark of the covenant" "Ark of the covenant" or "Ark of the Covenant".] Of the hundred or so references, there has been no capitalization since the 1970's.)
(Deuteronomy 31:26) “Take this book of the Law and place it at the side of the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God. . . (2013) (Deuteronomy 31:26) “Taking this book of the Law, YOU must place it at the side of the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God. (1960-1984)
In fact, between 1961 and 1964, there were literally hundreds of pages that needed re-pagination along with the page headings, dozens of footnotes with the wrong J-references, cross-references, footnote letters skipped, wrong hyphenation breaks, a couple of misspellings, mismatched single/double quote marks, and at least a couple of grammar changes. There is some evidence of these changes in one of my "Fat Boy" Bibles where you can see that certain pages were updated, and these resulted in a brighter light-green edging on the updated pages (which includes Psalm 17, of course). See the pictures below:
 
 

 
 

I only claim to be a Barbarian interested in Justice and Mercy ..... but the best way to get it is serving Jehovah God.
It's like when R2-D2, C3PO, Luke, and Obi-Wan Kanobe, stopped their speeder on a cliff overlooking Mos Isley Spaceport, and Obi-Wan said (paraphrased) "Never has there been a more wretched hive of scum, and villany"
Jehovah's Witnesses, warts and all, in reality ... are the ONLY game in town.
Drivel and incompetence and greed, no matter how you dress it up, is still drivel, and incompetence, and greed ... HOWEVER ... the Truth, no matter how you dishonor it by being a standard big ugly bag of mostly water, as we all are ... including EVERYBODY in the Governing Body, as well as you and me .. is still the TRUTH.
I was baptized before 1985,  before the oath of allegiance was changed to include the Corporation structure.
Whether or not I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses is a matter of debate.
I think I am.
I hope God agrees.
It depends on who you ask.
 
 

Thank you JW Insider, for providing absolute proof. 
BillyTheKid46  would deny the existence of a car if it ran over his foot, because all his friends don't believe cars were ever invented.
I was there .... and as you know, there are literally whole CHAPTERS on this subject that have been posted in the past seven or so years, here on the Archive.
Any idea if it is possible to download the whole archive, since the beginning, to a large USB 4 TB hard drive?
It might come in handy to have some off-site copies, since the format and such has changed so many times...
I am having trouble keeping track of my cartoon and meme collection.
Thanks for the "heavy lifting".

Bill Nye is more of a "promoter" than a scientist. He definitely does not belong in the same category as Richard Feynman. I've read two of Feynman's books and they are really good, and reflect true science. I loved "What do you care what other people think?" because it draws non-scientists into his world.
Echos of your doppelgangers here. They always have said the same thing about the 1975 fiasco. It's true that no Watchtower literature ever contained a prediction that Armageddon would arrive in 1975. The point was that at some time in the 1970's we should expect Armageddon to be no further than a matter of months, not years, away.
*** km 9/73 p. 1 par. 4 Intensive Tract Distribution ***
Why is the distribution being done in such an intensive manner? Because of the impact that this will have on the public. People talk to one another, and they will soon realize that nearly everyone they know was served with the same urgent message. This will make a far deeper impression than would a gradual distribution over many months. Furthermore, we realize that the time remaining for this wicked world is greatly reduced. Opportunity for people to learn the truth and take their stand on Jehovah’s side is fast running out. *** km 5/74 p. 3 How Are You Using Your Life? ***
Yes, since the summer of 1973 there have been new peaks in pioneers every month. Now there are 20,394 regular and special pioneers in the United States, an all-time peak. That is 5,190 more than there were in February 1973! A 34-percent increase! Does that not warm our hearts? Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end. I started regular pioneering in the summer of 1973 and quit school even though I was technically still 15 years old, turning 16 before the next school year. I have to admit, it felt good being one of those statistics. My parents then, as a favor, sold our time-consuming farm worth about $50,000 (1974) at the time for only $10,000 to a brother and moved us all into the city. The brother we sold it to broke up the old farm acres into several subdivisions, got power and septic tanks to all the lots, and probably made a million dollars by now. He's no longer a Witness (and recently died too) but several Witness families still live on those acres.
And of course, quitting high school at age 15 was not just recommended by circuit overseers. It was the subtext of the following prophecy made in Watch Tower publications in 1969, preparing us for "What Will the 1970s Bring?":
**g69 5/22 p.15
"If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things. Why not? Because all the evidence in fulfillment of Bible prophecy indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years. . . . . Therefore, as a young person, you will never fulfill any career that this system offers. If you are in high school and thinking about a college education, it means at least four, perhaps even six or eight more years to graduate into a specialized career. But where will this system of things be by that time? It will be well on the way toward its finish, if not actually gone!" Awake!1969 May 22 p.15  And all of it was based on a totally unbiblical belief that each of the 7 creative days were 7,000 years in length, which supposedly made it significant that we were evidently coming up on then being 6,000 years into that seventh day. Why ever bring up the 6,000 years since Adam if we weren't pushing its supposed but unbiblical significance?
*** w68 8/15 p. 499 pars. 29-30 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
That means, in the fall of the year 1975, a little over seven years from now (and not in 1997 as would be the case if Ussher’s figures were correct), it will be 6,000 years since the creation of Adam, the father of all mankind!   Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes. Our chronology, however, which is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible), at the best only points to the autumn of 1975 as the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence on earth. It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the “sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the “seventh day.” And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years. Then of course, in 1972 and 1973 the Watchtower promoted the "Ezekiel" book and other publications with the statement that the faithful and discreet slave was a prophet. Not just a "prophet" with quotes around it, but literally, a prophet. This was not very different from statements like this one in 1924 referring to Rutherford and another like him:
*** g1924 p.149 ***
" . . . Judge Rutherford is permeated with the real Biblical and prophetic spirit, ceases not in his discourse to defy the devil and throw (morally) an inkwell into his face, as the deceased Luther did. . . . This year 1924 is worse than 1914."

Hey Brother Billie..your way out on this....it is undeniable if you watched the ARC...we as a people were found to have faulty policies...that’s a fact..we were forced to ammend them.
Kids suffered because elders did not report or advise them to go to authorities...we tried to handle it in house....because Jehovah’s name was involved...some of these kids were shoved aside by their spiritual elders...come on brother..we have to accept responsibility where we were wrong....
otherwise the Catholic Church can lay it all down on the parents as well...
we as a people would not handle cases of abuse as we once did....but back then we did shove it under the carpet in a number of cases.
The child suffered...having said that many were handled well as could be...but we dont hear about them.
The GB made the Policies brother...and now have amended the policies..
Keep in minds for those who will jump on this as proof we are not his people......the Catholic Church and Anglican  Chirch has a percentage of well over 50% ..I forget the actual number but I’ve quoted on the low side....Jehovah witnesses had a ratio of 1%
so this needs to be kept in perspective...
It was a era of naivety on our parts ..as parents and probably elders as well...it was a different time ....we trusted to much....but then again the apostles didn’t recognize Judas when he was amongst them either...
 
 
 
 
 
 

At a Circuit assembly we had a Bethel brother admit a number had been hurt by the organization...and were justified in their pain..he admited  we had problems with in the org..and even tho they are trying to fix them..he admitted they probably won’t  be fixed before the end comes....
when Jesus cleaned out the temple with whip etc...at no time did his apostles or any followers join him in doing that...so it will be when he returns....
He allowed Solomon and Saul to rule as kings for a long time after their falling away...
you honestly think any man..annoited or not can do what belongs To Christ...look at the pattern of his people....it’s not hard to work out....
There is a reason for him allowing things to be as they are.....

I understand your points and you have expressed them very well. I will address each point you raised separately, but first I just want to mention a few general things which have perhaps shaped the perception of people like you and me. I grew up in the "truth" in the early 80's when the GB was mostly an anonymous mystery, at least to many who were living outside of America. The "truths" people like me assimilated during those years were turned into dogmatic doctrines by people like me. We always talked starting a phrase with "we KNOW....." as if we could never make a mistake. We had a general attitude of superiority. WE had the truth and therefor WE were somehow better than other people. WE had an answer for "everything".

And then came the age of the internet. It was a kind of "Internet enlightenment". It had been around for a while before that, but soon everybody had access to it, and was using it. Information that the ordinary person wouldn't have had before, became available to them at the touch of a button. There were things that were "discovered" by the ordinary brother and sister that were there all along, but that were only known by more prominent brothers and sisters, which included those involved with Bethel, but also ordinary brothers and sisters which happened to live closer to the "source" . But now the ordinary brother came to know things that at times "shocked" him, because in their little personal world they had built a picture, but that picture wasn't always correct. As I mentioned, dogmatic opinions on various subjects were formed, which actually were not intended to be understood that way. Here is an example of what I mean; I am sure you know of instances yourself, where a elder giving a talk would  expound on something he felt strongly about. A kind of "pet" subject of his. Most of the time the audience would take what he said as gospel truth, and talk about it like it was fact and part and parcel of "official" teachings. But all it actually was, was the brothers opinion. This happened many times  in the days of only a brief outline of a talk, giving the speaker much freedom to practically say anything he wanted.
A classic and famous example is that of Charles Sinutko giving the talk about 1975. He wasn't just an elder, but a district overseer, and he gave that misleading talk in front of an audience of thousands. Similar talks were given around the world no doubt. I was too young at the time but @Outta Here remembers such talks, and also the almost "fanatical" approach of some in the congregations. Was this all the GB's doing? It wasn't, but it shows the freedom that existed with regard to expressing ones opinion in an "official" setting, by means of talks etc. As you probably know, now there are strict outlines for talks. Not only that, but elders are instructed to Only give the Bible's advice when serving in a shepherding or judicial capacity, and never give their personal opinions. I am sure this new approach became a necessity because of the damage personal opinions had caused in the past.
One I want to focus on specifically  is the handling of child abuse. The congregation was well equipped to prevent child abuse on the surface. But it was all contingent on members actually reading and applying what was in the publications that discussed those issues. The JW congregation has always been very strict on upholding moral standards. In comparison, the rest of the world was in a moral decline (think "free love" that started in the 60's) and with it no doubt came problems associated with loose morals. Secular authorities were ill equipped to handle accusations of rape and child sexual abuse, as you yourself can testify.  In this environment Elders were trying to handle something that was disgusting and shocking and should have never occurred in the Christian congregation in the first place! Some Elders got confused and misapplied WT 1973/11/15 "question from readers" regarding the application of 1 Cor 6:1-7, and the interpretation of 1Timothy 5:19.  Many Elders were stuck between a rock and a hard place with regard to reporting to the police because of the way the police handled (or not handled) these cases, and because many victims and their families did not want to report to the police. It was almost like an attitude of: "this is our private problem, and we will handle it as our private problem". 
Finally today, secular authorities are educated and equipped enough to address these issues properly, and I would say we are at the pinnacle of "enlightenment" with regard to CSA, at least in the western world. Victims are at last able to come forward and be heard. Abusers are being tried and punished. This has also spilled into historic sexual abuse of women as in the #metoo brigade. BUT despite all this, CSA and the abuse of women is as rampant as ever unfortunately....

You have a good heart John and I feel you have unnecessarily thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
But I do want to address those issues individually that you mentioned, but I will have to do that tomorrow now as I am running out of time and have to go and cook dinner....
 

They stumbled ... or were they tripped?
 (Mark 9:42) . . .But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith, it would be better for him if a millstone that is turned by a donkey were put around his neck and he were pitched into the sea. . .
I can not but agree with a lot of the exposed by  some of you.
The steward (slave) class, I think, represents any brother with authority over others in the congregation (in the house).  Par excellence the brothers on charge over the worldwide work fits more than any other to the meaning of the slave parable.
Presently, we’ve reduced the meaning of the Jesus’s illustration to a mere warning, a remote possibility: the slave NEVER become bad. I understand it’s difficult to admit, as difficult as it was for the apostles to recognize that, in spite of being warned by Jesus, they would betray and abandon him. “We… do that! Never!
Similarly, the Bible, everywhere, warn us the God’s people, overall, globally, will face a bad condition in precisely the last days:
Between others:
·        The foolish virgins
·        The slave with one talent
·        The man not wearing a marriage garment (Mt 22)
·        The slave hiding the mina (Lk 19)
·        The love of the greater number will grow cold (Mt 24:12)
·        Critical times (in the congregation, please note the context: 2:20; 3:6)
And more precisely SOME of the brothers on charge
·        Some of those having insight (Da 11:35)
·        The evil slave
·        The steward
 
Now, concerning this thread we have the situation about the 1975 issue. Was it a mere doctrinal point, without relevance?
·        1976 service year publishers: 2.138 million
·        1978 service year publishers: 2.086 million
Thousands of little ones stumbling
Has been shown in this thread some “sincere” recognition of guilt or responsibility from the responsible brothers. But, sincerely, these sounds to me as the Aaron’s answer:
·        Ex 32:22, 24: “You well know that the people are inclined to do evil…  Then I threw it into the fire and out came this calf.” It was the people’s fault, not mine. The calf arose by itself from the fire, I just had nothing to do!
The same pride I observe in myself, and many others overseeing the flock. The difference lies in that I harm to my family, perhaps to my own congregation, but the brothers on charge of the worldwide instruction harm the entire brotherhood.
Regarding this harm, presently, the most dangerous doctrinal matter affecting, not our ideas, but the real life of sincere Christians around the world is the deals with disfellowshipped persons, more precisely family members.
This is a horrible misinterpretation of the Bible teaching in 1 Cor 5. I literally cry many times observing families broken, many times with life wounds. Perhaps another day I will write more about this, so don’t extend now.
And, regarding the part of the parable saying starting “to eat and drink and get drunk,” (Lk 12;45) I also wish to point out some ideas in another post.
Am I worried? Yes, certainly, but confident that as Jehovah in all times disciplined and cleaned His servants so will do if He see it necessary (yes, I see it necessary)

Lol...well I probably am a misfit...I smiled at that..but I think I will still follow Joshua’s and Kalebs example....they would have hated to see what Aaron was doing with the Golden calf...I’m sure they would have stood apart mentally and spiritually  from that...but they didn’t leave the camp....they showed great faith that Moses would come back...and I’m sure many were very confused at that time....I too will wait for Jesus to come down from the mountain....and correct his people...
I remember a number of personal accounts of sisters and brothers being put into German  concentration camps...they would often get taunted by their captors because those in leadership at that time...COs and Elders and even those in authority of the branch office betrayed them.....and those little sisters of no account and probably viewed as insignificant in the cong ...said.....”they may do as they wish..but for me...I will remain loyal to my God”
So this little old misfit will do the same....:).....along with many many others who will stand firm and loyal to their God and Christ....You have underestimated so many of us...
.
 

True. Also, it was an accusation from outsiders and therefore not necessarily an accurate reflection. But there is also the fact that it is not rebutted in Acts, and it fits what Jesus said about revealing truths not to the wise and intellectual. 
(Matthew 11:25) . . .At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children." Paul recognized the same point, and even spurned his own educational training as worthless.
We can also combine this with the fact that of the original 12 apostles, only two of them, Matthew and John, were ever credited with writing a gospel account. But even this is based on later traditions. Nowhere, in any of the gospels do we even see the names of the writers, whether Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. There was an early tradition that Matthew had written a gospel and that it was originally in Hebrew (Aramaic), but this gospel could not have been the one we now call Matthew. There was also a well-known gospel called the "Gospel of Peter" that probably originated in the second century, but might have even been written in the first century while the apostles were still alive. In spite of the name, it was not taken seriously after the second century, and the "Gospel of Mark" was seen as Peter's gospel through a "second" hand.
Yes. The Watchtower has referenced this view.
*** w09 7/1 p. 4 1. Ask the Author for Help ***
Jesus’ apostles were considered “unlettered and ordinary” because they had not attended rabbinic schools for religious training. (Acts 4:13) Nevertheless, Jesus assured them that understanding God’s Word was within their reach. Although the very next year, the Watchtower moved back to the idea of illiteracy in language education.
*** w10 10/1 p. 30 Speaking in Tongues—Is It From God? ***
Spreading the good news to that extent would require the use of many tongues other than Hebrew.  However, many of those early disciples were “unlettered and ordinary.” (Acts 4:13) How, then, would they be able to preach in distant lands where languages were spoken that they may never have heard of, let alone learned to speak? Holy spirit empowered some of those zealous preachers with the miraculous ability to preach fluently in languages they had never before learned to speak. I have read the view that many Judeans of this time and even many more Galileans and Samaritans never learned Greek, but knew and spoke only their form of Aramaic (sometimes called "Hebrew" as in the above quote from the 2010 Watchtower). Being unlettered (illiterate) in the sense of not knowing how to read and write in your language even if you spoke it fluently, is considered an insult to one's intelligence in most societies today. But illiteracy was very common in the first century, and no one expected anyone to be able to read and write except a certain level of soldier required to send reports, certain types of merchants, and the rabbis who would need to learn to read for the synagogue services. Not even the average tax collector needed to know how to read and write, even though we now tend to think of some kind of accountant/scribe.
Because we anachronistically consider it to be such an insult, we think we are coming to the defense of the apostles by saying that this was only referring to a special level of illiteracy and a technical meaning of "ordinary."  We forget that "rabbinical schools for religious training" were precisely where persons learned to read and write. This is why even the persons we would today call civil lawyers came out of this same class of education (Pharisees, scribes). Josephus, for example, rose in military rank in Galilee due to his rabbinic training, i.e., literacy. After his capture by the Romans, he maneuvered quickly into Roman acceptance due in large part to literacy.  
I'm glad you pointed out one of the meanings of idiotai, as it would be easy for English readers to only see the insulting cognate when the original term did not have the meaning "idiot."

You are doing a great deal of work in rummaging through archives of old material like this.
I hope you realise that the time and effort and expense that you are putting in to this, like all the others so engaged, is actually only providing us with some entertainment? It is only fair to point this out in case you thought you were accomplishing something else more serious. But given that, carry on please.
When there is time to read through these old ideas, it provides a light diversion from the more serious business of living, and indeed, saves some valuable time in avoiding the necessity for doing the same thing twice.

The Bible is the perfect book it should be. But we should discern the spirit of the Christian message and not be distracted with so many lower-priority details that we miss the forest for the trees. As brought up in the post to @Outta Here we need to be alert to what we are being taught. If we understand the "spirit" of the message and the "priorities" we will not be quickly shaken from our reason in believing a message has apostolic authority when it really was just some speculation over less important details:
(2 Thessalonians 2:1, 2) . . .we request of YOU 2 not to be quickly shaken from YOUR reason nor to be excited either through an inspired expression or through a verbal message or through a letter as though from us. . . I think most of us would agree that the idea of priority of the objective has been perfectly met in the Bible, and is perfectly encapsulated in 1 Timothy:
(1 Timothy 1:5-7) . . .Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly.

Yes. Excellent point. I believe it has everything to do with it, and I believe that Paul was well aware of the responsibility and understood very uniquely from his own situation why such a spiritual gift was so important. After all, he was not one who had heard Jesus speak personally during Jesus' earthly life, and Paul at times, had to rebuke the very apostles who had such influence on others. The idea, I think, is even carried in the verse in the context of the idea of making sure of the more important things:
(Philippians 1:9-10) 9 And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that you may make sure of the more important things, so that you may be flawless and not stumbling others up to the day of Christ; Of course, Paul also made good and purposeful use of extra-Scriptural references which also were "useful for setting things straight and disciplining in righteousness," but in order for future congregations to be built especially upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Paul knew that, not just the Hebrew Scriptures, but also the authority of the apostles would become both the doctrinal and practical foundation of the congregations. He had to set things straight even among the other apostles, and the apostles were able to give Paul counsel, too. (Gal 2:10)
Fortunately, we don't need now to question anything that comes through the authority of the apostles. But we still need to follow the same principle of discernment that Paul used when questioning and accepting doctrine.
(Hebrews 5:12-14) 12 For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong.
Today, of course, we also need to be reliant upon good scholarship to avoid acceptance of certain statements that do not have "foundational" apostolic authority and yet have crept into our Bible texts. It's a modern form of the same spiritual gift of accurate knowledge (and full discernment.) 1 John 5:7.8 is the best example, The New World Translation committee has accurately removed the non-authoritative parts of 1 John 5:7,8, but there are dozens of full verses removed in lesser-known examples found in some of the older texts (not usually the oldest texts) and found not to be as reliable, based on "textual criticism." Some of these omissions seem innocuous, but they are still without sufficient apostolic authority to keep in the context with the authoritative verses.
By calling our Christian Greek Scriptures "apostolic", we acknowledge that some were not written directly by apostles, because most of the apostles were evidently unlettered (illiterate) and required second-hand "secretaries" to record their first-hand experiences and memories. Writings by non-apostles were accepted on the basis that they were understood to have come from those with a direct relationship to the apostles, and who lived at the time of the apostles. The significance given to this idea comes through the statement from Paul that the number of eyewitnesses to Jesus resurrection was known.
(Luke 1:1, 2) 1 Whereas many have undertaken to compile a statement of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as those who from [the] beginning became eyewitnesses and attendants of the message delivered these to us, (2 Peter 1:16) 16 No, it was not by following artfully contrived false stories that we acquainted YOU with the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but it was by having become eyewitnesses of his magnificence.
(Acts 1:21-23) . . .It is therefore necessary that of the men who accompanied us during all the time in which the Lord Jesus carried on his activities among us, 22 starting with his baptism by John until the day he was taken up from us, one of these men should become a witness with us of his resurrection.” 23 So they proposed two, Joseph called Barʹsab·bas, who was also called Justus, and Mat·thiʹas.
(1 Corinthians 15:5-7) . . .and that he appeared to Ceʹphas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still with us, though some have fallen asleep in death. 7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
 
 

True, some people have integrity and good parental training and example but the Bible still warns us about trusting in our own heart. Good parents teach their children etiquette.  This helps them to avoid what the scripture below is speaking about:
 I did not find the wording that I used to hear as a youth.  “Shun the very appearance of evil”. But this scripture appears to be saying the same thing.
 
1 Thessalonians 5:22-24 King James Version (KJV)
22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.
 
(Proverbs 4:14, 15) Do not enter the path of the wicked, And do not walk in the way of evil men. 15 Shun it, do not take it; Turn away from it, and pass it by.
 
 Every law has principles to help you to apply the law.  That is where etiquette comes in.  From what I see being done today I wonder whether people still instill these principles in their children, so they can avoid poor decisions that will lead into sinful conduct.
 
 
 
 
 

Many, many people ... totally innocent people ... have been shot to death, or spent years in prison, because they APPEARED to be guilty of some societal or cultural infraction.
I used to tell my children when they were small, and would go through a store, picking up things to look at them ... it is not only important to BE innocent ... it is important to APPEAR to be innocent.
STUFF HAPPENS.
 

I think that hits the point exactly. The elders, especially during previous years, were directly taught at KM school (Elder Training) that the first time that there is suspicion of two persons of the opposite sex spending hours of time alone together, that there should be some kind of very strong counsel and even sanction due to the appearance alone, even if the elders were convinced that they were innocent of loose conduct. It was the same at Bethel, because there was a rule against being alone with a sister in your room unless the door was open, this meant that as soon as the door was closed, there should be strong counsel and even sanction. I knew that the rule was often broken, and I think that very few would turn someone else in, yet multiple infractions of the rule could mean dismissal.
If a couple of the opposite sex ever were seen to have contrived to be alone together, it was simply assumed that they went too far in their conduct with one another. The elder training gave examples of appropriate questions to ask, even if it was not overnight, and these questions assumed the worst, and would try to draw out a confession of "loose conduct." There would be a probation or loss of privileges of some kind, even if both vehemently denied any misconduct.
If the time spent together appeared contrived, and was overnight, especially if reported by a third party who saw a car parked overnight in front of the other person's house,  then the assumption was always that fornication had occurred and that any denial means the two are lying. The types of questions to be asked gave away the assumption of immorality and dishonesty. If they had previously been counseled, this could immediately escalate to disfellowshipping. 
Having been raised in the truth, and having gone to school in Missouri, I didn't realize until I went to college that many of our assumptions were similar to many of the fundamentalists around us. It wasn't just JWs but most old-time religionists, assuming that leaving two persons of the opposite sex alone together was always an instant recipe for fornication and/or adultery. If you listened to radio preachers you'd hear the same assumptions. Witnesses were also assuming that there was nothing else that young people could possibly be interested in.
It wasn't until after Bethel when I went to college that I realized that many persons were immoral, but also that many had morals likely superior to ours. And most surprisingly that many persons of the opposite sex actually lived together as roommates and still didn't ever worry about the topic of sex/fornication ever coming up. Now, I have seen statistics that show that teenage pregnancies were always much higher in the "Bible Belt." Perhaps part of the problem was in the assumption that young people have nothing better to do.

Yes, I believe so too. I believe the PARENT should go to the police first thing, and then to the elders second. However, if the parent goes to the elders first, the elders are not always mandated reporters. Regardless, some parents do not wish to involve the police at all! (that goes for non JW parents too). It very much depends on who the perpetrator is and what the circumstances are. Not every parent wants to rush to the police or if their 9 year old daughter tells them senile grandpa was a little too touchy feely the other day. Some parents opt for keeping granddaughter out of reach of grandpa. I feel a parent who is well connected to their child, knows their child, communicates with their child and watches their child will instinctively know when to report someone. Unfortunately, not all parents are like that.