b4ucuhear

This shows clearly that the court was NOT mislead.
(Saying it was mislead is another one of Zalkin's loaded words to make JWs appear dishonest and bent on protecting pedophiles. As a result we see headlines such as "JWs lied in court". )
Yes, I agree with that. I have seen it practiced (in other areas, not CSA). The Montana case is from what happened about 10 years ago. Hopefully now, with the new guidelines, and especially the WT study, all of JWs will no longer view this as bringing shame on the organization if they report, but they will see it is the perpetrator who is the one that is bringing the shame. Now it is in proper perspective. 

I think that is the general idea, and that we have seen the last of any pedophiles or child molesters getting away with their disgusting crime. Also, I think anyone thinking about doing anything disgusting to children will think twice about it. (However, there is the problem of new people coming in, they may not be aware of this strict child policy. But I do know that brothers who are being considered for appointment as elders are asked if there is anything in the past that would disqualify them from taking up this position).  I do not expect to see any more new cases in the coming years. I think if any cases come to light now, it will be from the past.
A few months ago I researched the Montana case quite extensively (I read the 400 or so page court transcript) and posted some of my "observations" in the Private JW Club. This was another classic instance of  "a dirty old step dad/grandad molests step children and then years later a step grandchild". (If memory serves right, I think this happened about 10 years ago). The step daughter with the grandchild knew that her step dad had molested her sister, and despite that, she brought her child (the grandchild) to his house for baby sitting because of convenience sake. I don't think this sat too well with the Jury, since it was evident she had knowingly put her child in harms way. Most of the members of that family were not very strong in the truth, and one of the victim's claim was thrown out of court as unreliable (basically she made some stuff up).
I have not followed up on the results of the lawsuit, so thanks for posting that. Anyway, what I remember from reading the transcript is that it all seemed to hang on clergy privilege law in Montana. You might already know this, but each state in USA has their own state laws. Some states have no clergy confidentiality, and others do. Then there is the issue of "what exactly is meant by "confidential". Does this mean no one but the one whom the confidential issue was disclosed to knows? If I remember right, what had to be established by the court was: whose definition of confidentiality was going to be used. Was it going to be the "Catholic" version, where only the priest knows, or was it going to be the particular religions version, in other words what that particular religion viewed as confidential. In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, confidentiality is not the same as the Catholic version of confidentiality. As we know, when a JW judicial matter is said to be confidential, it means that more than just one elder gets to know the matter and in the case of CSA, advice is sought from the branch office as to reporting laws, i.e. what does the law for that particular state say about reporting? So here we already have perhaps more than 4 people who know about the matter. However, in this version of confidentiality, only those persons who are involved in handling the matter know. No one outside of that circle is privy to this information*. Also, another criteria for the Catholic version of confidentiality is that the penitent must approach the cleric, the confessional.  However, with the Witnesses, this is not always the case. The perpetrator is approached by the elders, as it was in this case. So, although I haven't read the report yet, it appears that the state of Montana recognizes a religion's interpretation of confidentiality, therefor they deemed the JW version as confidential information. So it wasn't because the elders were lying about confidentiality in order to deceive the court. The transcript clearly showed that the elders said how they proceeded, so the court was well aware the that more than one person knew, and that the elders on the judicial committee also called the branch for consultation. There was no deceit on the part of the elders.
* It just occurred to me that if no one outside the confidential circle was to know, then parents of other children were not to find out either. However, this is not the case now. When it is established that there may be concern over the behavior of someone in the congregation, then the parents of any children in that congregation are notified. So really, now there is no confidentiality for the sake of protecting the children. So, I wonder how we can even claim clergy penitence now, because of that. It seems this would be a moot issue with any new cases. It makes me see how in contrast, the other version of clergy penitence is a danger to children, because the priest must not tell anyone else. This is why I think it's stupid for any state or country to have this outdated religious law written in their secular law. Some states are trying to abolish this, but religious tradition is so closely intertwined with politics that it may never happen. Especially not in predominantly Catholic countries....

Here is the way to look at events in Montana: I wrote it up this morning and posted on my blog. Reproduced here:
After the multi-million dollar verdict against Jehovah’s Witnesses in Montana was reversed, I visited the Witness-bashing website to see how they were taking it. They were not happy. However, the ones who knew law were analytical.
“This isn’t the fault of the courts,” one said. “It’s the fault of the Montana law as written. Courts must follow law or risk reversal on appeal. This case was never going to be ultimately won. The law was way too clear on the matter.”
Another: “Montana followed the law. It’s that simple and of course Watchtower followed the law...”
Yet another: “The case never should have been started, as the law clearly backed JW’s actions. It never had a chance of surviving appeal.”
They sure didn’t talk that way after the first trial. Some of their cohorts wanted to rub my nose—line by line—through that first transcript. ‘The court found your people guilty, TrueTom! Why would they do that unless they had broke the law—they who say they adhere to the law!’ I didn’t respond because I am not a lawyer that would try to unravel their affairs. Moreover, courts, while they may represent the best human justice available, are clearly not above bias from pre-existing philosophical leanings—if they were confirming a Supreme Court Justice would take ten minutes. ‘Wait until the fat lady sings,’ was my attitude. When she did, it was to throw out the judgement of the skinny lady.
Not all were so retrospective after that reversal. “F**k the Montana Supreme Court!” was the outraged complaint woven throughout the thread, with some accusing those seven justices (the reversal was 7-0) of being enablers themselves! Child sexual abuse is the most white-hot topic of all and calm heads rarely prevail. One of them muttered at how they must be “celebrating this victory” at Watchtower HQ. But they showed no sign of it. The Witness attorney summed up events: “There are no winners in a case involving child abuse. ‘No child should ever be subjected to such a debased crime....Tragically, it happens, and when it does Jehovah's Witnesses follow the law. This is what the Montana Supreme Court has established.’” Obviously if one is on the hook for several million dollars and then no longer is, they will not mourn over it. But the focus was kept on the victim, as it should have been. Ideally, she gets full justice from the perpetrator directly responsible.
The gold standard in matters of child sexual abuse is to “go beyond the law.” It is a crazy expectation and I can think of no parallels to it. The expectation is found in a remark already presented, but in truncated form. The full remark was: “Montana followed the law. It’s that simple and of course Watchtower followed the law, rather than just simply reporting child abuse like a good Christian organization.”
If the gold standard regarding child abuse is to “go beyond the law” then MAKE that the law! That’s what law is for! Three times before the ARC Geoffrey Jackson pleaded for such a change—it would make his job “so much easier.” ‘Going beyond the law’ is surely to trigger the wrath of those who, not unreasonably, expect you to abide by the law! Change the law and everyone is happy.
As though on cue, a report surfaced regarding another faith. An Oregon woman has filed a lawsuit for $9 million against the Mormon church because they DID report a confidentially disclosed sexual abuse of a minor. “Clergy are not required to report known or suspected child abuse if the knowledge results from a congregation member's confidential communication or confession and if the person making the statement does not consent to disclosure," Justice Beth Baker wrote in the Montana Supreme Court opinion. It is a statement that will clearly help the Oregon woman, but would not if it were not the law. Change the law if you are really serious about nabbing pedophiles.
The way everything unfolded in Montana pretty well accords with my initial assessment. So great is the world”s frustration at not being able to make a dent in the child sexual abuse pandemic that the first court chose to ignore law in pursuit of that end. It might well be combined with some religious bias, but I would not hang my hat on the latter—outrage over child sexual abuse is sufficient in itself. The Witness organization did follow law, as the Supreme Count validated, but the first court reinterpreted law and made it retroactive to make it seem that they did not. I wrote about it here:
Change the law! Why cannot that be done? If Watchtower wants to change a policy, they can do it overnight and have it implemented worldwide within the week. It is the basket-case eternally squabbling, turf-guarding, plethora of competing jurisdictions that cause many Witnesses to become Witnesses in the first place—they see how hopeless it is with human governments.
Ones who want to bring the Watchtower down on the pretext of child sexual abuse, such as those who predominate at the Witness bashing site, are hardly out of bullets, but they are continually frustrated. Their efforts to put Witness stories above all others gains little traction because the pattern elsewhere is that the leaders of organizations, religious or otherwise, are the abusers themselves, something rarely true with the Witness organization, and also that child sexual abuse appears to be the primary export of the planet, crowding out stories of “lesser” significance. With Watchtower (as in Montana) the situation is typically that of abuse within a family or step-family and Witness leaders come under the gun for evoking law and not reporting it, leaving that up to the persons involved—sometimes they do but often they don’t. History may well judge that harshly, but it does not hold a candle to leaders actually committing the abuse themselves. The class action suit in Quebec that I wrote about was similarly dismissed. Moreover, that contributing perception—that it is a disgrace to call attention to child sexual abuse—has been firmly put to rest among Witnesses.
The Epstein joke making the rounds is: “If you were surprised at Jeff Epstein committing suicide, just think how surprised he must have been!” Of course. With prison security protocol breaking down “at every level” and with 60 Minutes concluding that his injuries far suggest homicide over suicide, the conclusion that he was put to sleep by powerful interests to protect other pedophiles will never be squashed. People are naive, but not that naive. 
A DisneyLand executive was recently sentenced for pedophile offenses, and Erin Elizabeth of HealthNutNews, who has lived in the area, says it happens all the time. The point is, there is no place where child sexual abuse is not, but participants on the anti-JW site see it in only one place—a place where its intensity pales next to places where leaders are the abusers, not just ones trying to stem it who may have done so clumsily.
Thirty years into all-out war against child sexual abuse and barely a dent has been made! For my money, the JW organization is the most proactive of all, gathering every single member on earth to consider detailed scenarios in which child abuse might happen—if there are sleepovers, if there are tickling sessions, if there are unsupervised trips to the rest room, if someone, even a relative, shows unusual interest in your child, and so forth—so that parents, the obvious first line of defense, can be on the alert. This was done at the 2017 Regional Conventions, which were held globally.
It is the common and accepted legal practice to go as high up on the food chain as possible with regard to any lawsuit—everyone knows this and judges it an unremarkable fact of life. “Knew or should have known” is the legal expression that carries the day and effectively amounts to a tax on the common person. Governments raise taxes. Businesses raise prices. When I hear that my neighbor’s lawyer secured him millions of dollars for his auto accident, I rejoice with him—then I open my insurance premium bill.
As people become ever more debased, just where does this end? Women on airlines are reporting sexual abuse. Even rape has been reported, and with passengers being packed in like sardines, attendants expected to monitor this are caught dumbfounded. Do they “know or should have known?” In an increasingly depraved world, your guess is as good as mine.
As to sentiment on the Witness-bashing website? Look, whenever one discards a scenario in which there is discipline for one in which there is not, it will be like releasing a compressed spring—it rebounds wildly, delirious with its newfound freedom, caring not where it goes. This will be true when one leaves behind the school, the military, or the job. It will especially be true if one quit or was expelled from that institution—and that is the case of most on the anti-JW site. Many of them have come out as gay. Witnesses may not gay-bash as do some evangelicals, some of whom froth on the subject and tirelessly prod legislators to make it hot for gays in general society—Witnesses don’t do that—still, there is no place for gay relations within the Witness organization—and that hardly endears them to former members who have gone that way. There is a plain backdrop of ‘settling the score’ to be detected in many posts. It is anything but easy to hold the line on Bible morality in a quickly changing world.

I can't claim to speak for anyone else here, but it appears to me you are going beyond the scope of your reference as to what people are trying to say here or maybe it's a misunderstanding. Let's use your example below as a starting point:
So, let's say for example, your father asked you to go to bed early and get up early to walk the 2 miles to the box and get him the latest newspaper for tomorrow. Let's say he also promises that if you do that, he will give you a dollar. Great right? But is that dollar the only reason you would get the paper if you loved your father? No, you would do it out of love and respect for him. Still, since he also loves you, and recognizes that it may require no small measure of self-sacrifice, he offers to reward you with a dollar - even though he knows you love him and would probably do it for free. He sees that as both loving and fair on his part. In fact, he offers you that reward even before you actually perform the task. (He doesn't ask you to do it and say: "Maybe I'll give you something... we'll see." He offers it right up front.) So if you performed that task, it would be fair to "expect" he would give you a reward now, like he said he would, even though you might have done it for free. Jehovah does the same thing. He knows he asks a lot of us in facing the challenges of obedience in the face of Satan's vicious attacks and our own discouraging imperfections. He also knows that there will be individuals who would serve him out of love - and prove Satan a liar. We know he knew this even before he offered any rewards for obedience to such ones when he made the prophecy at Gen. 3:15 which assumed the obedience of his own Son as well as others. But Jehovah didn't leave it at that. He later made it clear that he would rightly show appreciation for obedience by rewarding such individuals. So it wouldn't be wrong to "expect" Jehovah to fulfill his promise of a reward, even if they would have done it for free. And Jehovah offers those rewards right up front. That however, does not support Satan's challenge that all humans only serve God for selfish gain or to save themselves. Jehovah knew Job was a faithful man and Jesus would be faithful under test as well - even before promising them anything. And he was right. He was also right to reward faithfulness of humans in the face of tests that they would not normally have expected (not part of the original deal) while perfect in the Garden of Eden. This was uncalled for. So obedience is an evidence of our love for God and reward is an evidence of God's love for us.

I can't claim to speak for anyone else here, but it appears to me you are going beyond the scope of your reference as to what people are trying to say here or maybe it's a misunderstanding. Let's use your example below as a starting point:
So, let's say for example, your father asked you to go to bed early and get up early to walk the 2 miles to the box and get him the latest newspaper for tomorrow. Let's say he also promises that if you do that, he will give you a dollar. Great right? But is that dollar the only reason you would get the paper if you loved your father? No, you would do it out of love and respect for him. Still, since he also loves you, and recognizes that it may require no small measure of self-sacrifice, he offers to reward you with a dollar - even though he knows you love him and would probably do it for free. He sees that as both loving and fair on his part. In fact, he offers you that reward even before you actually perform the task. (He doesn't ask you to do it and say: "Maybe I'll give you something... we'll see." He offers it right up front.) So if you performed that task, it would be fair to "expect" he would give you a reward now, like he said he would, even though you might have done it for free. Jehovah does the same thing. He knows he asks a lot of us in facing the challenges of obedience in the face of Satan's vicious attacks and our own discouraging imperfections. He also knows that there will be individuals who would serve him out of love - and prove Satan a liar. We know he knew this even before he offered any rewards for obedience to such ones when he made the prophecy at Gen. 3:15 which assumed the obedience of his own Son as well as others. But Jehovah didn't leave it at that. He later made it clear that he would rightly show appreciation for obedience by rewarding such individuals. So it wouldn't be wrong to "expect" Jehovah to fulfill his promise of a reward, even if they would have done it for free. And Jehovah offers those rewards right up front. That however, does not support Satan's challenge that all humans only serve God for selfish gain or to save themselves. Jehovah knew Job was a faithful man and Jesus would be faithful under test as well - even before promising them anything. And he was right. He was also right to reward faithfulness of humans in the face of tests that they would not normally have expected (not part of the original deal) while perfect in the Garden of Eden. This was uncalled for. So obedience is an evidence of our love for God and reward is an evidence of God's love for us.

Is it wrong to serve God for a reward? It depends on what we consider to be a reward. If it is purely for selfish reasons, for what personal benefit we can get, regardless of how it affects others, yes it would be wrong. (That's why looking to dates can be a dangerous game - ((although it can serve as a net to catch pretenders who only serve God for personal benefit)).  But consider please the example Jesus set as described at Hebrews 12:2: "as we look intently at the Chief Agent and Perfecter of our faith, Jesus. For the joy that was set before him he endured a torture stake, despising shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." As the comments in the Study Bible correctly state: "What was 'the joy that was set before (Jesus)' for which he endured a torture stake"?  It was the joy of seeing what his ministry would accomplish - including the sanctification of Jehovah's name, the vindication of God's sovereignty, and the ransoming of the human family from death." (That in itself was a reward to Jesus). BUT, "he also looked ahead to the reward of ruling as King and serving as High Priest to the benefit of mankind." Was that selfish of Jesus? No. Not when you consider that it was God himself who held out the hope Jesus had. 
So we can see that it is not necessarily a question of only one or the other. Even for those who love Jehovah and feel that obedience is it's own reward, Jehovah himself has always rewarded faithfulness and seen it proper to do so. In fact he often gave the the choice to reap the rewards of obedience or disobedience - whether "blessing or malediction." 
At 1 Cor. 15:32, under inspiration Paul stated: "If like other men, I have fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, of what good is it to me? If the dead are not to be raised up, 'let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die." So Paul was saying that if there was no reward for obedience in the form of a resurrection, why not live it up? If death ends it all, living for the present makes perfect sense." (comment from Study Bible). Again, we recall that Jehovah inspired Paul to write those words and it is historically true that Jehovah has always shown appreciation for and rewarded obedience. Even in the Garden of Eden, our first human parents had a wonderful prospect held out to them - everlasting life in perfection if they were obedient. Such obedience also shows we love God and respect him. 1 John 5:3 "for this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments..." Study Bible comments: "As described in the Bible, love for God is much more than a feeling In fact, although the feeling of love for Jehovah is essential, that feeling is just the beginning of real love for him. An apple seed is essential to the development of a fruit-bearing apple tree. If you wanted an apple, however, would you be content if someone merely handed you an apple seed? Hardly! Similarly, a feeling of love for Jehovah God is only a start. The bible teaches: "This is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments;..." To be genuine, love for God must bear fine fruit. It must be expressed in actions." (Matt. 7:16-20)
 So a romanticized version of what it means to love God actually leaves God out of the picture. It leaves out how he views obedience and how he is ready, willing and able to reward obedience - and how it is proper for him to do so (as a God of love and justice). Heb. 11:6: "...without faith it is impossible to please God well, for whoever approaches God must believe that he is and that he becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him." The comments in the Study Bible for Hebrews 11:6 are of interest here - very pertinent.

Sorry that I've been too busy to respond earlier. Does the WT really lead us into diminishing Jesus? I referenced the scriptures you had cited in the WT library and found that the number of "occurrences" referring to those scriptures was as follows:
John 5:22 (166); Psalm 2:12 (238); Rev. 5:11-13 (414); Rev. 7:10 (1184); Phil. 2:8-11 (1561); Rev. 5:8 (167); Heb. 1:6 (156) for a total of three thousand, eight hundred and eighty-six times those 7 scriptures pertaining to Jesus were referred to. True, this included oblique references in that they didn't directly relate to the specific aspect of this conversation, but there were also many that were. Although I will include a partial quote from just one of those thousands of WT references, it should give us a better idea of what they actually teach. The question also worth asking is: When it comes to assigning honour, praise and glory, what example did Jesus himself set for all Christians? Anyway, below is just a smidgen of what WT readers know to expect: (I am putting this quote at the end so if you don't have the time to read it all you don't have to, and won't include the many scriptures ((most/all from the New Testament)) included to save space):
 "Now we come to the matter of honoring Jesus Christ. That his followers are obligated to honor him can be seen from his words at John 5:22, 23: 'For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son, in order that all may honor the Son just as they honour the Father. He that does not honor the Son does not honour the Father who sent him." Since Christ's resurrection, Jehovah has honored his Son to an even greater degree, 'crowning him with glory and honour for having suffered death.' Basically, we have reasons to honor Jesus both because of who he is and because of what he has done. 
  Jesus Christ deserves our honor because he, as the Logos, or Word, is Jehovah's communicator pare excellence...he is the only one directly created by Jehovah. In addition, 'all things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.'...Surely, the fact that Jesus in his prehuman existence had the marvellous privilege of sharing with Jehovah God in creation makes him worthy of great honor...
  Jesus Christ further deserves honor because he is Jehovah's chief angel, or archangel...The archangel Michael fights in behalf of God's Kingdom, taking the lead in cleansing the heavens of Satan and his demonic hordes...
  Not only does Jesus Christ deserve to be honored because of who he is but he also deserves our honor because of what he has done...(He) remained 'loyal, guileless, separated from sinners' in spite of all that the Devil could bring upon him in the way of temptations or persecutions...And because of his keeping sinless integrity, Jesus vindicated his heavenly Father as the rightful universal Sovereign and proved the Devil to be a base and gross liar... 
  Jesus Christ deserves our honor, not only because he lived a perfect, sinless life but also because he was a good man, an unselfish, self-sacrificing man. He tirelessly ministered to the spiritual and physical needs of the people...What suffering he was willing to undergo in doing his Father's will! 
  Jesus also deserves our honor because of the king example he set for us in honouring his heavenly Father...by his words and deeds...Therefore, at the end of his earthly ministry, Jesus could rightly say in prayer to his heavenly Father: 'I have glorified you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do.'
  What He Has Done for US
  How greatly Jesus Christ is deserving of our honor because of all he has accomplished for us! He died for our sins so that we can be reconciled to Jehovah God...Thus his death made possible all that the Kingdom will accomplish for us humans.
  Jesus Christ is also deserving of honor because, as the Great Teacher, he has perfectly revealed his Father's will and personality to us. ...
  The apostle Paul well summarized Jesus' honor-deserving course when he wrote: 'Although he was existing in God's form (he) gave no consideration to a seizure, namely that he should be equal to God...
How Can We Honor the Son?
  We do so by exercising faith in his ransom sacrifice, and we prove that faith by taking the necessary steps of repentance, conversion , dedication, and baptism. By coming to Jehovah in prayer in Jesus' name, we honor Jesus. We further honor him when we heed his words: 'If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his torture stake and continually follow me. We honor Jesus Christ when we heed his instructions to keep seeking first God's Kingdom and his righteousness. and we honor him when we heed his command to share in the disciple-making work. Again, we honor Jesus when we manifest the brotherly love he said would identify all his true followers.
  Further, we bring honor to the Son by taking upon ourselves his name, calling ourselves Christians, and then by living up to that name by our fine conduct...And certainly, when we annually celebrate the Memorial of Christ's death, we accord him special honor..."
  

Personally, I would without hesitation say more than the elders, organization and Governing Body - and I doubt you would get any JW disagreeing with that regardless of what you may think. Easy enough question to ask though. I'm just one JW. There are plenty of others you could ask. As for how much we should love Jesus compared to Jehovah God his Father and the Creator of all, I would say it would be best to adopt Jesus' own viewpoint on that. (I don't need to tell you what his answer would be). I would agree that it's very possible that some JW's give less attention and respect to Jesus than he deserves - although that could be said of individuals found in any Christian religion and I am not in a position to quantify percentages with polls to substantiate that. 
Well I don't need to tell you that most Christian religions "worship" Jesus. So the the love they should be showing Jehovah as God they direct to Jesus. Rom. 10:2 "For I bear witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to accurate knowledge. 3) For because of not knowing the righteousness of God but seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God." It's also fair to say that some religions in particular, are very much based on emotion and hyperbole. John 4:22 "You worship who you do not know; we worship what we know..." It can be VERY difficult to carry on a Bible-based discussion with people who place their emotional feelings of being "special," to Jesus above what the Bible clearly states. That is why these "lovers of Jesus" are prepared to go to war and kill their fellow believers in Jesus' name. "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition" was one well known song. 
Agreed. I would also mention however, that running around saying "I love Jesus,"  "praise Jesus" and "Hallelujah" (which most Christians don't even know the meaning of), is not in of itself an indication that they do in fact love Jesus. If they did love Jesus, they would be obedient to his commands as recorded in the Bible. This is one indication that JW's do in fact produce the fruitage showing they love Jesus as opposed to just emotional hot air. Ask yourself: Who would you rather be facing across the border in a time of war? A JW or any other so-called lover of Jesus? 

JWs teach that the sanctification of Jehovahs 'righteousness' is most important. (Jehova is the indisputable sovereign - he need not prove it to anyone because he alone has the power to enforce it.)
Jehovahs  name must be cleared from the accusation from satan that his sovreignty is a selfish or unjust (unrighteous) sovereignty.   Satan accused God of withholding knowledge of making their own moral decisions from Adam/Eve. Being independent from God would serve them better.
Satan knew that God is just and would allow for the accusation to be tested. God does not break his own righteousness. Satan did not challenge the power if God because he would lose this argument. He challenged the righteousness of Jehovahs rule.
Jehovahs way of ruling is the best way...... and we will all discover this in the new system when we all bring glory to God by letting our ego go and following Jehovahs principles of unselfish love.
Jehovah is humble and righteous - and we will reflect these qualities perfectly in future.   Jehovah gave the ' best he had'  (jesus) to save us from calamity. It was painful for him when his son died even though he knew he could resurrect him. It was the fact that his son had to go through that agony while being righteous.
Jehovahs righteousness will be vindicated because of his unselfish love. Our love for him changes over time as we realize that Jehova is always righteous. While he promises us a reward - I agree with you my brother...... our unselfish love will take us to death for Jehovah - without expecting a reward.
If we only live for the reward and not the love and justice/righteousness, mercy it represents - then our unselfishness needs some work.
The love of jehovah and Jesus never includes death. God wants no-one to die but all to be saved.  The whole earth was designed with man in mind.  Satan is the father of death.
This is not a contest (chess game) between the power of god and satan. It is about the love and righteousness of God and the death, chaos and destruction which independence from God brings to all creatures.

A little bit of a stretch applying that to the GB don't you think?
So we should all be listening to this stranger's voice? Because it seems pretty strange alright. (Can you say: "Not playing with a full deck?")
According to her self-written profile, Pearl Doxsey, "Has been chosen to be a light in the world...called to be a prophet in the body of Christ..." 
That's not to say God can't and hasn't chosen or inspired humans to speak for him. But this isn't one of those...pretty sure
 

Jesus himself said that no flesh would be saved unless God stepped in. While it is not a teaching of ours to 'fear'  destruction of the earth there is a prophecy which shows we are indeed  'ruining' the earth. Rev 11:18.
I follow news regarding this issue and the true state if affairs regarding the biosphere is hidden from the public, while scientists are playing along with US government policy to hide the true state if affairs. 
Ice on Himalayas is melting as is a threat to the country of Bhutan, Maldives going down with rising waters.  Forests are dryer in certain areas, leaves and roots so dry that new saplings are dying. Fires in Sweden, Russia etc. The biggest secret is climate engineering..... on and on.... bla bla.... too much information available but people do not go there.
Hebr 11:1   Faith is based on evidence.  Blind faith is not faith. 
 

I think I've read that in some older works, maybe Alexander Hislop? Might've been referring to even more ancient practices. Here's a short version at https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/akitu/ that you might find interesting too. It's only officially a 7 day festival in this version, but who knows how long it was for those who had to prepare and travel.
True. There were persons in the royal court of the Assyrians who seemlessly meshed right into the Neo-Babylonian courts. Seemed a bit like the way so many European courts "shared" royalty through marriage, or even other reasons, so that for many years around WWI, half a dozen heads of state in different European countries were all cousins. And the queens and princesses were "traded" and "sold" to create a kind of human bond between states that had windows of peace with one another.
Well, the proposition here is that the 70 years of nations serving Babylon ran from ABOUT 607 to about 537. I don't fret over the exact years because I don't think it matters all that much to the prophecy of the 70 years. There's a good chance it ran from ABOUT 609 to about 539, too. In other words, the Assyrian world power waned, and the Babylonian world power gained. They were granted about 70 years of dominance over the nations around them, before the Medo-Persian empire gained ascendancy. As the Isaiah's Prophecy book states:
*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
Isaiah goes on to prophesy: “It must occur in that day that Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the same as the days of one king.” (Isaiah 23:15a) Following the destruction of the mainland city by the Babylonians, the island-city of Tyre will “be forgotten.” True to the prophecy, for the duration of “one king”—the Babylonian Empire—the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.
If you read the resources that Cesar has begun to recommend here, there is no claim among any of these new recommended historians that 607 was the date for the fall of Jerusalem in any of them, but that this date is considered a fairly close date for the beginning of the Babylonian domination that apparently ended around 539. Cesar has stated that he is OK with this "new chronology" even though it dates the fall of Jerusalem (Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in 587) not 607.
This is why I say that the date 607 can be right for the beginning of the 70 years, even without any reference to 1914.
This is not correct that it is a letter at the end of the word that indicates the difference. That's why we also see the example in Acts 28:6 where "theon" means "a god."
In this case both words are just different cases of the same lexical word theos. It's the context of the whole sentence that let's us know that there are two different types of divine beings or divinity being referenced. And Greek does have the definite article "the" but does not have an indefinite article "a." Since John 1:1 creates a distinction between a use of the definite for "God" we can tell that the distinction must be on purpose so that the second one IMPLIES "a god" or perhaps just the quality of being "divine." A being that has a quality of being divine, but is not "THE" God, might effectively be called "a god." Therefore this is not a bad translation at all. (In spite of a ton of criticism because it spoils a verse that is otherwise quite useful for Trinitarians.) 
But it's not those endings at the end of the word in this case. It's the fact that one "theos" has a "THE" in front of it and the other doesn't. The argument by Trinitarians and some Greek linguists, is that you don't NEED to always put a "THE" in front of "theos" to mean GOD. And even when you do, it doesn't mean that you always need to translate "THE" God each time. You wouldn't need to say "In the beginning, THE God created the heavens" because it sounds right to just say "In the beginning, God created the heavens."

Maybe you should take some time to read our publications to get a clearer understanding of what we officially believe. While I can't speak for the point of view of individuals such as yourself, I can highlight what we are officially taught and what I am aware of myself.
This is from the "Insight Book volume 1 under "Good News" which is there for all to see.
"GOOD NEWS  This refers to the good news of the kingdom of God and of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ. It is called in the Bible the 'good news of the kingdom' (Mt. 4:23), 'the good news of God' (Rom.15:16), 'the good news about Jesus Christ (Mr. 1:1), 'the good news of the undeserved kindness of God' (Ac. 20:24), 'the good news of peace' (Eph. 6:15), and the 'everlasting good news." (Re. 14:6)...It's Content  An idea of the content and scope of the good news can be gained from the above designations. It includes all the truths about which Jesus spoke and the disciples wrote. While men of old hoped in God and had faith through knowledge of Him. God's purpose and underserved kindness were first 'made clearly evident throughout the manifestation of our Saviour, Christ Jesus, who has abolished death but has shed light upon life and incorruption through the good news. 2 Ti. 1:9, 10...Jesus' Earthly Ministry and His Return.  It is noteworthy that, for about six  months before Jesus came to him for baptism, John the Baptizer preached: 'Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near,' and when Jesus appeared, John pointed to Jesus as the 'Lamb of Go that takes away the sin of the world.' (Mt. 3:1 2. Joh 1;29). Thus he turned the people's attention toward the long-awaited Messianic King. (Ac. 19:4)...While Jesus was on earth, he and his disciples announced: "The kingdom of he heavens has drawn near." (Mt. 4:17, 10:7). Jesus, anointed as Christ, the King, said to the Pharisees, his enemies: 'The kingdom of God is in your midst.' (Lu 17:20, 21) This was the theme, or central point, of the good news during Jesus' earthly ministry. However, it is not reported that after Jesus' death the disciples proclaimed the Kingdom as having 'drawn near' or as being at hand. Rather, the good news they preached was that after Jesus had laid down his life as the ransom price for salvation, he ascended to heaven and was then sitting at God's right hand. They also preached about Jesus' return at a later time and his Kingdom to come. (Heb. 10:12, 13; 2 Tim. 4:1; Re. 11:15; 12:10; 22:20, compare Lu 19:12, 15)" - end of quote.
  So the "good news" involves more than one aspect. So to be fair, JW's always acknowledge Jesus' role as Saviour and King and Redeemer and we do that each and every day and several times a day. After all, when we pray, don't we acknowledge Jesus' office in our prayers - praying in his name? We pray that way in our personal prayers, at mealtimes, at congregation meetings, at assemblies, district conventions, memorial, meetings for field service and even when conducting Bible studies with interested ones. So if you are insinuating we are somehow diminishing Jesus in our preaching and daily lives, I would suggest you are not being very honest. 
Even in the GOOD NEWS brochure that we discuss with people in our ministry, a consideration of Jesus and his role and importance comes before a consideration on the kingdom and is true also of other publications. ( ie. What Does the Bible Really Teach?) 
So while we do in fact highlight what Jesus and God's Kingdom will accomplish in behalf of mankind, it's a judgment call as to what aspect we may highlight according to the householder. For instance, in North America and much of Europe, there are hundreds of millions of Christians within tens of thousands of denominations. What is one thing they almost all have in common with us today - centuries after Jesus? That we believe Jesus is the Messiah, that he is a king, that salvation is only possible through faith in him, that God's promises are 'Amen' through him, that there is 'not another name under heaven by which we can gain salvation...'" So if our ministry only focused on preaching a message we all already agree with, of what use is it? However, the message regarding God's Kingdom, what it will accomplish, who will benefit and what benefits there will be and the issue of universal sovereignty is largely lost or entirely missing to most people - Christian or otherwise. Jesus didn't put praying for 'God's Kingdom to come' near the top of the Lord's Prayer list for nothing. After all, how many Christians who pray for 'God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven...' know what that purpose is? Is it really to destroy the earth in a fireball?
So if JW's highlight an aspect of the Good News (earthly paradise or more...) that is necessary for people to know about, and are unaware of already, what of it?
 
 

Be obedient to those taking the lead amongst you: what do YOU believe this scripture means.
"Obviously because we can all have our own opinions as to what each scripture "  - your quote.
This kind of philosophy/thinking I found prevalent in the west in first world countries...... at work.....everywhere .  Meaning that there can be no unity because all do and think as they please but only cooperate and keep quiet because they want their pay .  This way of  thinking has also infiltrated the Christian congregation...... each one wants their independent opinion - not realizing that this causes division. 
I prefer to try to understand why the GB opinion differs from mine.  
You think I am a GB puppet - I am not.  However, I have learnt to think about what the GB say and why they say it..... so I can cooperate to the best of my abilities.  The sin Adam did was egotistical - he wanted to be independent from jehovah.  This tendency is still the greatest deceiver of those who like to deceive themselves.   Their freedom is not true freedom because they are a slave to themselves. 
Anna will not listen to me - she knows better. She happens to agree with me because it is logical.  Something you do not see. You listen to Witness who will lead you down the garden path because you like your own opinion and independence more than the truth.  You are a slave to your own desires/ideas.
Not to the point where they all want special treatment. The special use is being a slave of God...... and the commission is to preach and teach.  I know another anointed lady who has been a pioneer most of her life,  she must now be 87 and still going strong. Smart but humble, raising 5 faithful children with an unfaithful husband who later divorced her.  She gave me wonderful advice.  Apparently she still cooks for pioneers.....  

I’m sure of that, too.

Blaming the GB et al for not using our brains is just another example of not using our brains. Each person is responsible for their own spirituality. When we stand in front of the judgment seat of God, there isn’t going to be an elder holding our hand, or telling us how to think or what to say.
Yes, indeed. So we will let God be the judge of who stumbled who. There are also a scriptures which tell us what to do in order NOT to be stumbled.
When I say questioning, that doesn’t necessarily mean literally questioning them by putting pen to paper or calling them, or causing a ruckus in the congregation.  It means that we can be on the alert to make sure of all things, and make sure (question) that all things are in harmony with the scriptures. That is why G. Jackson said anyone who has the Bible would be able to do so, and would be able to see if certain direction (from the GB) measured up, and would see if it was right or wrong direction. If we discern it’s wrong direction then we act on our own behalf, and not tell others what to do, because everyone else has a Bible too.
Yes, the anointed are baptized with HS and there are various ways each unique to them as to how they “know”. However the Bible says the miracles would cease.
The WT on this topic merely points out some important facts, and it is good that it has been written. We had a sister in our hall who never looked up a scripture, never sang any songs, never answered, she just sat in the KH, would jiggle her car keys, walk around after the meeting telling people she is watching them. At one time she approached the platform during the meeting flicking a lighter in her hand. She was mentally ill. She also partook of the emblems each year. You judge for yourself whether she was of the anointed or not.
The WT was not demeaning any of the anointed. One of the GB’s own sons is of the anointed, and everything the WT said applies to him too. We already talked about why there is no need for the anointed to form some kind of special club, just for the anointed. The reason for that is because we are all one flock. Any building up and sharing of thoughts is done in each congregation. I very much appreciated the thoughts of the anointed couple I used to know before they died. 
The idea is that just as Jesus distributed the loaves to his disciples and his disciples fed the crowds, so the other sheep would be fed at the hands of a few. I imagine it is a practical reason too, because who knows who really is anointed or not if one does not know them personally. It would mean that TTH for example, could claim to be of the anointed, and then imagine the kind of stuff he would be sharing via the internet! (just kidding @TrueTomHarley 😄) 
Of course not! And neither does @b4ucuhear.
See, this is another instance where the obvious needs to be explained to you. I understood exactly what bc4ucuhear was saying, because I know, and he knows, and all Witnesses know, that Jesus does NOT make mistakes. Therefore in that context, b4 was merely saying that IF it appears that Jesus is making a mistake, (because he oversees the congregations) then we know it’s NOT Jesus,  in fact this brings me to what else b4 said regarding Jesus’ oversight: "Jesus and Jehovah have provided direction in his Word as guidelines for how the congregation should be run. sometimes men in authority go "beyond what is written" and we should use our "clear thinking faculties" to be able to discern the difference. The fact is, that if one is too lazy to study and read God's Word or are gullible, you can start acting like you are in a cult - even when you are not". Also " So, if Jesus controls all the elders like some sort of spiritual remote control by means of holy spirit, (as some may think), then everything that takes place within the organization should be perfect, because Jesus is perfect and would use holy spirit in a perfect way. Why is that of interest? Because too many things happen within thes  organization (even the early Christian congregation), that are clearly not "controlled" by Jesus - unless he is deliberately controlling them to do bad things..(logic alert for Mr. Butler!!!  b4 is not here implying that Jesus would do that, it's just to show the absurdity of that notion)  I won't get into detail, but things happen that shouldn't happen and even very unscriptural things happen. My description of the factors that come into play regarding that interplay, attempted to explain the discrepancies that clearly exist if you are not living in a "snow globe." I had mentioned 1 Tim. 5:24 because it plays an important role in helping to understand why bad things can go on within the congregation for decades. All one has to do is look at the way that scripture is true historically to get a better understanding of how it applies today. The fact that elders have a measure of autonomy is hinted at by the phrase: "By heeding his words to each of the seven congregations, present-day elders see how they can handle similar situations." So elders make their decision based on "heeding his words" which are contained where? In the Bible - and so are accountable to Jesus as to how they use the authority he gives them". 
Although b4ucuhear was giving the example of elders in the congregation, by extension the same principles apply to the GB, they are elders too.
(For some reason you thought it was funny as you gave it a laughing emoji).
But you still didn't answer my question. Bible in hand, what have you found that the GB are doing wrong?

I agree with the credibility bit, however I do not think that ensuring contributions are the prime reason for keeping that credibility. I really believe it is a matter of pride, and the fear of what could happen to the faith of many people as a result of admitting that 1914 could be a mistake. If we were to think that the only reason is money, then this would be a fraudulent organization, which I don't think it is, and I dont think you do either.

I've already forgotten what those holes were 😀. It's just that I like the sound of 1914, I do! I do! (jumping up and down enthusiastically). But I'm also wondering if it might be a date much similar to 1925 which we were so "positively sure about". There are also a lot of discrepancies that I have superficially looked at, but need to investigate more thoroughly. And I can't help a quote from a certain someone resonating in my head, that we got the idea of 1914, lock stock and barrel, from the 2nd day advertists....and also if a certain person can be believed, that several members of the GB started to question its veracity. I can see that 1914 is decisive to our faith not so much because of it being the last days, but because the appointment of the FDS hinges on it, and unless some alternative date, or at least period of time is found, then I do not see it going away for that reason. My main concern is the sticking to this doctrine for the sole purpose of the supposed appointment of the FDS, if indeed that is the purpose. The frustrating thing is that only time will tell, and if 1914 is wrong, then most of us will not even know this side of the system. Somehow, the more I get involved in reading this topic on here, the more at peace I am. I am not stressing about how near is "just around the corner" or how close is the "last of the last days". I feel like I am above all that now. I know it will come. I know as Christians we do our best in preaching and teaching, we do our best in being "no part of the world" we do our best following in Jesus' footsteps, in our life we pay attention to what God wants as opposed to many who don't question themselves with regard to God's wishes and just live their life with only regard for themselves. So: "plan ahead as if Armageddon won't come in your lifetime, but live your life as if it will come tomorrow". Best advice ever, (and I know I've mentioned this on here several times). 
So whoever's is dangling that carrot can stuff it right up their nose  😁 @TrueTomHarley (I don't think it's Jehovah obviously. On that note, are there scriptural examples of Jehovah dangling a carrot?)
 

😉 There's a reason that I have no problem preaching that we are in the last days, and that so many people see the world with fear. We live in a time of excessive troubles and people see no way out. It is our privilege to offer comfort to those sighing and groaning over the situation in this system of things.
To be clear, this is an opening position for a discussion that might answer a few of the questions in a more complete way than just the initial explanations here. But it's good to start with a position of agreement, and a position that acknowledges that the current view is not "crazy" or anti-Bible.
To that point, as I've stated before, I have no problem with the idea that we are in the "last days," and in some sense I would agree that we are also in the "last generation." And since I believe that Jesus began to rule as King invisibly in 33 C.E. and has been present with his followers ever since, then I also have no problem with preaching that Jesus is now enthroned as King, and is invisibly present. I also believe the times we live in are significant in that they are fulfilling all the statements about the "parousia" throughout the entire Christian Greek Scriptures. And, in any case, the answer is the same no matter when we believe that Christ's enthronement and presence began. It's the outworking of Jehovah's eternal purpose through his Kingdom as ruled by Christ Jesus, throughout the millennium and into the final perfection of the new heavens and new earth.
I would even say that, as far as Matthew 24 is concerned, Jehovah intended for us to look at this prophecy, ostensibly about Jerusalem only, and see in it a wider fulfillment that would guide us through future days as we look to the end of the entire worldly system of things -- not just the end of the Jewish system in 70 CE. 2 Tim 3:16 tells us that many scriptures can provide this value to us.
But, unless someone has some scriptural evidence that will correct and override the evidence I've seen so far, I will very likely continue to present the evidence much as I have in the past. However, I see an opportunity to get some more constructive criticism on these views from persons who have participated on this topic in the past, and perhaps some additional thoughts will be convincing. For example, a person like @TrueTomHarley has often surprised me with a take on some scriptures that provides a refreshing perspective. @b4ucuhear has clearly given a lot of thought to the chronology problem, and I hope to get him to share more of what he has learned. He has also asked questions that I have not responded to yet. @Anna has apparently tried to see things from the perspective I have presented, and she is not afraid to question when something doesn't quite appear correct. (Her questions have also pointed out 'holes in the theory' that I am still not 100 percent clear on myself.) @ComfortMyPeople seems to follow a lot of what I've posted on this topic, but rarely says much about it. I'm hoping for a bit more sometime soon. @Outta Here probably got tired of my reaction to my own "JWI pills," but he often said a lot more with fewer words than anyone else who responded to me. (He was the one who suggested that WWI never ended.) @Srecko Sostar and @Witness , although quite different, have also provided very thought-provoking perspectives of their own, and I rarely give their ideas the amount of time I ought to in my responses. And of course, there are others who, in their own way, might help me settle some of these questions and opinions in my own mind.

In fact, after checking to see if the malcontents were misbehaving here (they were) I did indeed have a share in the ministry. Did you? 
Yes, you may say that I did the ministry not of Christ, but of JW.org. Nevertheless I read scripture to a number of people and discussed it with them, and offered to do the same with several more. Did you? Did you this week? Did you this month? Have you done that even one day since leaving the organization of JW?
I would not ask Srecko this because he does not think it worthwhile to preach a kingdom message, speak of God, or tell of his purposes. But you do—or at least you have said that that you do. Jesus says it is important to preach the good news of the kingdom. Do you do it? If you want to do it on your own completely divorced from the JW organization, that’s fine by me, but do you do it?
Will that be a ten-year lunch?
Do I have this straight? I look at the JW organization and say, “Nah—they’re far from perfect, but I appreciate what they do to facilitate the spread of the good news.” I cooperate with them and thus I have a share in fulfilling Christ’s command. You, on the other hand, have found them not pure enough, and so you do nothing. 
Are you not on strike against God? Are you not laying down the law with Him that He had better get His Act together and produce a true anointed good enough for you, and should he do that—THEN you will preach the good news, but NOT NOW.
—even though it is crystal clear that people need the encourage from his word NOW and the promise of something better.
How can you be so self-centered?

As Bullwinkle the Moose sez: "OOPS! .... wrong hat!"

I hope he doesn't get a sliver, or worse yet, athlete's lips

I hope he doesn't get a sliver, or worse yet, athlete's lips

That’s setting a date. Close enough.
After all, AlanF stated the year 2000 on the basis on some throwaway statement regarding ‘the end of the century’ and your chums were hitting the upvote button like rats in a Skinnner cage.
If you didn’t say such ridiculous things, it wouldn’t happen.

Actually, God does not "hate that his people be counted." We have Bible precedents on that too. (Exodus 30:11-16; Numbers 1:1-3; Numbers 26:1-4...and how do we know how many volunteers served with judge Gideon if they weren't counted...?) The fact is that David's sin in taking a census was a sin on that one occasion (2 Sam. 24:1-10) but that wasn't usually the case. Why was this an exception or different? The Bible doesn't say even though there is speculation as to why this occasion was different, but I'm not sure we can be dogmatic on it either way. So you can't just "cherry-pick" isolated passages from the Bible and "shoehorn" them into a wrong context ("going beyond the scope of your reference" as they say) and then misapply them. That's what apostates often do, so you should be careful with that. The fact is, there are many good and practical reasons God's servants are/were counted - both then and now. I won't list all those reasons since they should be obvious already and I'm not going to do your homework/thinking for you. So with ample scriptural and modern-day evidence, suggesting that "...the WT Society should stop counting how many JW's there are worldwide," is simply (and I would have hoped, obviously) wrong.
Re: "...especially about the 10 years..."
That makes two of us. *\_(".)_/*  (Actually a lot more than two...). Believe me, this wasn't my idea posted, but if you don't know what I am referring to, it's probably better we keep it that way. "Mum's the word"... shhhhh (finger to lips)