Evacuated

It does appear as a problem to me in that "two" is not adequate as a definition. It is not clear what form their evidence takes, whether direct or circumstantial. Citing Deut.22:22-27 is relevant but inconclusive as there is no description of its application in fact that I know of.
Seems to have been addressed in the response letter you linked at page 8. 2:8c "if the elders and branch office determine that a child is in danger, the elders are directed to call law enforcement authorities, even if such reporting is not mandated by law."
The question seems to be prompted by Mr Stewart's exasperation in the midst of a rather muddy discussion looking at your linked reference.
Excuse me feeling a tad dubious about "society's" commitment here in the light of the unfolding extent of this ever burgeoning problem.
However, I did notice the ARC invitation to Watchtower Australia to participate and contribute to improving matters. 
There are obviously well motivated individuals indicating their genuine concern in the area of child protection, and a number of specialists providing invaluable insights into understanding and handling the problem. However, as noted elsewhere in the postings, the continued mud-slinging and jibe trading that seems to accompany discussions on this subject, (not limited to this forum), are an impediment to any joint approach in dealing wih this criminal activity.

I can see similarities in the use of jw.org logos as trinkets or ornaments or badges in the way that others might use crosses without religious significance.
However, I can't really see a similarity between the way many witnesses view trinkets and cakes etc. bearing the jw.org symbol and the way in which the cross is treated religiously by diverse members of Christendom.
The links below might illustrate my point:
http://www.latitudenews.com/story/faithful-in-philippines-embrace-christ-and-his-crucifixion/
http://blogs.ft.com/photo-diary/2016/01/kissing-the-cross/
http://catholicphilly.com/2016/03/think-tank/catholic-spirituality/salvation-comes-through-the-cross-not-a-magic-wand-pope-says/
Anyway, I apologise for deviating a bit from your topic which I note is about the quality of research in the 1985 Reasoning Book article on the Cross. I am sure this line of discussion will come up more appropriately somewhere else so will leave it until then.

Definition of witness is the problem - procedural inadequacy
Definite error of judgement this - evidence of naivety.
Pressure definitely exists, but probably sensible, clear, consistent legislation and enforcement would be a better instrument for change. And wouldn't it be helpful if outside "consultants" could be relied upon to have children's interests at heart? (I'll cite UK examples in view of the impending investigations).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-39305042
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39234390
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/4595158.stm

Actually, it is not known on the basis of current evidence. So it is really a hiding to nothing or, more graphically, like flogging a dead horse to try and prove definitively what the instrument was on the basis of current evidence. Heroic attempts however, and ingenious argument all round!!

Actually, it is not known on the basis of current evidence. So it is really a hiding to nothing or, more graphically, like flogging a dead horse to try and prove definitively what the instrument was on the basis of current evidence. Heroic attempts however, and ingenious argument all round!!

I would say always rather than often. This is how they progress to the abusive action without detection. I am hard pushed to think of a reason why I should not consider these perpertrators to be the most devious, dangerous, and pathetically evil criminals on the planet.
This is not a fair assessment. This is not about culture and belief with JWs. This is about procedural inadequacy due to naivety. You should know better @Ann O'Maly.

Well, not really. In this system there is very little you can do without money. Even God's word recognizes that money is for a protection. I can see why such actions you describe would be prudent. If we take it to its grass roots, and remember Satan is the ruler of this system, then he could very well be using the world's systems (legal or otherwise) to incapacitate or halt the work of the Witnesses. To survive in this system, in the sense that the Witnessing work can carry on, you have to beat the system at its own game. So what you have said about the reasons the GB perhaps not wanting to participate makes complete sense, and I never thought about it that way. The problem some have with that is that they immediately assume "following the money" means someone is lining their pockets, sipping Sangria on a private island, while others are suffering.
 
P.S. Although brother Rook swears all the money is being pooled into HQ so that Br. Morris can buy a Rolex and Br. Herd his blingy cuff links......

All witness testimony requires some level of interpretation does it not? No less so 'forensic evidence' surely. That's where the professional input comes in.
Prompt reporting to the authorities would (hopefully) enable due attention to be given to safety of actual and potential victim(s) and initiate the appropriate type of investigation to deal with the criminal element of the matter. Let's face it, if you found someone hit by a car in the road, you would call for professional help immediately to deal with both injury and safety, as well as investigating the cause, would you not?
In the case of abuse, the spritual side could then proceed, greatly facilitated if there was a witness issue. However, if an arrest had taken place there may well be challenges to the progressing of a judicial matter from the congregational standpoint.
Not sure I recall this aspect ever being discussed, let alone documented, although there was vague reference to circumstantial evidence in the form of "trauma" serving as a "witness" in both Case Study 29 and 54.
As for the inevitable "slagging" of secular authorities that occurs in discussion threads on this matter, this serves about as much purpose as that done in connection with JW attempts to handle this heinous crime and, quite frankly, for me, obscures the real issue, which is the protection of children and the successful prosecution of those who abuse them.

Rather contradictory reporting here about a boy who was told he would go to hell by someone who also told him hell does not exist???? 
Maybe not fake but certainly confuse news!
Regardless, the topic is certainly inappropriate for discussion between a 7 yr old and an unrelated adult.

Certainly not, but it is their expert opinion we want surely? Not someone else's half remembered; half made-up; half distorted memory of what they might think. (There's a lot of "halfs" there! I might have invented a trinity!)  

???????

They are facsimiles of Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls that were produced by the Israeli Antiquities Authority who currently own the original Scrolls.

Valid points made in AllenSmith's posting. 
The inconsistency and complexity of legal requirements in Australia was recognised by the ARC and the Society's affirming a desire for something consistent and simple was invited.
Compare the confusion in Australia:  
https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/mandatory-reporting-child-abuse-and-neglect 
with that in the US: 
https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/manda/ 
https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/clergymandated/
where definition on who constitutes "clergy" is inconsistent or vague with only Guam making any sense, and where "clergy-penitent" privilege is abrogated or permitted depending on constantly changing state law.
This is compounded immeasurably when considered on a global scale. For Jehovah's people who aim to transcend the fragmentation of nations, operating in a united way in such a Babel-like confusion is an enormous challenge. Rom 13:1 demands respect for Caesar, but today there are many Caesars. Applying a global policy is impossible, hence region-specific instruction and the Branch contact requirement. 
Quite true, but no reason for a weak policy as some abuse comes to light considerably earlier. And surely the aim in part is to promote this?
Agreed. Left hand and right hand comparisons tempting here.
To be fair though, the intense scrutiny levelled against Jehovah's Witnesses in this situation would probably mean that anything submitted would be crticised unless virtually worded by the the ARC themselves. It was prudent to wait for the ARC comments before distributing the policy doc even if the proclaiming of the wisdom of doing so came across as a little self-promoting.
The fudged discussion on defining "inactivity" and "disassociation" was embarrasing. Is that included?
 
 

What is the matter with these guys??

All witness testimony requires some level of interpretation does it not? No less so 'forensic evidence' surely. That's where the professional input comes in.
Prompt reporting to the authorities would (hopefully) enable due attention to be given to safety of actual and potential victim(s) and initiate the appropriate type of investigation to deal with the criminal element of the matter. Let's face it, if you found someone hit by a car in the road, you would call for professional help immediately to deal with both injury and safety, as well as investigating the cause, would you not?
In the case of abuse, the spritual side could then proceed, greatly facilitated if there was a witness issue. However, if an arrest had taken place there may well be challenges to the progressing of a judicial matter from the congregational standpoint.
Not sure I recall this aspect ever being discussed, let alone documented, although there was vague reference to circumstantial evidence in the form of "trauma" serving as a "witness" in both Case Study 29 and 54.
As for the inevitable "slagging" of secular authorities that occurs in discussion threads on this matter, this serves about as much purpose as that done in connection with JW attempts to handle this heinous crime and, quite frankly, for me, obscures the real issue, which is the protection of children and the successful prosecution of those who abuse them.

Valid points made in AllenSmith's posting. 
The inconsistency and complexity of legal requirements in Australia was recognised by the ARC and the Society's affirming a desire for something consistent and simple was invited.
Compare the confusion in Australia:  
https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/mandatory-reporting-child-abuse-and-neglect 
with that in the US: 
https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/manda/ 
https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/clergymandated/
where definition on who constitutes "clergy" is inconsistent or vague with only Guam making any sense, and where "clergy-penitent" privilege is abrogated or permitted depending on constantly changing state law.
This is compounded immeasurably when considered on a global scale. For Jehovah's people who aim to transcend the fragmentation of nations, operating in a united way in such a Babel-like confusion is an enormous challenge. Rom 13:1 demands respect for Caesar, but today there are many Caesars. Applying a global policy is impossible, hence region-specific instruction and the Branch contact requirement. 
Quite true, but no reason for a weak policy as some abuse comes to light considerably earlier. And surely the aim in part is to promote this?
Agreed. Left hand and right hand comparisons tempting here.
To be fair though, the intense scrutiny levelled against Jehovah's Witnesses in this situation would probably mean that anything submitted would be crticised unless virtually worded by the the ARC themselves. It was prudent to wait for the ARC comments before distributing the policy doc even if the proclaiming of the wisdom of doing so came across as a little self-promoting.
The fudged discussion on defining "inactivity" and "disassociation" was embarrasing. Is that included?
 
 

All witness testimony requires some level of interpretation does it not? No less so 'forensic evidence' surely. That's where the professional input comes in.
Prompt reporting to the authorities would (hopefully) enable due attention to be given to safety of actual and potential victim(s) and initiate the appropriate type of investigation to deal with the criminal element of the matter. Let's face it, if you found someone hit by a car in the road, you would call for professional help immediately to deal with both injury and safety, as well as investigating the cause, would you not?
In the case of abuse, the spritual side could then proceed, greatly facilitated if there was a witness issue. However, if an arrest had taken place there may well be challenges to the progressing of a judicial matter from the congregational standpoint.
Not sure I recall this aspect ever being discussed, let alone documented, although there was vague reference to circumstantial evidence in the form of "trauma" serving as a "witness" in both Case Study 29 and 54.
As for the inevitable "slagging" of secular authorities that occurs in discussion threads on this matter, this serves about as much purpose as that done in connection with JW attempts to handle this heinous crime and, quite frankly, for me, obscures the real issue, which is the protection of children and the successful prosecution of those who abuse them.

Doesn't a professional opinion count as a second witness??

Clever quip
 

That's not Coco Rocha on the cart!

I can see similarities in the use of jw.org logos as trinkets or ornaments or badges in the way that others might use crosses without religious significance.
However, I can't really see a similarity between the way many witnesses view trinkets and cakes etc. bearing the jw.org symbol and the way in which the cross is treated religiously by diverse members of Christendom.
The links below might illustrate my point:
http://www.latitudenews.com/story/faithful-in-philippines-embrace-christ-and-his-crucifixion/
http://blogs.ft.com/photo-diary/2016/01/kissing-the-cross/
http://catholicphilly.com/2016/03/think-tank/catholic-spirituality/salvation-comes-through-the-cross-not-a-magic-wand-pope-says/
Anyway, I apologise for deviating a bit from your topic which I note is about the quality of research in the 1985 Reasoning Book article on the Cross. I am sure this line of discussion will come up more appropriately somewhere else so will leave it until then.

Rather contradictory reporting here about a boy who was told he would go to hell by someone who also told him hell does not exist???? 
Maybe not fake but certainly confuse news!
Regardless, the topic is certainly inappropriate for discussion between a 7 yr old and an unrelated adult.

Is Jehovah's refence to Himself as a King anthropomorphic?
"Because we cannot see God with physical eyes, he uses certain anthropomorphic expressions to help us to understand and appreciate things about himself." Insight 1 p349
"anthropomorphic usage, that is, the attributing of physical and human characteristics to God to facilitate understanding" Insight 2 p1007

Let's not overlook the fact that the timeless lesson on the result of faithful stewardship bound up in these verses at Matt 24:45-47 holds up regardless of the specific application to the Governing Body's role in modern times as part of the sign of the last days. It would be a highly myopic application here that ignored the necessity for ALL Christians to faifhfully discharge their responsibilities as stewards of Jehovah's undeserved kindness (compare 1Cor 9:17; 1Pet. 4:10). On the other hand, I see no reason to doubt that the oversight of spiritual shepherding that we currently see in the congregation has been assigned to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses (regardless of membership number or place of domicile), in fulfillment of Jesus words at Matt 24:45. The outcome of faithfully discharging that responsibility is described at vs 46-47.

Presumably you are referring to the view that the Governing Body are the "faithful and discreet slave" referenced at Matt.24:45?
No need to hypothesize on this. You are describing the apostasy that took place within the Christian congregation (Acts 20:29-31) And as for the savage treatment meted out to those brave individuals who disagreed with such "superfine apostles"....well it makes Jehovah's treatment of Korah & Co. appear positively humane. So, are you really suggesting that todays governing body are some how synonymous with the aforementioned apostasy from true Christianity because they identify themselves as the "faithful and discreet slave" of Matt.24:45?
I cannot see any words or actions of Jesus and Paul to contradict the idea of an arrangement to govern the activities of the ChrIstian congregation. Of course, in no uncertain terms, they severely castigated the Pharisees and scribes and any who would follow their pattern: Jesus: " Serpents, offspring of vipers" (Matt.23:33); Paul: "I wish the men who are trying to unsettle you would emasculate themselves" Gal.5:12.
But as for the idea of a sole channel of communication?
Jesus said "No one comes to the Father except through me" John 14:6. And as for the delegation of sole authority in matters relating to the kingdom, he himself set up an earthly channel when he said to Peter "I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of the heavens," Matt. 16:19. By saying that whatever Peter 'would loosen would already be that loosened in the heavens', he showed that in no way would his own position be usurped by those who represented his authority on earth, but in this case it was sole authority in the most literal sense that was delegated to Peter, despite it's being relative to heavenly direction. The later descriptions of Jesus holding the stars of various congegations in his right hand support the view that responsibility for earthly matters is still in the hand of the Christ, despite the delegation.
Paul's recognition of a lead body consisting of the apostles and some older men in Jerusalem is indisputably seen in the account of Acts 15. His words in Gal.Ch. 2 in no way contradict this, but merely lend weight to the argument that Paul himself likely became a member of that lead body. His public rebuke of Peter's shameful fear of man (Gal.2:11-15) add to this understanding. Additionally, his words to the Thessalonians at 2 Thess. 2:1-2 support the idea of a right and wrong channel of communication. (regardless of the subject matter, a topic for separate discussion).
So for me, the concept of the "faithful and discreet slave" being an arrangement for spiritual nourishment as a part of the sign of these last days now in progress is quite acceptable. There was absolutely no need for such a question in the 1stC preceding the apostasy, in the same way that the term "Christian" was unambiguous, so no need to ask "who really is" at that stage.
However, the presence of apostate Christendom in all it's manifestations renders that question highly relevant in these "last days". The activity of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses throughout this period since 1914 leave no doubt in my mind that they are indeed Jehovah's faithful and discreet slave at this time. The dispensing of spiritual information provided under their direction as accountable to Christ,  is without parallel in the world today in any aspect one cares to consider. None of us would be serving the true God Jehovah in the manner that we do (Col.3:23), with the knowledge that we have (Jo.8:32), with full confidence in the things hoped for (Heb.3:14), and knowing how to maintain the full assurance that we are doing the will of God (Heb.6:11) if it was not for their diligent and courageous work.
So. Where does that leave us? Still trying on caps? I sincerely hope not!