ComfortMyPeople

AND … nobody had to wear Mickey Mouse ears …. either!

I've mentioned before that I was a "Gilead Tour Guide" from 1978 to 1981 for several different classes. I wasn't assigned the UN visit (and I don't recall that there was one at that time) but I took them on tours of NYC including the Financial District (Wall Street area) and Midtown: Rockefeller Center & Central Park & 42nd Street Library. That tour included an old St Patrick's cathedral (Prince & Mott) downtown, and the huge "new" St Patrick's cathedral in Rockefeller Center. We didn't go in the smaller one downtown to avoid attracting attention as a conspicuously large group of JWs in a relatively smaller church, but we always took the entire group into the much larger St Patrick's cathedral in Rockefeller Center (5th & 51st).
The fact that there were tours of the UN doesn't mean anything. Just like going into St Patrick's church didn't mean we were turning Roman Catholic. I do remember that there were sometimes one or two who wouldn't go in to the church. They were free to wait in front for the rest of the group to finish. The more vocal of the Gilead students would ask why we were going in: "What if Armageddon comes when you are inside?" One of them once tried to convince a couple others that this might be a test to see who would "fall for it" and go inside. What was most memorable to me was that some wanted to wait directly across the street so they wouldn't even be on the same block. They ended up standing under and next to the large statue of the Titan "god" Atlas, as if he would be strong enough to save them, while Jehovah somehow would not be able to protect anyone who had chosen to look inside a cathedral.

I see you did it again. You didn't even use ellipses to show that you are starting the quote in the middle of a sentence. Many months ago I would give you the benefit of the doubt because it could have merely been a matter of lack of comprehension. But I see you have the ability to go out of your way to be dishonest. For clarity here is the original quote again:
I believe that Jesus and Jehovah are the same in will and purpose. I believe that's what Jesus meant when he said "I and the Father are one." It's what we teach as Jehovah's Witnesses.
What you have done is not much different than someone who would try to say the Watchtower promotes the Trinity doctrine just because the following three quotes are "accurate" in the sense that they are unaltered:
*** nwtsty Philippians Study Notes—Chapter 2 ***
the phrase “Jesus Christ is Lord” means that he and his Father, Jehovah, are the same person.
*** pm chap. 21 p. 389 par. 53 Theocracy Triumphs over All the Nations ***
at the time of the baptism of Jesus in the year 29 C.E. the name of this Son of God became a ‘substitute or a replacement for Jehovah’ and that Jesus is the same as Jehovah and hence the name Jehovah does not need to be used anymore.
*** ad p. 894 Jehovah Is Our Righteousness ***
this means that Jesus, the Messiah, and Jehovah are the same, forming one God.
Using quotes like that is dishonest because it leaves out the first part of the quote containing key information showing that the Watchtower actually holds an opposite viewpoint.
If you agree that it would be dishonest to use these quotations the way they are presented above, then you are admitting to being dishonest by doing the something just like it with my quote.

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

Fausto … rather than just pontificate, offer an alternate explanation that fits the facts, point by point.
It is painfully obvious that your reasoning ( and I use the term loosely) is agenda driven and not reasonable, or exhibits any common sense whatsoever.

This has nothing to do with the methods of obtaining confessions by the elders. I have only rarely heard of these methods being problematic. The spreadsheet indicates that only 58% of the alleged perpetrators made a clear confession.
I am saying only that at least 290 of those 579 reported confessions (50.1%) were not volunteered to a judicial committee due to remorse that followed soon after the sin/crime. These confessions happened most times after SEVERAL YEARS.
Imagine sitting in the same Kingdom Hall (or Book Study home) where your victim is also sitting and continuing to go on for years without ever admitting your crime. Or knowing that your crime has caused that person to leave the Organization and still not being bothered enough to confess until after an accusation is made years later and a judicial hearing is called. Imagine being in the same household pretending to be the spiritual head of the household in front of your wife and children knowing that you are abusing those same children, time after time, in some cases.
The most obvious cases where the perpetrator confessed, but not voluntarily, would be the 257 of those confessions that occurred after MULTIPLE children were abused by them. (I removed all the cases with just 1 victim or an Unclear number of victims.) With some of them, it was actually 10 or more children abused and their first abuse occurred when they were baptized publishers. For two others they began abusing when they were Ministerial Servants and still went on to abuse at least 10 victims each. With some elders, it was only after 2 or 3 or 5 or even 7 accusations that they finally confessed. Although they may have "voluntarily" confessed years later, i don't see this as a voluntary confession. No one is supposed to accept an appointment to be an elder without confessing to such crimes/sins that began after they were baptized.
With 44 alleged perpetrators where the confession was labeled "Unclear," these also had been accused of abusing MULTIPLE children. These 301 alone (257+44) )already puts us into the definition of MOST.
In all these cases the confession was about abusing at least ONE of the MULTIPLE children referred to in the accusation.
Even though this already covers enough of the numbers required to speak of MOST being involuntary there is a large number of additional cases which are based simply on the fact that there was no judicial hearing until years after the initial accusation of abuse. For these, of course, I removed those perpetrators whose first abuse was as a Non-Witness.
I should have mentioned before that I don't consider it a "voluntary" confession if a person waits years to confess it, or has continued to abuse MULTIPLE children before that confession. Even if just one child was abused, I think that waiting years until confessing at a judicial hearing (especially only after an accusation is made) doesn't count as voluntary.

Another curious piece of data that showed up in the analyses was that in almost every group (non-JW, baptized, ministerial servants, and elders) the average number of children involved in the accusations was close to 2 victims apiece. The highest percentage of children per perpetrator was among Ministerial Servants reported. Then Elders had almost the same ratio of children abused per Elder as non-JWs in the data. The lowest victim ratio was among Baptized JWs who were not Elders or Ministerial Servants.
Of course, this data can be complex, because several of these persons whose first accusation was as a Baptized Witness, went on to become Ministerial Servants and Elders, and some had to be deleted from their positions as Elder or MS. Same goes for alleged perpetrators we have been calling "Non-JWs" in the data. It just means that their first accusation was as a Non-Witness. Several of them also went on to become Elders and Ministerial Servants. So this fact would skew the numbers of victims per perpetrator (ratio) even higher as these perpetrators were promoted in their positions within the congregation.
Another potential skew of the data comes from the interpretation of the word "Unclear" for the number of victims. I could only equate these to ONE victim for that particular perpetrator, because we know it means "at least one." However, it is more likely that it's "Unclear" because it could not be determined whether it was 1 or 2, or 2 or 3, etc. It could possibly have been a question about whether it was: less than 10, 10, or 10+ child victims.
Also, the number of separate victims does not necessarily correlate with the seriousness of the crimes. A single victim can be molested many times over a long period by the same perpetrator, just as multiple victims can be molested many times over a long period by the same perpetrator.

Related to that, it has also been ruled in some courts that it was no longer a mere religious confession due to the very fact that the WTS kept detailed data on the perpetrators, and sent these "confessions" to secretaries to have forms typed, and then sent the details to Branch headquarters to have them discussed by lawyers, and retyped by secretaries in another database visible to several people in the service and correspondence departments.
Also, these were not voluntary confessions in most cases, anyway. In fact, in only 579 out of 1,006 alleged perpetrators was there a definite confession recorded. Not even 58%. Part of the judicial process is an attempt to try to get a guilty party to confess and judge whether there was sufficient repentance.

I will have to admit, Fausto, it is absolutely fascinating to watch you duke it out with JWInsider, who presents solid facts and reasonable analysis, and you, who misconstrue and bend EVERYTHING into an agenda driven obfuscation based on laughable premises to unsuccessfully defend the indefensible.
 … Good material to provide dialog for a script. JWInsider will be cast as Mighty Mouse, and you will be cast as Oil Can Harry.
I can easily visualize you both at it for the rest of the year, neither conceding defeat until one or the other has a stroke from frustration.
But, “practice makes perfect” and your ad-homonym attacks are getting less painfully transparent.

Thanks for adding this. It validates the point I made earlier, and was also a point made on the Reddit link. It admits several important points.
First, it's the admission by the JW defense that NONE of the cases were ever turned in the authorities by the JW congregation even though at least SOME of the case files of abuse occurred in jurisdictions where there WAS a legal obligation for ministers of religion to report.
Also, it was clear that the Australian court had determined that MOST of the cases DID occur in jurisdictions where there WAS such a legal obligation.
It clearly admits that it was only the victims or others who reported. And that the only involvement of the elders was when victims or their families later decided to report, and in some of those instances the elders provided support.
We know from the BCH case that one elder did evidently come forward as a reluctant witness 11 years later to make a statement. But that statement is sloppy and not very supportive at all. He says he barely knew the perpetrator except for a very short time related to the judicial meeting he was called in to join. But he can't remember what year, or which daughter. He remembers two things the daughter said something about how the father had "interfered" with her, but can't remember the "extent of the interference." He appears to hide behind the excuse that he "can't remember the exact words" she used as a way to avoid discussing anything additional about her claim. In fact, he never even mentioned the second thing he said he remembered that the daughter had said.
In other words, he would confirm nothing that could even be supportive of a true claim of sexual abuse even though the elder was the chairman of the committee that disfellowshipped BCH for it - and justified that judgment to be correct even after appeal. Then this elder (Bennett) actually indicates at the end that he is there INVOLUNTARILY, which was already obvious by the way he didn't really support the victim claimant.
Who needs "support" of that kind?

This is the JW legal team attempting a very weak "negotiation" defense. It's easy to see that the data doesn't bear out the claim, however. With 221 of the 1,006 perpetrators, the data provided by "Jehovah's Witnesses Australia" admits that JW/WT cannot rule out the fact that the "two-witness rule" kept the case from moving forward to a judicial committee. This was a connection that the court (and even victimized JWs) have made between sexual abuse and the beliefs of JWs.
But there is an apparent skew in how that two-witness rule is used depending on the position of responsibility that the Witness holds. The two highest-level accusations that I have learned about, were actually left off the list altogether, and in at least one of those cases, the accused had no hearing and was promoted to a higher position within the Organization. For now, we can safely ignore this however since it was not in the ARC data. But the following are all from the Watchtower-provided data:
The only Circuit Overseer included on this list did not have a judicial case, and it is admitted that "YES" the two-witness rule kept this case from going forward to a judicial committee.  And there was, therefore, no reproof, demotion, or discipline of any kind reported.
Pioneer data I had here a few minutes ago was removed. Turns out it was 3 out of 8 whose cases may have been kept from going forward due to the two-witness rule. That's 37.5%.
Now we come to all the persons on the list known to be Elders at the time of their first accusation of child abuse. There were 38 such elders and for 16 of them -- that's 42% -- the data could not rule out that it was the two-witness rule that kept their case from going forward and therefore there was no judicial committee formed.
Now we come to the cases of the 65 who were Ministerial Servants at the time of their first accusation of child abuse. It drops down to 22% where the data admits that they could not rule out that it was the two-witness rule that kept their case from going forward and therefore there was no judicial committee formed.
Now we come to the cases of the 689 who were JW Parishioners (Baptized JWs who were not MS/Elder/Pioneer) at the time of their first accusation of child abuse, it drops a bit more, down to 20% where the data admits that they could not rule out that it was the two-witness rule that kept their case from going forward and therefore there was no judicial committee formed.
I didn't include those for whom it was unclear what their position in the congregation was at the time of their first accusation, but only a very few of them were definitely identified as servants or elders in other parts of the data. 
Technically, of course, the JW legal team didn't deny anything related to what I said above, but they only said that "The suggested findings by Counsel Assisting are problematic in the sense that, they often seem to assume a connection between child sexual abuse and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses in circumstances where there is no obvious connection."
Those are typical lawyer "weasel words" that don't actually deny that there is a connection; they just claim that the connection is not obvious in SOME of the cases where the Court "often seemed to assume" one. For some persons, hardly anything is "obvious" which is the entire reason for investigations. This doesn't discount the fact that there were other cases listed where the connection was entirely and blatantly obvious.

(1 Corinthians 5:1) . . .Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 
Well, I agree that the fault lies with the perpetrator, but the shame falls on the whole of God's people. What are we to think of what Paul mentions to the Corinthians? Well, surely the Christians of that city would be criticized, it is most likely.
In fact, when we used to say to the victims something like: "don't report him so as not to bring reproach to the name of Jehovah" it was because, sadly, his name really did get dirty.
I also agree with the report that our site only presents positive information: successes, victories and achievements, but not the opposite. As a politician here in Spain said (and I'm sure it's the same everywhere) "others are already there to criticize us, we don't have to do it ourselves."
And I agree with the argument that we have used naivety in acknowledging the errors of the biblical writers as proof of the authenticity of the Bible.
I do not think it is debatable that at the Organization level there have been very few times where we have recognized doctrinal or other errors. And I prefer not to delve into this precise subject because he is one of the ones that hurts me the most.
Finally, with regard to Spain, from where I write, due to the fact that general elections have been called for next July, this tax exemption measure has been postponed, and we will see if with a new government it will be able to enter into force or not. A letter read to congregations this week acknowledged this situation.

Oops! I couldn’a hep mashelf.
Details ARE IMPORTSNT!

Angry? LOL!
You asked: "Is this considered spamming?" (referring to Pudgy's recent activity shown on his profile page.) Since your first activity on this forum shows up as starting only a couple of hours ago, I should assume that you really don't know and are asking me a sincere and innocent question. So, I'll offer my perspective, and tell you why.
No. Pudgy's profile does not reflect spamming. For reference, I took updated screenshots from the same profile page.  The first line of the first screenshot shows Pudgy reacting to the rather funny statement by Fausto Hoover that told me to calm down. Since that was so much like the very laughable "Why are you so angry?" in your own post. I thought it was funny, too. It definitely deserved a laughing icon, but as you might already know, I have never given any of Fausto's numerous accounts any vote over the last three years except a few up-votes that I thought were well-deserved. I have never given him a down-vote for any reason, and although I have been tempted to give a few laughing votes, I stopped doing that about three years ago too because he misunderstood it. His numerous accounts invariably use the laughing emoji to express derision, so I didn't want to have mine confused for the same. 
On those next two lines, Pudgy reacted to two of my posts about a half-hour apart: that's not unreasonable considering that these were serious posts addressing a serious matter. I'm not sure why you were concerned to add the line that someone named Dandellon Frend reacted to one of his own posts 10 hours earlier or that Srecko had reacted to one of his posts 11 hours earlier.

Then you provided a more recent set of Pudgy's reactions to myself and to you, "betoken," for which I have also updated the screenshot. This time my comments are after the screenshot below.

Starting from the bottom this time, the first is an up-vote reaction to a serious post by me, and the next one up is a serious up-vote reaction to a serious post by Srecko. Nothing spammy about either of those. They are for completely separate people.
Then. yes. he laughed at three very short posts in a row when you, the new person named "betoken" showed up. You may not be aware, but most people laugh when one of Fausto's many "personalities" comes on the scene when he seems to be severely challenged by someone. Some laugh at the childish naivety, thinking that he thinks he is pulling a fast one and that no one is noticing that it's really just him by another name. Pudgy probably thought the same about the "betoken" name. Others have noticed this pattern of bringing in other versions of himself and just laugh at the mess he makes of a topic that reminds them of one of those humorous pictures we've all seen of a dog that chews up a bunch of cushions and then looks up all innocent and sad that he has done all the damage he can but has no more worlds [cushions] to conquer. I laugh, although I don't press the emoji, because it reminds me of a joke I once heard about a person who cheats at solitaire to raise his self-esteem. Then, he probably thought it was funny that you may have thought you could really impute a motive about someone and think it would stick by asking questions like "Why are you so angry?" or better yet: "antagonistic."
I will admit that I thought Pudgy saw the humor in the whole situation and sees the entertainment in watching agenda-driven posts that are so easy to see through. I do think that Pudgy also sees the potential that the laughing emoji will be seen as derision. And I think he should be careful to avoid this. I'm uncomfortable with using that even three times in a row. But a series of three or four laughing emojis is not the same as an unexplained series of 6 down-votes to those who have challenged an agenda, followed immediately by a series of 6 unexplained up-votes to one's current "master" account. Pudgy has never shown evidence of bringing on new accounts just to enhance his own "self-esteem." He stands by his positions and will defend them. Unlike bringing on someone like "Ray" (or his many "brothers") who rarely has anything to say for himself, but will up-vote anything his master wants up-voted, and down-vote just about anything from persons who have challenged him, even if it means haphazardly down-voting a simple Bible scripture or Watchtower quote. 
Anyway, I hope you understand my own perspective a little better about what it means to use the emojis for spamming purposes.
 

Looks like Peter Carroll was correct, @Fausto Hoover.
According to your Ray Devereaux profile, [ https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/profile/18582-ray-devereaux/ ] you hadn't brought "Ray" out do your spamming work for you for over 2.2 years, per that post from Srecko back in March 2021. As usual, per all your previous spamming patterns, it's easy to guess who your "Ray" has down-voted, and who your "Ray" has up-voted, without even opening the link above to see the actual posts the following screenshot refers to.  

I know I had promised you I wouldn't keep exposing your multi-personality tactics, and I've kept that promise for nearly two years now. But this one had already been exposed by others. And it also made me realize that this is all a game to you anyway, and it really does you no harm to expose you. After all, you already admitted that "someone" will just come back under a different name in the worst case: i.e, if any admin happens to discover this latest flailing of yours, for example. Anyway, I'm not asking that you get banned again over this practice. I think it actually helps everyone see through your tactics. I hope they leave you to own devices and machinations. 
If I continue to respond on this topic, it's not because I care whether or not you agree. It's just that there are others here who see how serious this topic is, and don't think all of it is part of a game.
 
unnecessarily edited 2 hours later to add:
P.S. Just thought I'd quickly check to see all the emoji activity on your own account while Ray was on that 3 minute spamming spree. Looks like you did pretty well this time, almost as many upvotes as last time:

Unfortunately, this software doesn't keep track of such iconic activity for more than a few hours, so I thought I'd check your profile before they disappeared.
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/profile/20274-fausto-hoover/?wr=eyJhcHAiOiJmb3J1bXMiLCJtb2R1bGUiOiJmb3J1bXMtY29tbWVudCIsImlkXzEiOjkwNjEzLCJpZF8yIjoxODMzNDl9
and that's where I got the above screenshot.

(1 Corinthians 5:1) . . .Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 
Well, I agree that the fault lies with the perpetrator, but the shame falls on the whole of God's people. What are we to think of what Paul mentions to the Corinthians? Well, surely the Christians of that city would be criticized, it is most likely.
In fact, when we used to say to the victims something like: "don't report him so as not to bring reproach to the name of Jehovah" it was because, sadly, his name really did get dirty.
I also agree with the report that our site only presents positive information: successes, victories and achievements, but not the opposite. As a politician here in Spain said (and I'm sure it's the same everywhere) "others are already there to criticize us, we don't have to do it ourselves."
And I agree with the argument that we have used naivety in acknowledging the errors of the biblical writers as proof of the authenticity of the Bible.
I do not think it is debatable that at the Organization level there have been very few times where we have recognized doctrinal or other errors. And I prefer not to delve into this precise subject because he is one of the ones that hurts me the most.
Finally, with regard to Spain, from where I write, due to the fact that general elections have been called for next July, this tax exemption measure has been postponed, and we will see if with a new government it will be able to enter into force or not. A letter read to congregations this week acknowledged this situation.

I don't promote these numbers to be true at all. I can only refer to the numbers that show up in the documents that were, for a time, all available on the ARC website. I have no way of verifying if those numbers are correct. I can only verify what numbers I have seen within those documents. The documents could be completely without merit for all I know. I have made it pretty clear that it is NOT my contention that the information is true. It could be a lot worse than these numbers purport, or it could be a lot better. All I have is the data provided.
This is why my focus was on where that claim of "383 cases reported to the police" came up. It wasn't in any early discussions of the ARC. I didn't see it in any ARC documentation. I vaguely recalled a claim that some [more recent] cases really had been reported to the police, but no one made a claim that reports related to the 1.006 perpetrators came from the Witnesses, or from the Branch, or from congregation Elders. From what I can see so far, it was first on Bitterwinter many years after the ARC hearings. I assumed I must have missed that key piece of data, and it would be very useful data to prove bias on the part of the Australian court.
I'm not at all concerned about whether you agree with Jehovah's Witnesses who report 1,006 perpetrators vs those who read it as 1,006 cases of CSA. Your Bitter Winter "Holly Folk" link does not deny that they were "perpetrators." On the link you provided, she says:
Based on this document, the media reported that there had been 1,006 perpetrators who had committed sexual crimes in Australia . . .
I have no stake one way or another as to whether these numbers are correct, and it's a bit late to try to get a retraction from Holly Folk, or to get a retraction from all the JWs and non-JWs who reported those numbers as they read them.
You referred to some contention over the numbers, and you indicated that JWs are making a "false claim" when they read this as 1,006 perpetrators. Against that supposedly "false claim" you said: Yes, the exhibit information is there in my post." And you said: "My exhibit of the ARC document proves my point ."
I looked for that exhibit and found nothing that counters the numbers provided by other Witnesses, or the Branch numbers, or Holly Folk. It turned out that your exhibit had nothing to do with the numbers you claimed were false. It had to do with the timing of certain CSA policies.

(1 Corinthians 5:1) . . .Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 
Well, I agree that the fault lies with the perpetrator, but the shame falls on the whole of God's people. What are we to think of what Paul mentions to the Corinthians? Well, surely the Christians of that city would be criticized, it is most likely.
In fact, when we used to say to the victims something like: "don't report him so as not to bring reproach to the name of Jehovah" it was because, sadly, his name really did get dirty.
I also agree with the report that our site only presents positive information: successes, victories and achievements, but not the opposite. As a politician here in Spain said (and I'm sure it's the same everywhere) "others are already there to criticize us, we don't have to do it ourselves."
And I agree with the argument that we have used naivety in acknowledging the errors of the biblical writers as proof of the authenticity of the Bible.
I do not think it is debatable that at the Organization level there have been very few times where we have recognized doctrinal or other errors. And I prefer not to delve into this precise subject because he is one of the ones that hurts me the most.
Finally, with regard to Spain, from where I write, due to the fact that general elections have been called for next July, this tax exemption measure has been postponed, and we will see if with a new government it will be able to enter into force or not. A letter read to congregations this week acknowledged this situation.

(1 Corinthians 5:1) . . .Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 
Well, I agree that the fault lies with the perpetrator, but the shame falls on the whole of God's people. What are we to think of what Paul mentions to the Corinthians? Well, surely the Christians of that city would be criticized, it is most likely.
In fact, when we used to say to the victims something like: "don't report him so as not to bring reproach to the name of Jehovah" it was because, sadly, his name really did get dirty.
I also agree with the report that our site only presents positive information: successes, victories and achievements, but not the opposite. As a politician here in Spain said (and I'm sure it's the same everywhere) "others are already there to criticize us, we don't have to do it ourselves."
And I agree with the argument that we have used naivety in acknowledging the errors of the biblical writers as proof of the authenticity of the Bible.
I do not think it is debatable that at the Organization level there have been very few times where we have recognized doctrinal or other errors. And I prefer not to delve into this precise subject because he is one of the ones that hurts me the most.
Finally, with regard to Spain, from where I write, due to the fact that general elections have been called for next July, this tax exemption measure has been postponed, and we will see if with a new government it will be able to enter into force or not. A letter read to congregations this week acknowledged this situation.

(1 Corinthians 5:1) . . .Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 
Well, I agree that the fault lies with the perpetrator, but the shame falls on the whole of God's people. What are we to think of what Paul mentions to the Corinthians? Well, surely the Christians of that city would be criticized, it is most likely.
In fact, when we used to say to the victims something like: "don't report him so as not to bring reproach to the name of Jehovah" it was because, sadly, his name really did get dirty.
I also agree with the report that our site only presents positive information: successes, victories and achievements, but not the opposite. As a politician here in Spain said (and I'm sure it's the same everywhere) "others are already there to criticize us, we don't have to do it ourselves."
And I agree with the argument that we have used naivety in acknowledging the errors of the biblical writers as proof of the authenticity of the Bible.
I do not think it is debatable that at the Organization level there have been very few times where we have recognized doctrinal or other errors. And I prefer not to delve into this precise subject because he is one of the ones that hurts me the most.
Finally, with regard to Spain, from where I write, due to the fact that general elections have been called for next July, this tax exemption measure has been postponed, and we will see if with a new government it will be able to enter into force or not. A letter read to congregations this week acknowledged this situation.

This Youtuber has Phd in Theological Studies and offers his personal opinions throughout.
I thought it interesting to see how others view us....

First of all. Thanks for the sentiments in the previous post. I don't plan to focus much on things said here anymore, so you're right that it isn't really going to matter much whether those details about 2016 are explained to me or not. 
I've read what the editors of "DTIB" have said about genealogy and it's easy to understand. I also understand what it says about "generations" in those pages you referenced and in other parts of this same "Bible Dictionary." Also, I know that if someone did a search on the term "overlapping generations" among all the Bible commentaries and Bible dictionaries, the term almost never comes up at all except in this particular one: "Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible" (DTIB). And it only happens on page 244, the first page you quoted. Yes, it's "cool" and "unique" that someone can find a person with academic credentials who used the term "overlapping generations" but its very use here undermines the Watchtower teaching instead of helping to support it.
The problem, of course, is that the editor you recommended here (pp. 244-246), doesn't really believe the Bible's genealogies are trustworthy and accurate as actual genealogies. He prefers to see many of them as unhistorical. But that's typical of modern critical commentaries. However, he quotes Rendsburg who actually does argue that the genealogies of the Pentateuch are reliable and historical. And in that paragraph, he uses the phrase: "overlapping generations." He says that:
Rendsburg "has based his conclusions in part on the observable pattern of overlapping generations so that people of the same age need not be of the same generation."
But it's quite easy to see that this goes completely against what the Watchtower publications have tried to say about generations. In fact, it directly opposes what the Watchtower publications say.
The Watchtower publications NEVER use the expression "overlapping generations" with respect to the generation teaching, because our current teaching is the opposite. Our teaching is that even persons of widely different ages NEED to be part of the SAME GENERATION because Jesus said that "THIS GENERATION" (not "these generations") would not pass away. Our current teaching is that almost all of the people in the first part of the generation do not need to have their lives overlap with most of the people in the second part of that same generation. In fact, our current teaching is supposed to work out even if only ONE person among the thousands in that first part has a lifespan that overlaps with at least ONE person in the second part of that SAME generation. The infamous Splane chart even mentions the possibility that this ONE person might be, using a known example: Brother Frederick W. Franz. If FWF was indeed the last living person from the first group, then his lifespan, in the end, would only need to have overlapped with ONE remaining person from the second part of that same generation by the time the end of this system arrives. Our definition of the current teaching could allow for this even if that overlap had happened for only a few seconds and the overlapping person in the second group had never met or even known about FWF while FWF was alive. And then, by definition, this ONE GENERATION Jesus spoke of can only go on for as long as at least that ONE person from the second group, is still alive.
That might sound complex and I'm using an extreme example. But it's an example that fits the current teaching.
I'm personally not too concerned with whether this teaching is going to hold true, time-wise. It very well might. If it does, I don't think it's necessary that it was because the teaching was right. It could just be a coincidence if the end of this system comes tomorrow.
One reason I'm not too concerned is just based on the very nature of speculative teachings. If the teaching is now correct, then this means that it is the "truth." Yet, if someone believed and promoted this "truth" back in 2004, for example, then it would have been an apostate teaching at that time. Speculative teachings are always this way: they could be an apostate teaching, then a true teaching, then they might become an apostate teaching again in the near future.
I'm not saying the Watchtower is wrong. But I'm not personally concerned with our more speculative teachings. And this one is the kind that creates a range of dates, which, to my conscience, goes against what Jesus and Paul said about not needing anything to be written to us about the times and seasons. These things are in the Father's jurisdiction, not ours.
We should be more concerned with what type of person we ought to be knowing that the end could come at any time.

I probably haven't kept up enough with things being said recently, so I don't really know what you're asking about.
A few months ago, I always tried to read almost everything that everyone would write on this forum. I did this for a few years here but decided it was a bit excessive even though this forum is relatively small. I have read only a very small percentage of posts for about two months now. So I don't really know what you are talking about when you ask if I and BroRando did the numbers. I don't know anything about the significance of 2016 or the "Alpha Generation." I've read that the Alpha generation refers to people born after the year 2000, who are therefore currently about 23 years old or less. I don't recall reading anything from BroRando about 2016 or the Alpha Generation.
I am hopeful that the end of this wicked system comes soon, but I have never believed in trying to tie the future fulfillment of prophecies to specific dates. I'd go so far as to say it's unchristian to get overly involved in such speculation about the times and seasons. But I do understand the desire to peer into such things and always want to learn more about the fulfillment of prophecy. I'm intrigued about whatever you mean about me "doing the numbers" "2016" "Alpha Generation" and whatever you meant by my "reference." I'm sure I didn't refer to any of those things, so I wondered what you meant by that. 

You make your point based on rejection of 1914 as the beginning of the "parousia" and Jesus' reign as king. I also can't see how that idea fits the Biblical references to the parousia. But I believe Jesus was already enthroned much earlier, so it doesn't matter what happened specifically in 1914. Jesus WAS king in 1914 because he had already been raised up much earlier as the Davidic Messiah.
I noticed an earlier comment you made elsewhere where you reject the idea that Jesus became king when he sat down at the right hand of majesty. I understand that there are different ways to interpret "kingship" and "authority." But it's still a legitimate interpretation that Jesus already held his position as "king of kings and lord of lords" because he was given "all authority" at that time including a name which was above all rulers and principalities whether they be in heaven or on earth. Hebrews says that he had a crown at this time, a sceptre at this time, and a throne at this time, and that he was already of the order of Melchizedek who was both king and priest at the same time.
Revelation calls Jesus the "ruler of the kings of the earth." Paul shows that when Psalm 110 used the expression "sit at my right hand" that one should interpret that phrase as "rule as king." 
For Christ must reign [as King] until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
The examples of Jewish persons who worked for and supported gentile governments is not necessarily seen again in Christian times, where Christians owed their citizenship to the heavens and believed they were just temporary residents in this world.

And the propaganda machine for the lies go on. .... And a good scientist finds blood vessels in dinosaur bones (which shows they are not millions of years old) and this is hidden from the public..... not talked about..... cancelled.... until reproduction of the same experiment proves the point.  Then they try to refute it in a silly way that cannot happen in nature .... and they go on with the propaganda and money-making machine.