JW Insider

If my calculations are right, then, you could fire such a gun at just the right angle on the moon and it could orbit and hit you in the back of the head.

I think you misread JTR. BTK never claimed to have a machine gun, only a powerful long-range rifle among other items in a collection. It sounds like he grew up around Texas, where this is more common than most UK folks might think. I was in Missouri for many of my growing-up years, and it was no problem for Witnesses, even elders at that time, to own guns. Against my own parents' wishes, I went out with a Witness family for target practice after service on some weekends. After a few days I could finally uphold my end and keep a three gallon metal container in the air after several shots with a shotgun, taking turns with another brother shooting at the same can, until the can finally broke into pieces too small to work with. (I personally have not shot a gun since I was 15, and don't plan to own any. I have strong feelings against gun ownership for anyone unless they are well trained, well adjusted and well oiled. *j/k*)

I'm not saying the individual congregations are not part of the CCJW or the Watchtower, I'm just showing the kinds of legal arguments that must be made to protect the financial part of the current kingdom "interests." It's not that I think that attorneys should not try to do what they can to limit financial exposure either, as long as they are also looking for "fairness" and "justice" for the victims. But all Witnesses should be aware that the material resources that we currently enjoy as part of the organization are not permanent. They are not "promised." In fact, all of us should at all times be willing to walk by faith and not by sight. A lack of money can result in a breakdown of the lines of communication between a local congregation and various entities in New York. Are we willing to make the best of such a situation and trust in Jehovah? The WTS/CCJW is currently trying to prepare Witnesses for such an eventuality. Will it happen as predicted? Will it happen in a way that doesn't come anywhere close to what is being predicted? What if the GB are taken by some nefarious forces, as you have spoken of? What if they are put in prison for covering up child abuse? They have surely considered these possibilities themselves. What if, instead of the protection expected in an imminent great tribulation, our religion and organization becomes an object of derision for 40 more years? (These are not predictions and have nothing to do with any Bible prophecies that I know of.) In any particular country, or perhaps even on a more international scale, we have certain expectations bolstered by prophetic interpretations, and we will easily maintain faithfulness if those expectations seem to align with our beliefs about ourselves. But we also need to be prepared for maintaining our faith under completely different circumstances. One of those circumstances might be merely going on for another 50 years as more and more of our brothers lose their enthusiasm, and cannot seem to be goaded any longer by proddings of 'imminence.' We can go back to a Biblical question in Luke 18:8: Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

Let's assume that the last year of the Civil War was 1865, and that this person forged papers because he was only about 16 or so. This would mean he was about 116 in 1965, when you were about 5. This fits most of what you have claimed elsewhere about your age and experience, and it means that you are about my age. It reminds me of 1964, when we moved to the Springfield/Joplin, Missouri area to 'serve where the need was greater' and we ended up assigned to a congregation in the Boonville/Versailles, Missouri area. In Missouri we came across several persons up until about 1967 who claimed to remember the Civil War. I never met someone who claimed to fight, but a few who lost their parents or other close relatives. One old man on my "magazine route" as we called it, claimed to have been over 100 and he made "fiddles." He said his father fought but I don't even remember for which side. What really impressed me is that, at age 5, you asked him about a "Confederate and Union" parade in New York that happened nearly 45 years before you born. And a seemingly obscure parade, at that! I could hardly find out anything about this particular parade.

@JOHN BUTLER, I see that the news is starting on this so the documentation can't be far behind. https://ravallirepublic.com/news/state-and-regional/crime-and-courts/article_e20e2330-eeeb-5f0f-a4e8-d8bcbababd85.html From the 69 page appeal brief from the Watchtower to the Montana Supreme Court it is made fairly clear how the corporations operate from a practical legal perspective. In this particular case the relevant parties are summarized as WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.; CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES and THOMPSON FALLS CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES, both as appellants and third-party appellants. All three of these major parties are referred to as "entities associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses." For legal purposes the brief defines: "Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (“CCJW”) (a New York nonprofit corporation that assists Jehovah’s Witnesses)." (p.2,3) and: "Watchtower (the faith’s New York entity that retains the attorney who gave legal advice to congregation elders)." (p.3) It is typical in recent lawsuits to treat all Watchtower-related corporate entities as merely "advisors" in support of Jehovah's Witnesses or "the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses." In a larger sense these advisors provide logistical support for assemblies, meetings, property ownership, donation and financial management, preaching, research, writing, printing, and distribution of religious media. Similarly, the Governing Body are also treated as another "entity" of advisors for spiritual guidance that supports the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses. (To some, this would obviously hearken back to the time under Russell and Rutherford, when the congregations, i.e, "ecclesia" or "companies," were more independent.) In the brief, the WATCHTOWER is merely treated as the source of legal advice and legal counsel. "[E]lders of a local Montana congregation sought advice from legal counsel to know whether they had a legal duty to report." (p.2) This recent separation of CCJW from Watchtower of New York and Watch Tower of Pennsylvania has allowed attorneys for the Watchtower to argue that outsiders have mixed them up and therefore made legal errors. For example, from the brief: The court erroneously held that the attorney in New York violated Montana’s reporting statute and that Watchtower was vicariously liable. The court erroneously held that elders at CCJW in New York violated Montana’s reporting statute and that CCJW was vicariously liable. [emphasis by WTS] p.3 This was considered by the WTS attorney to be a fatal error and therefore could continue: And even assuming the attorney who advised congregation elders misinterpreted the reporting statute, a good-faith misinterpretation of a statute is not “actual malice” and does not justify $31 million in punitive damages. [Emphasis mine.] Although spiritual oversight of Jehovah's Witnesses, includes the Governing Body, there is now a good reason to leave the various corporations out of the mix. This way the Governing Body can legally claim to not be under the direction of the Watchtower, nor of the CCJW. The local congregations, although more closely associated with the CCJW, can also be treated as separate from these corporate entities: Congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses receive spiritual oversight and pastoral care from a group of local elders who are “clergy” under Montana law. An expression that was very common in the brief referred to "established Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine and practice" without a need to acknowledge that this has historically been "established" through communication with Watchtower Society entities (where the money is kept). Instead, the connection to the CCJW can be admitted now as the legal conduit through which doctrine and practice is established, and CCJW is a source of spiritual advisement, just as the GB are. Congregation elders throughout the United States receive spiritual guidance from elders at CCJW in New York. CR 77, Ex. C ¶7; Ex. G ¶7; Ex. H ¶4. CCJW, a New York non-profit corporation headquartered in New York, supports the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. CR 77, Ex. G ¶¶5-7. Congregation elders confidentially communicate with elders at CCJW to receive spiritual counsel and guidance. [p.8] In other words, it's true that local congregations get advice from the CCJW which is spiritual advice, also confidential due to clergy privilege, but that the legal advice comes from the Watchtower, and this is effectively confidential due to something akin to attorney client privilege. This is clarified on page 9: Watchtower, a New York nonprofit corporation that supports Jehovah’s Witnesses, maintains a legal department. CR 77, Ex. Z: 39:7-40:8. While congregation elders turn to CCJW’s Service Department elders for confidential spiritual guidance, they call Watchtower’s Legal Department for confidential legal advice. . . . CCJW is not owned or operated by, and does not own or operate, Watchtower. At all relevant times (p.9) CCJW (not Watchtower) communicated religious policies and procedures to local elders. (p.10) On this basis alone, as the court acknowledged blame in much higher proportion to the Watchtower (80 percent) and CCJW (15 percent) and the local congregation (4 percent) and the mother (1 percent), the WTS attorneys would therefore wish to show that the award was incorrect. Other attempts to remove culpability and liability from New York entities were argued throughout much of the rest of the brief. For example: Fourth, the elders with CCJW and the Watchtower attorney who learned about the abuse all live in New York. Their duty to report is governed by New York law, not Montana law. A state “has no authority to mandate reports by adults or agencies in other states.”

Perhaps that was the reason I didn't suggest his book was proof. I think I purposely worded it something like this: Why would I be speaking of "proof" if my whole point was based on how we nearly always lack proof? As I said a little later in the same post, that I agree with you that nothing is "proven" here. These topics live in a world of conjecture, opinion and sometimes, hopefully: evidence. Even with evidence, there is the hurdle of interpretation to get over. This isn't mathematics, geometry, etc. There you go again! Quite an uneven comparison. Should I suppose that's really your answer to how you know for sure Covington had a drinking problem? Because I would be a faithless cynic if I didn't believe he was DF'd for a drinking problem? Faith in who? You? Because your word is as sure as that of the Bible when it speaks about Jesus? You seem to have no problem being posted here, and you have repeatedly called this an apostate website, too. As long as we are speaking truth to the best of our knowledge, truth shouldn't hurt anyone in the long run. Truth can hurt in the short run. But at least it's always better than falsehood, which is what most of those sites are known for. I would never believe that, much less say it. You evidently haven't read what I say very carefully. For someone who has been known here for blatant examples of "projection," did you perhaps just provide an explanation of your lack of care? Not claiming you did, but your imputed motives are often fairly disgusting, and you may have just been hoisted by your own petard! Can't think of another reason at the moment why you have seemed to obsess on unclean thoughts.

I get it! Like a duck's bill. As in: A duck goes into a bar and tells the bartender: "Put in on my BILL!" I should add that, considering the circumstances, I think Brother Quackenbush was sweet and brave at the same time for the funeral talk he gave for Covington. Brother Quackenbush was a very just and loving brother, in my opinion.

We got to a few other issues on this thread, so I suppose it's only fair to try to address your questions here. I think it's obvious that a few things still work a little differently in practice than in theory, because there is such a considerable overlap in the way policy/procedure is followed and changed -- and potential consideration of any scriptural principles involved, which would then go back to the governing body for that reason if changes are being considered. But in theory, it's possible to distinguish the major purposes and utilization of each of the various corporations. Even here there have been several legal issues raised by the way that the corporations were set up in various countries. For example, Australia branches are still under the direction of the Pennsylvania Watch Tower corporation. Most others are under their own local corporation with some functions reporting to their own zone, and some to Pennsylvania, and some even to New York. The CCJW was specifically set up NOT to be under the direction of the Watchtower of New York or the Watch Tower of Pennsylvania. I will quote from the appeal that the Watchtower just filed in a CSA case in Montana which makes some clear statements about how it works in theory. (Someone just sent it to me.) But I can't do this just yet because I don't know if the appeal has been publicized yet, and I will never be the first to put something like that out into the public.

That's true. You can. That's the nature of social media. You could tell the truth, and no one needs to believe you. I could tell the truth, and no one needs to believe me. Someone could just as easily make something up and no one needs to believe them. Hypothetical example that would probably never happen: I could claim that Charles Taze Russell was the first Vice President of the Watch Tower Society (which he was, and this is something I'm sure you already know) and you could get angry and claim that he was never the first Vice President, only the first President. If people believed you, I'd have less credibility. If people believed me, you'd have less credibility. But even if no one believed me now, someday they might buy a book by B. Schulz, for example, and see that a seemingly unbiased source agreed with me. You might then remember how angry you were, and begin to re-evaluate other things I claimed. But I might never know that a small trivial item like that might have made you positively re-evaluate some less trivial things that you once fought against. This is why, I have no problem bringing up lesser known items that you treat as merely conjecture at the moment. Perhaps one day you will run across one of Covington's relatives, or a former Bethelite who knows more about it. Or perhaps it will be for another reason altogether, perhaps when/if the Society changes its stance on a certain doctrine or two. And perhaps none of these things will ever happen, and you will be suspicious of me for the rest of your life. It's not a problem as long as my own conscience is clear, between me and Jehovah. As you already admitted, nothing is "proven." How, for example, do you know that he was DF'd for excessive drinking? Did you see this, or did someone claim it, and it made sense to you? Did you know for a fact that he was officially reinstated? Perhaps you heard his funeral talk. Was something said about his "drinking" in that talk? The funeral talk (1978) mentions that he was now considered one of the anointed, which surprised many at the time. Do we take Brother Colin Quackenbush's word for it? What if Brother Quackenbush thought he needed to say this to protect the reputation of the newly defined "governing body" since it had long been associated with "the board of directors." The GB was already claiming that it was "representing" the entire 10,000 or so members of the "faithful and discreet slave" as they were still defined in 1978. Could Quackenbush have been trying to gain some extra credit for himself as a good friend of Covington, as if the one who had talked him out of doing something rash and stupid? I didn't know that a "tell-all" piece had been referenced on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Also, I'm not worried about how I'm quoted elsewhere. I'm still semi-anonymous, so what does it matter? I've been asked several times if people can quote me on their sites. I always say yes, and that they don't even have to credit me. But I have also found things I've written used in ways I didn't like, so that last part might have been a mistake. Always feel free to correct any mistakes. According to A. H. MacMillan, and as substantiated by others, this was only to happen in the event of C.T. Russell's death. True. And not just from the "corporation" through its bylaws. There were organizational "harvest siftings" and the equivalent of both organizational and congregational "excommunications" well before the 1947 Awake! that condemned excommunication as a pagan practice. (Look at Olin Moyle's disfellowshipping, for example.) The only thing that changed in the early 1950s was that there were now consistent organizational procedures for both congregational and organizational disfellowshippings. Consistency can result in better justice, so this should not be a completely unwelcome development. I gave him no input about apostates, and I don't know what recanting of his you are talking about. As I recall, I only skimmed some of what he had already written the way a proofreader or copy-editor might read it. I found a few minor errors like typos, mostly, and made a few suggestions about using statistics in such a way that they would NOT be vulnerable to attack by apostates. Of course, just as you said at the beginning, that you could say a million things, but without proof, it's all just conjecture.

I wasn't right about it either. It was Collier's, November 2, 1946. https://archive.org/details/1940sReportsOnJehovahsWitnesses ... The article I was thinking about was quite negative, overall, so I started thinking it couldn't have been that one.

I'm out for the rest of the day, but we should start another thread on this topic, anyway.

That sounds like a Saturday Evening Post article. 9/14/40. I bought it on eBay, and will read it again to refresh my memory about what it said re Covington.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olin_R._Moyle His letters to Rutherford and to his congregation are probably available to read if you can find the links. He resigned in 1939, the same year that Covington became the new Watchtower attorney. They both argued cases before the Supreme Court (2 for Moyle) although Covington had many more cases. They were both successful in front of the Supreme Court, but Covington's string of successes were all the more impressive considering the war-time zeitgeist. Don't remember the quote about Covington in Look magazine. But I've heard that claim from somewhere.

You are right that some of the claims came from former Bethelites, but they were certainly not disgruntled, as far as I know. However, I did add a disclaimer in front of that information, back in the original post. (By the way, I know firsthand about Quackenbush's run-in with Knorr, and I was there when he arrived back at Bethel when Brother Knorr died, and for a time we even sat at the same table.) This information should not be new or surprising to anyone, however. It's not that I think that Covington was in the right, or that he could have had much effect on the Society overall. Olin Moyle, the previous Watchtower attorney, had tried something similar. And it barely registered a blip in the overall history of the Watchtower Society. Of course, I did add the information for a good reason (in my opinion). There are those here who automatically think that if anyone says anything negative about people at high levels of responsibility, they must be lying. This is one of the reasons that people need to keep their eyes open. Always be optimistic, trust in Jehovah, and expect the best from all our brothers; but also be cautious, and be prepared for anything.

The board of directors, which was the previous governing body, was supposed to be 100-percent anointed, and there was only one (known) exception to that prior to 2001. (Covington in the 1940's). Then in 1971 the governing body was redefined to include the board of directors plus other older brothers who were not on the board of directors and had never been on the board of directors, but who were also anointed. Then after 2000/2001, no members of the governing body were also on the board of directors. This way the board of directors needed to concern itself no longer with filling its positions from members of the anointed. But the governing body is still filled by members of the anointed. This will remain true for as long as possible. The governing body helpers make up the extended committees of the governing body, and these persons need not be of the anointed, although several are.

As @BillyTheKid46 has pointed out, the term "governing body" had already been used prior to 1971, and it was usually used in the sense that certain types of corporations used the term. In fact, for the Watchtower Society it was primarily used to refer to the "legal" leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses through the legal entity of the Society itself. This is why there was a difference in the way the term was used in the 1960's and even right up until 1970, the year before the change in meaning that the Watchtower Society gave to this term. For example, the 1970 Yearbook said very clearly: *** yb70 p. 65 1970 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses *** So really the governing body of Jehovah’s witnesses is the board of directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, all of whom are dedicated to Jehovah God and anointed by his holy spirit. Technically, then it was the 7 members of the board of directors, not merely the President and Vice-President of the Pennsylvania corporation. In 1942, the Vice President, and therefore a member of the governing body was Hayden C Covington, a Watchtower Society attorney who claimed not to be one of the anointed. (He had also only been a JW for 5 years when he became VP.) In fact, a few years later the rule was changed so that only anointed persons could be on the board of directors, and Covington had to resign his position as Vice President and that position was handed over to Frederick W Franz. After 2001, members of the board of directors no longer need to claim to be one of the anointed, and most of them since 2001 have not claimed to be of the anointed. The following (about Hayden Covington) is in small print because part of it's based on what was considered to be common knowledge, and part of it is based on the claims of a couple of Bethelites I have known, both still alive. And one is also a relative of the brother who played a key part in one of the incidents described: Just a little bit of inside information on Covington is that he was a heavy drinker, and thought to be an alcoholic, and eventually dismissed and disfellowshipped after some run-ins with President Knorr. This is in the Wikipedia article, but what's not there is that just before his death he was working on a tell-all that was supposed to expose a lot of wrongdoings and embarrass Knorr and others. (I heard one Witness claim that it was supposed to "bring down the Watchtower.") The person who takes credit for talking him out of it says it was a hard-won battle and he was only convinced after a lot of begging and pleading, including more pleading from family members. Just after that incident, over the next few months in fact, he was reinstated, claimed to be of the anointed, and died. I'm not even sure he even got a chance to partake at the Memorial. But you can still find the funeral talk that Colin Quackenbush gave, posted somewhere on this forum. You can get a small sense of Covington's problems from the funeral talk, where Quackenbush almost has to apologize for giving it, but it's a good talk. Quackenbush himself was the Awake! magazine editor, who also got kicked out of Bethel after a run-in with Knorr, but who arrived back at Bethel upon Knorr's death in 1977. I should add that I don't think any of us should have a problem with an international organization of any kind having a governing body. It just means that it is organized to be guided by a committee or board instead of a "dictatorship" of one or two persons. That's a good thing. And the arrangement with GB helpers is even better, in my opinion. In addition to just mentioning the board of directors as the governing body prior to the 1971 change, it was also used as a way to refer to the entire Watch Tower Society. *** w50 8/15 p. 251 par. 8 Answering the Foes of His Government *** The Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, with main offices in Brooklyn, New York, acts advisorily as the governing body and servant of Jehovah’s witnesses in all lands. So what is true of Jehovah’s witnesses in America must be true of them throughout the earth. *** w50 1/1 p. 10 par. 2 Reviewing the Past Year’s Work World-wide *** The Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, the governing body of Jehovah’s witnesses, has pointed out through its publications that the kingdom of heaven was established in 1914 *** w52 9/15 p. 567 par. 7 Loyalty the Test *** After being fed and directed through the faithful legal governing body, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, for thirty years, many said, “Jehovah is also dealing through other agencies.” Thus they could advance their own selfish interests. Of course, the Watch Tower Society, although considered to be the legal entity by which to lead and govern all Jehovah's Witnesses earth-wide, was still considered to be the near equivalent of the old council at Jerusalem where decisions were made with respect to the rules for the gentile converts, etc. Also, Paul is considered to have been included in the governing body since he told Timothy how to make appointments of overseers and servants. So this modern board of directors was considered to be something like a modern fulfillment of the council of apostles and older men at Jerusalem, and the extension of that authority as given to Paul. *** w52 5/1 pp. 281-282 God’s Way of Financing His Work *** Having received free, they gave free. Their unselfish course influenced others to show love, so that many early Christians sold all their possessions and turned over the proceeds to the governing body for them to use as they saw best for the advancement of the true worship and the benefit of the Christian community in general. So even when the governing body, technically and legally meant something else, it was still very similarly applied as an adaption of the original governing body (apostolic council) at Jerusalem. Over the years, it was tied closer and closer to the faithful and discreet slave. *** w52 11/15 p. 683 Timothy, the Youthful Minister *** Because of Timothy’s devotion to Jehovah God and Christ Jesus, the apostle Paul, under the guiding influence of the holy spirit, appointed Timothy to serve as an agent of the governing body of the Christian congregation in his day; being authorized to appoint mature men as overseers and assistants in the various Christian congregations. (1 Tim. 1:3; 3:1-15, NW) In this capacity Timothy pictured or represented the instrument that Jehovah God is using today, the Society of footstep followers of Christ Jesus, which likewise appoints servants in the Christian congregation in keeping with Jesus’ promise that he would set his faithful and discreet slave over all his belongings.—Matt. 24:45, NW.

We thought that all snakes had legs up until they were cursed to travel on their belly and eat dust.

My avatar was just a quick frame grab from one of the Society's videos. It's of interest to me, because the video is about the attitudes of various Christians who were considering whether and when to get out of Jerusalem in the time just leading up to its destruction in 70 C.E. Some were concerned about keeping their businesses going, or other mundane interests, and some were ready to leave it all immediately upon first indication of the Roman siege. My first name I chose for the forum was the "Bible's Advocate" (about 4+ years ago, now) and I was just about to create that name for participation here (originally jw-archive.org) when I realized that there were several people at the time who were making incorrect assumptions about what it was really like at Bethel in the 1970's and 1980's. I was surprised that anyone would just make up things about people at Bethel during that time period (or repeat things that others had obviously made up). So I thought perhaps I would just stick with talking about my own experiences and opinions based on working inside the JW headquarters (Brooklyn Bethel) during those years. So at the last minute I changed my name to "JW Insider" without really thinking through how it might sound to others. I haven't really liked the name, but after leaving it for a few weeks, I decided it would be confusing to change it. I never wanted to use my real name because I knew that I would probably be giving details of certain experiences at Bethel and in congregations I have been in over the years. This would not only identify me, it could lead to identifying the persons I speak about or quote. Not all the persons I speak about would want to be identified. So, with some important exceptions, I don't usually identify a specific brother or sister I give details about, unless that person has died.

You were probably the only one to create that assumption from what I said. And I don't actually believe that even you really got that impression from what I said. Strangely (or perhaps not so strangely) you were the only one to make such a sick and provoking statement out of what I said.

Almost unrelated but my wife's aunt is in the hospital and that aunt's daughter, my wife's cousin, is a registered nurse who was there with us last night. As we were all visiting, this cousin railed against the fact that the Chinese are manufacturing so many of our standard pharmaceuticals that they administer, and another nurse on duty was agreeing whole-heartedly about poison levels and lead levels in all these Chinese medicines. She gave the name of a few of these medicines, so I started looking them up, and it turned out that quality statistics were more problematic (and lethal) when these same medicines were USA manufactured. it reminded me that major US media outlets including CNN and the NYT apparently feel obligated to run an anti-China story every few days. One recent one that got some traction was a story on how China had banned a cartoon called "Peppa the Pig." Even late-night comedians made fun of how terrible it was that China had banned the innocuous cartoon as promoting gangsterism, etc. There were dozens of major newspapers that picked up the story on Chinese censorship. Some had ominous overtones of impending danger to the Chinese people if not the entire world. Think it's funny that China is cracking down on Peppa Pig? Think again https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/07/china-cracking-down-on-peppa-pig But, in the meantime, people were noticing that not only had a recent Peppa the Pig video gotten a BILLION views in China, but even the Chinese army was marching in Peppa the Pig formations to celebrate the Chinese New Year. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/02/05/691501906/why-its-the-year-of-peppa-pig-in-china?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20190205 The supposedly ominous crackdown turned out to be about as true as the 5,000 news articles published in the US about Assad (Syria) using poison gas on his own people, etc., etc., that, through leaked documents, we now know that the US government didn't believe at all, over the several years that they were still promoting these articles as true.

From what I've been learning in the last couple of years, almost nothing I "knew" about communism was true. The international financial services company I worked for (for a quarter century) wanted to open up services in China. Negotiations included a 10 year opportunity to see what kind of market share our company could build with no government encroachment, except for limits on officer salaries and profits leaving the country. But after 10 years, there would be rules about the number of Chinese employees at "officer" decision-making levels, and a kind of democratic vote by all employees about profit levels, profit sharing, etc. There were rules about not just pulling out and leaving Chinese customers without financial guarantees. If any of these rules were broken the Chinese government would prepare to take over and incorporate customers into state provided financial services or Chinese institutions which already abided by those rules.

Hate to say it, but there are a lot of single parents, especially sisters, who ask for elders/ms to study with their young children for them. And it still ends up as part of the process for making sure a youngster is ready for baptism. The "rule" is to always have a second person along or have the parent sit in. But this doesn't always happen. But it doesn't even raise the slightest concern for most brothers and parents because we trust one another and can't imagine that anything wrong might be going on. So the sister/parent who is supposed to sit in will go off to the kitchen and make dinner or take an important phone call. (Seen it happen personally.) The adult brother (or sister) who was supposed to join the study will cancel at the last minute. (Seen it happen personally.) But the perpetrators of these crimes end up being people we would trust with our lives, persons we could never imagine doing anything like this. In fact, TRUST and confidence is a necessary part of the equation. This is one of the reasons I don't think any of us should hold back in letting parents and other children know the horror stories that have happened in the next congregation in our circuit, or among persons at some of the highest levels of organizational responsibility. We don't censor "adult" parts of the Bible for our young ones, so why should we "censor" practical warnings of real lurking dangers that could be around them? I know of no current cases, but you would evidently be surprised at some of the terrible things that have been known to happen. In the past, where the "notoriety" had been thought to be limited to the victim, victim's immediate family, and fellow elders (or fellow circuit overseers, or higher) there have been cases (I now know of two, but wouldn't be surprised at greater numbers) where the perpetrator was simply moved to a place, new circuit, or new country, where that elder was no long in contact with the victim or victim's family. Elders in the new congregation were sometimes not told at all. In fact, the person might have simply risen in the ranks again from circuit to district overseer, for example. I believe that it is now extremely unlikely for this to happen again.

I think it's 1000 FEET, but it wasn't just schools, it was to apply to anywhere where children congregate, including schools. Note: "Registered sex offenders in Georgia are barred from living within 1,000 feet of anywhere children may congregate, such as a school . . ." Unjust and ineffective - Sex laws - The Economist https://www.economist.com/briefing/2009/08/06/unjust-and-ineffective The problem is that children may congregate at a school, park, library, bus stop, playground, mall, etc.

I have not heard the slightest hint of scandal about any current members of the GB. I can't say I know any of them on a personal level, either. But surely with all the attention being given this topic, and with thousands of vocal ex-JWs, you'd expect some smoke if there was fire. Yet no one has made a claim (or "made up" a claim) about any of the GB members, as far as I know.

Yes, I believe there have been a few. I don't want to give the impression that I think this happens often, or as much as so many ex-JWs and previously abused Witnesses seem to imagine. I have just recently read a couple of statements by activist ex-elders who have sat on judicial committees for several years in their congregations and never personally encountered a case or accusation of child sexual abuse. (I'm responding as if you said "on a repeated basis" rather than "on a regular basis" since the term "regular" is open to interpretation.) I answer your question to the best of my ability however because I believe this is one of those terrible things that, if true, MUST be exposed so that more of us are alert to the potential extent of the problem. Things done in darkness must be brought to light, no matter the pain and embarrassment to the organization. After all, it's not the organization's fault that these men exist; they bring reproach upon themselves. It's this old belief that they are bringing reproach upon the organization that has led to *a few* amazing cover-ups by "organization men" who thought they were doing the right thing. However, before responding, I just recently read through a private discussion from a person who says he is now ready to go to the police, now that he has completed collecting a lot of evidence and speaking with corroborating witnesses. (Not to his own abuse, but to other persons abused by the same elder.) He knows his case is strong, but he believes the status of the accused will make it difficult to get very far based on the way that other victims of the same accused have been treated. He already brought his case to the elders a few years ago, before the most recent reporting arrangements were consistent. So he wants to have done all the due-diligence before presenting his accusation to authorities. Also, in general, I think the evidence is strong that the higher up a person is in the organization, the more he has been protected from scandal, because that scandal was thought to reflect so badly when it is someone known by all the Witnesses of a specific country or, at least once in the past, even internationally. That said, I only know about three cases, in three different countries, that would fit this criterion. Two of the accused brothers are now dead. I have been told about a few others that I am too skeptical to believe, although I might be ready to add a fourth name to my list. (A circuit overseer who was finally disfellowshipped for homosexual behaviour with JW and non-JW "young men" and who, according to his wife, continued with non-JW "young men" after he was DF'd.) The length of time it has taken for several elders' cases to finally be settled, after other accusers come forward, over a several-year period, is also circumstantial evidence that most elders never really knew how to handle such cases in years past. This lack of consistency can easily allow for "abuse-of-power" cases to be swept under the rug. But it doesn't prove that these types of cases were rampant. Of course, there is a wide range of activity that has been lumped into the term child sexual abuse and some of this activity on the more violent end of the spectrum would be expected to produce immediate discipline. What were considered lesser crimes were more easily dismissed or rationalized away. But, of course, as this thread has pointed out, (in the past especially) many of the vulnerable persons in the congregation were never warned if the elders were assured that true repentance had taken place after a disciplinary period, no matter how bad the crime was. I am very happy for the more explicit correction in the recent Watchtower that can help change the "culture" about where the reproach really lies.