Gnosis Pithos

Yes Witness, i know that, thanks for excellent link.
I just made irony with Allen Smith comments. He connected "Priest Confidence" as justification for JW elders. But for rank and file members it would be confusing to hear how he compare gods shepherds aka elders with Catholic priesthood. WT denied existence of priest-laity distinction among JW members. But this is exactly what they have. Distinction.  
For public everyday using JWorg say, "we don't have priests, clergy, hierarchy" - but in Courts WT lawyers claims opposite. Hypocrites!   

you are witty  
WT representatives were told many times that they would not change what is "proved by Bible" or what is "supported by Bible". And we all know how that was ended many times.
 One of this statement told by Gary Breaux  is;  GB WILL NEVER CHANGE TWO WITNESS RULE.
Would you, dear Anna, apply these Proverb also for Gary and his colleagues?  

 

I just dare to spin two off your quotations and put in these context above :)))
About David. He is interesting character for sure. And his servants also who was participated in all bad things David have done. Uriah and Bathsheba is famous example. Perhaps while talking about his servants who make things easier for David to took Bathsheba, we can talk about "COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY" AND "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY". And in his last days he took young virgin girl to warming his bed. And his servants had important role in that arrange.
Put this events and main points of this illustrations to modern day David, servants and other characters inside WT JWorg, and start to mediate about also two sort of Responsibility - Personal and Collective in WT Society.     
 

legal boundaries????
I thought that WT and elders are in BIBLE BOUNDARIES as FIRST TO OBEY, and then IF God give permission to "legal boundaries", because "We have to obey God more than men"   BIBLE is two-edged sword !  One edge is Secularly Legal and other edge is Godly Legal.

PRIESTS?? 
Jehovah's  Witnesses have priests?? Since when? :)))))))))) JW org say to public little contrary - JW have no priests or clergy.
Why you using Catholic priesthood privileges according to Catholic Church canon law, doctrines and want to apply false Babylon the Great measures and instructions and doctrines to "only true JW religion"?       :))) funny and sad at same time!

The organization is a man-made creation, not an anointed individual. David gave full reverence to God.  JWs are unable to do this, since they believe the organization is, as you made the comparison to David – empowered.  Rev 13:5,15
David's words:
“Praise be to you, Lord,
    the God of our father Israel,
    from everlasting to everlasting.
 Yours, Lord, is the greatness and the power
    and the glory and the majesty and the splendor,
    for everything in heaven and earth is yours.
Yours, Lord, is the kingdom;
    you are exalted as head over all.
 Wealth and honor come from you;
    you are the ruler of all things.
In your hands are strength and power
    to exalt and give strength to all.
Now, our God, we give you thanks,
    and praise your glorious name. 1 Chron 29:10-13
“When you cry out,
Let your collection of idols deliver you.
But the wind will carry them all away,
A breath will take them.
But he who puts his trust in Me shall possess the land,
And shall inherit My holy mountain.”  Isa 57:13

It has long been common knowledge that Hollywood was a cesspool but no insider would rat on anyone else. At last the dam has broken and these guys are falling all over themselves to swear, like Sergeant Shultz, that they knew nothiiiinnnnggggg! (some are wetting themselves thinking that they are up next)
When the world at last wakes up to a problem, it swings wildly the other way. In this case rapists are lumped together with harassers, who are lumped together with those whose misdeeds were once called "getting fresh." Few women ever appreciated men getting fresh, I think, but they did not mistake that for rape.
It is similar with widespread condemnation of the founding fathers. Revered for centuries, they are now reviled because they kept slaves, notwithstanding that every agricultural person of means kept slaves at that time - and with no regard for whether they were kindly or vicious administrators.
It is the same with the world's outrage over child sexual abuse, now at full boil. Whenever zealots catch the wave, they invariably apply today's enlightenment to criminalize those of the past, as Alan points out. Sodomizers are the same as those too free with their hands who are the same as those who learned of it but practiced nothing themselves. Notwithstanding that back in my day child protective agencies sent abused children right back into the homes of the parents who abused them, in the naive belief that the abuser could be rehabilitated. It is naive by today's standards, but it was enlightened at the time.
The world's record of protecting children is absolutely dismal. News reports indicate a breathtaking percentage of adults have abused children. That is why the education of children on how to protect themselves is essential, as is the education of parents on how to protect their children. Nobody does that better than Jehovah's Witnesses, who trained every member in the world via last summer's convention. That addresses 95% of the problem. All that remains is to take out the sodomizers. If the world was serious about justice, it would apply capital punishment to such ones, for the common wisdom is that these persons cannot be rehabilitated.

I assume that God will back me on the condition that I make choices that honor him. But I'm not infallible. I can make mistakes and Jehovah God can remove his backing. Can the same be said for this organization?

Can't see a problem with being proud of one's faithfulness to God's requirements and of success in fulfilling his commission? 
Jer 9:24: "“But let the one boasting boast about this:That he has insight and knowledge of me, that I am Jehovah, the One showing loyal love, justice, and righteousness in the earth,"
2 Cor 7:4: "I have great freeness of speech toward you. I have great boasting in regard to you. I am filled with comfort; I am overflowing with joy in all our affliction."
etc...etc...
Do you believe you are backed by God Almighty?

@TrueTomHarley don't you think the organization's inability to acknowledge any missteps in its abuse policies shows some measure of pride?

I'm sure there's some element of pride when you have total confidence you are backed by God almighty?

I am glad that something like this came from another person's mouth, not mine.
GB refusing to investigate its own and put it to be publicly known. No matter of outcome. And to show that WT is not covered with corruption, hiding and minimizing inside problems, unlawful  and injustice  as it is in Australia secular government or in some other part of this secular World :))

Whatever the courts say is proved. If crimes are committed, they will be uncovered. Where's your faith?
Published on this forum wasn't it?

The same is also with Australian Royal Commission in 2015. No single word on JW broadcasting or publications. Because of the the fact that WT never mentioned nothing officially, for JW public - officially, for  members looks as nothing was happened at all. No pedophiles, no victims, no Court or Commissions investigations, decisions, out of Court settlements ...
JW members are trained to not believe nothing that come from secular source what have any connections about WT and JW Church. 
Cognitive dissonance is very strong and go to direction of full trust to WT leaders. Trust to men. Sad.

Good answer.
Sounds suspiciously like an ex-member I'm afraid..
I heard about that, but I haven't heard about Dr. Phil. It's good to remember that these shows are there to attract an audience and to make money. I am not saying this because I don't believe there is a problem. You probably know by now that I have delved into this area quite extensively already.
There are two faces to the reporting on child abuse. The one we see mostly is the one presented to us by the media which as we know only has limited time and space to cover everything, and sensationalism is what sells. Then there are the facts. Facts are extremely hard to come by because often such information is not easily available. The best kind of facts regarding a particular case are those we can obtain through court transcripts some of which are thousands of pages long, but even then, there are some facts that are inadmissible in court.
Just as an example, here is an extract from a court transcript dealing with two proposed witnesses to testify against the WT. Note how the judge ascertains their value in this particular case (Victoria Boer vs WT 2003). Bare in mind that these two witnesses are two of the "go to" people used by ex-witnesses in cases against JW child sexual abuse, and what they say on their websites or books is considered to be accurate information regarding the policies of JWs:
<During the course of the trial, the plaintiff sought leave to present evidence from two witnesses about certain characteristics or practices of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization in situations similar to this one. I ruled such evidence to be inadmissable, with reasons to follow.
[27] The first witness, Professor James Penton, is an historian and the author of a book entitled Apocalypse Delayed . Mr. Mark, on behalf of the plaintiff, intended to elicit evidence from Mr. Penton with respect to his conclusions about various characteristics of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the way women are treated within that faith and the functioning of Judicial Committees. Professor Penton’s evidence would be based on his research and would constitute opinion. He does not have first-hand evidence. However, Mr Mark did not deliver notice of his intention to call an expert on this topic and did not serve an expert report on the defense as required under the Evidence Act , R.S.O 1990, c E23. That alone is fatal to the plaintiff’s request to call this evidence. The defence would have been caught by surprise with no opportunity to prepare, nor to call its own evidence to rebut the evidence of Mr. Penton.
[28] In any event, I am by no means satisfied that expert evidence of this nature would have been admissable in respect of these matters. It seems to me that I am in a position to determine the relevant facts to the particular matters before me without the assistance of an expert on these matters.
[29] The second witness proposed by the plaintiff is Barbara Anderson, who was a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in New York from 1954 until her recent disfellowship (ejection from the faith). The plaintiff proposed to elicit evidence from Ms. Anderson as to her knowledge of how sexual abuse of children is dealt with within that religion and of cover-ups of abuse within that society. Most of Ms. Anderson’s proposed testimony would be hearsay. The plaintiff argued it would be admissable as similar fact evidence that the actions of the defendants in this case was part of a design, rather than negligence.
[30] The general test for the admissibility of similar fact evidence in a civil trial is derived from Mood Music Publishing Co. v DeWolf Ltd .; [1976] Ch 19, 1 ALL E.R. 763 (C.A.) In that case, Lord Denning stated, at page 127 (Ch)
…in civil cases the court will admit evidence of similar facts if it is logically probative, that is if it is logically relevant in determining the matter which is in issue; provided that it is not oppressive or unfair to the other side; and also that the other side has fair notice of it and is able to deal with it.
[31] The proposed evidence from Ms. Anderson fails this test on every front. First, it is not logically probative of any issue before me. Whatever may have been Ms. Anderson’s personal experience with the Jehovah’s Witness faith, and whatever information she may have gleaned about how child abuse cases were dealt with elsewhere, she has no evidence whatsoever about the Toronto or Shelburne congregations or any of the individuals in this case. Further, even her information about Watch Tower generally relates to that organization in the United States. There is nothing about her evidence that would assist in the very specific findings of fact I am required to make about what happened in the case before me.>
 

If there is a silver lining in this mess it is that soon every fifth person in the world will be on the pedophile list.
If there is another, it is that allegations of sexual impropriety involving prominent persons are a staple of life today. If you hate the person, you agree with the allegation. If you love the person, you disagree with it. James Carville, Bill Clinton's campaign manager, said: "Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find." 
Does one believe him? For the most part, it depends upon whether one likes Bill Clinton or not. The same can be said for almost any high-profile figure.
JW things thereby become a tiny drop in the bucket, for it is exceedingly rare for an elder to be the accused perpetrator - when an abuse settlement was reached in 2007, the number given was nine in the span of 100 years. Usually they are accused of simply coming across the knowledge of abuse.It is not good, perhaps, but it is a far cry from being perpetrators themselves - and it would not happen if they had kept their noses out of the conduct of congregation members - as do other religions. 
God would be cheated that way, for he says keep the congregation clean. But it would be safer from a liability point of view.

......what if downvoting is some kind of persecution...i wonder... while sleeping..... 
.....but then i waked up and smile :))))))))  everything is at it is  ...“There's nothing new under the sun.” 

Pride has nothing to do with it.

Not really. The organization admitting wrongdoing is unlikely. They're too proud to do that. No matter what the outcome, the organization will spin itself as a victim. The organization will never say it has committed a crime even if the courts rule against them. They will spin at as spiritual warfare. That's just the way it is.

Hi Noble! About "representatives" as word, expression, lexem in official WT terminology. 
Representative for Watch Tower, Jehovah Witnesses congregation or any other legal entity can be only person who have WT appointed, officially setting to be in position to represent WT or some other entity in/for one particular job, work or for some duty inside company.
All other members, all baptised members, male or female are JUST MEMBERS and NOTHING MORE. You as member of your congregation are not in position to represent either your own congregation. You  and your bro and sis in congregation  have not legality to be representatives for congregation or for WTBTS or any entity of WT. Because WT Company policy only few can be representative for them.
Make peace with the fact that you are just, only member, not representative.   
P.S. if you like i can present you Court document where Legal Department said so before Court. So that must be the truth, i think ))))) 
 

Hi. I would like to make little digression. I spent hours and hours listening official video records from ARC in 2015. Here/There all viewer are been, and today also can be able, to hear and see (to hear and see, audio-visual is very important) "first-hand evidence" from all involved and called to present their testimony in front Commission and public as well.
Victims, elders, witnesses on this and that, GB member, all of them were in witness chair, and for us who followed program,  we been able to get impressions on what we saw and heard. Is my personal view after that, wrong or right, that is my problem. But words was been told and facts are here.

@Elisabeth Dolewka I can't wait for this day when our biggest worry will be what's for dinner!

@Srecko Sostar you are being personally downvoted for spreading the news about our organization and that's sad. This isn't an apostate fabrication. Does reality trigger JWs on here? Us JWs have to face the reality of what's happening instead of digging our heads in the sand. We may face these questions in the ministry. 
Honestly, the organization needs to be 100% transparent right now about their child abuse policies, because we act as representatives for them when we go out. I shouldn't have to view some weird PDF of the Shepherd's Flock book to get a grasp of the org's policies (which I still don't get). 

Ok, but what will it prove? If they win, they've still acknowledged they have a secret list of alleged abusers in the congregation. If they lose, the courts get the namelist and it appears that the organization resisted complying with secular authorities. I don't see how any of this can be spun in a positive way.