JW Insider

After giving this subject a lot of prayerful thought, and with a lot of guidance from several of the persons I worked with at Bethel, I personally cannot put faith in this doctrine. I don't mean to say that you should not or that anyone else should change their mind about it. Of course, I would LOVE to believe it because that would make things so much easier with the majority of my friends, relatives, and spiritual brothers and sisters.
In my own name, I must always be careful about what I say on the subject so that I personally do not offend or needlessly stumble anyone. But on forums such as this, and the Internet in general, where the subject has already come up 100's of times, I do believe it's a place where I can (and therefore should) honestly defend my faith.
My posts are generally "tldr" which is probably a good thing for those who don't wish to deal with the subject. But for this post all I wanted to say was that the scriptures that Holly quoted are, for me, a big part of my faith and the hope that is in me. For me, it could not see myself as a true Christian Witness of Jehovah if I denied what Jesus said here and tried to make those verses mean something other than what seems obvious to me. I also think they get to the very core of our Christianity which is why I also feel under an obligation to find ways to defend my faith, including my faith in Jesus' words from Matthew, Mark and Acts, quoted above:
(1 Peter 3:15) . . .always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, . . . I am also concerned that, when it comes to anything related to chronology, we are at risk of making false statements to others. This does not reflect well on our organization and brings shame even to Jehovah. While I am not asking for anyone to agree with me, I do think that in defending 1914, we should avoid statements that are false. Making false statements is not the same as making dishonest statements, and that's why I would like to respond to some of your statements. I believe they come out of a completely honest heart and mind, and I like the way you think about things from a deeper and wider perspective.
Before I get into much detail, I would like to make a few statements about where I agree:
We are living in the last days, and the critical times and world conditions provide the evidence and context for what we are to expect during these last days. Jesus is present and has turned his attention toward the rulers of this world Satan is angry and active like a roaring lion knowing his time is short The final manifestation, or coming of Jesus can happen at any time now, and is much closer now than ever We should be using this time period to preach the good news and help everyone we can to know the truth Jesus is king, not just over his congregation, but he is enthroned as King of Kings over all the powers of heaven and earth -- he has taken his power and begun ruling as king during this same period when Satan steps up his attacks We have been blessed as an organization and as a worldwide brotherhood with the ability and willingness to spread the good news, and we should appreciate the value and responsibility and realize the good we can continue to do with such an organization as a foundation to efficiently accomplish this ministry For me, 1914 is not a necessary component to any of the points just made above. But, for me, it is also a very important point that neither 1914, nor any chronology of any kind, should be made a part of the expectations surrounding either the presence or the coming of Jesus Christ in kingly power. For me, that is clearly what Jesus meant when he said what he said about not trying to use chronology. (I'll stop saying "for me" but it should be understood that I am merely defending the thoughts based on my own prayerful and conscientious concerns about the doctrine, which is also based on the leadership of elders whose guidance I have respected, including some who continue to hold positions of responsibility in the organization. They, like me, are also concerned about their inability to speak out clearly on the subject without fear of repercussions.)
So now, just three specific points:
1. I am concerned about issues of falsehood, and honesty based on the manner in which so many Witnesses defend the 1914 doctrine through apparent evasion, misdirection and false statements instead of being concerned with actual truth
2. I am concerned with adding to and taking away from the truth of the Bible, which is also an issue of 'faithfulness and discretion.' One of the first things I was shown that disturbed me a bit was when a Bethel elder (in Writing) showed me an old Bible commentary that made the statement that it is the height of presumptuousness for Christians to continue to believe that it is only specifically their own generation that Jesus is referencing. Since then I have been concerned with the level of presumptuousness apparent in the writings of so many religions who have found "Biblical" ways to determine almost every every generation since 1260 C.E. to be the "final generation" or "the end of the Gentile Times."  In fact, I think that Jesus was giving us a warning to be humble and realize that we are trying to put ourselves in the place of God if we believe that we can work out a chronology to determine the times and seasons. I remember how haughty it sounded when one of our own "Governing Body" members (F.W.Franz) would defend his speculation and promotion of the year 1975 against those who would point out that Jesus said no one knew the day and hour. If you remember or know of people who honestly remember that time period, you will know that many Witnesses used to say: "Well Jesus said we wouldn't know the day or the hour, but he didn't say we wouldn't know the year!" Brother Franz himself would imply that 1975-naysayers were only amateurs who didn't know how to use Jesus'  words, and were just playing with them as with a toy.
*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? *** 35 One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. 3. You make a common claim above that Brother Russell had "some" things right about 1914. This is very misleading. In fact, Russell had NOTHING right about 1914, not a single thing. The closest we can come to making this claim is that he said it would mark the "end of the Gentile Times" but even here he meant something completely different about the meaning of the "end of the Gentile Times." He thought it meant that the Gentile Times, their kingships and rulerships and political organizations would disintegrate in a time of trouble that would END in 1914 and they would therefore witness the collapse of all world organizations into a chaos that would prove total within a year. He used the expression to mean that there would be no more Gentiles ruling within a few months of 1914. That Gentiles could no longer trample on the chosen ones. Saying that he was right all along about the "end of the Gentile Times" is disingenuous. We can't change the whole meaning of the expression "Gentile Times" just so we can say that Russell got ONE thing right about 1914. Yet, outside of that ONE thing, the use of a term "Gentile Times" he got NOTHING else right, and yet we still say that he got "SOME THINGS" right. That only shows that we have a "desire" to believe in things that were not true.
 
 

I'm sure others have picked up on the fact that Russell, never, in his entire life ever believed that Jesus would start ruling in heaven in 1914. He understood that Jesus had become King in 33 C.E., but also that he had turned his attention toward earth's affairs during his presence, and shortly after coming into his invisible presence and took his great power and authority to become King in 1878.
This gets to the problem I mentioned before about honesty. You are not dishonest in believing what you believed about Russell. But you probably never picked up on the very careful wording the Watchtower has employed to "imply" that Russell believed this about 1914 without actually saying it. This updated, careful wording shows that the Watchtower writers are very well aware that Russell did not understand even this one point that we currently teach about 1914.
Before the Internet became a place where such things were "caught" and discussed, the practice of the Watchtower was generally to just claim that what you said above was true. I have found about 10 examples prior to 1998 that make the same false claim, very similar to this one:
*** w98 9/15 p. 15 par. 1 Waiting in “Eager Expectation” *** Similarly, a prophecy providentially caused sincere 19th-century Bible students to be in expectation. By linking the “seven times” of Daniel 4:25 with “the times of the Gentiles,” they anticipated that Christ would receive Kingdom power in 1914. O course, it's a false claim, and has been corrected more recently by re-wording it, as the Bible Teach book does:
*** bh p. 215 par. 3 1914—A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy ***DECADES in advance, Bible students proclaimed that there would be significant developments in 1914. *** bh chap. 8 p. 84 par. 23 What Is God’s Kingdom? *** During the 19th and 20th centuries, sincere Bible students progressively discerned that the waiting period would end in 1914. And the Watchtower, too:
*** w14 1/15 p. 12 par. 3 100 Years of Kingdom Rule—How Does It Affect You? *** Toward the end of the 19th century, light began to shine on a 2,500-year-old prophecy recorded by Daniel: “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed.” (Dan. 2:44) The Bible Students spent decades pointing out that the year 1914 would be significant. The implication is still there, of course, and unfortunately, it fools many Witnesses into thinking that the earlier claims were true, when it was stated in a way that was demonstrably false:
*** w54 6/15 p. 370 par. 4 The Revelation of Jesus Christ *** 4 Why, then, do the nations not realize and accept the approach of this climax of judgment? It is because they have not heeded the world-wide advertising of Christ’s return and his second presence. Since long before World War I Jehovah’s witnesses pointed to 1914 as the time for this great event to occur. Technically, ideas about changing Christ's presence from 1874 to 1914 were being floated as early as the 1920's, and most of relevant changes happened between 1929 and 1931, but it wasn't until 1943 that we officially dropped 1874 as the time when this great event (Christ's presence) occurred. This is at odds with the idea that Jesus' presence was like "lightning that lit up the entire sky from one horizon to the other horizon" and therefore we assume that at least one person must have had their spiritual "eyes of understanding" open to see that his presence had begun in 1914. Part of this problem is also in that same claim that  Russell and Rutherford and the other Bible Students understood that the "Gentile Times" ended in 1914. But as I mentioned above, the entire concept of what the Gentile Times meant was quite different from what we mean by that phrase today. Today it is OK for the Gentile kings to continue ruling uninterrupted, only saying that 1914 was a year when their lease ran out, although they can continue on for at least a century (so far) and this shouldn't concern us.
A problem with it from a Biblical perspective, however, is that it appears very insulting to Jesus himself, making him look like a "lame duck" ruler whose rule in say, 1961, was no more effective in keeping the nations from trampling God's chosen ones, than if we had claimed that this same rule had started in 1878. The claim makes Jesus look very ineffective with respect to the times of the Gentiles. There are now more nations ruling without any respect for Christ Jesus than there ever were in the past!

After giving this subject a lot of prayerful thought, and with a lot of guidance from several of the persons I worked with at Bethel, I personally cannot put faith in this doctrine. I don't mean to say that you should not or that anyone else should change their mind about it. Of course, I would LOVE to believe it because that would make things so much easier with the majority of my friends, relatives, and spiritual brothers and sisters.
In my own name, I must always be careful about what I say on the subject so that I personally do not offend or needlessly stumble anyone. But on forums such as this, and the Internet in general, where the subject has already come up 100's of times, I do believe it's a place where I can (and therefore should) honestly defend my faith.
My posts are generally "tldr" which is probably a good thing for those who don't wish to deal with the subject. But for this post all I wanted to say was that the scriptures that Holly quoted are, for me, a big part of my faith and the hope that is in me. For me, it could not see myself as a true Christian Witness of Jehovah if I denied what Jesus said here and tried to make those verses mean something other than what seems obvious to me. I also think they get to the very core of our Christianity which is why I also feel under an obligation to find ways to defend my faith, including my faith in Jesus' words from Matthew, Mark and Acts, quoted above:
(1 Peter 3:15) . . .always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, . . . I am also concerned that, when it comes to anything related to chronology, we are at risk of making false statements to others. This does not reflect well on our organization and brings shame even to Jehovah. While I am not asking for anyone to agree with me, I do think that in defending 1914, we should avoid statements that are false. Making false statements is not the same as making dishonest statements, and that's why I would like to respond to some of your statements. I believe they come out of a completely honest heart and mind, and I like the way you think about things from a deeper and wider perspective.
Before I get into much detail, I would like to make a few statements about where I agree:
We are living in the last days, and the critical times and world conditions provide the evidence and context for what we are to expect during these last days. Jesus is present and has turned his attention toward the rulers of this world Satan is angry and active like a roaring lion knowing his time is short The final manifestation, or coming of Jesus can happen at any time now, and is much closer now than ever We should be using this time period to preach the good news and help everyone we can to know the truth Jesus is king, not just over his congregation, but he is enthroned as King of Kings over all the powers of heaven and earth -- he has taken his power and begun ruling as king during this same period when Satan steps up his attacks We have been blessed as an organization and as a worldwide brotherhood with the ability and willingness to spread the good news, and we should appreciate the value and responsibility and realize the good we can continue to do with such an organization as a foundation to efficiently accomplish this ministry For me, 1914 is not a necessary component to any of the points just made above. But, for me, it is also a very important point that neither 1914, nor any chronology of any kind, should be made a part of the expectations surrounding either the presence or the coming of Jesus Christ in kingly power. For me, that is clearly what Jesus meant when he said what he said about not trying to use chronology. (I'll stop saying "for me" but it should be understood that I am merely defending the thoughts based on my own prayerful and conscientious concerns about the doctrine, which is also based on the leadership of elders whose guidance I have respected, including some who continue to hold positions of responsibility in the organization. They, like me, are also concerned about their inability to speak out clearly on the subject without fear of repercussions.)
So now, just three specific points:
1. I am concerned about issues of falsehood, and honesty based on the manner in which so many Witnesses defend the 1914 doctrine through apparent evasion, misdirection and false statements instead of being concerned with actual truth
2. I am concerned with adding to and taking away from the truth of the Bible, which is also an issue of 'faithfulness and discretion.' One of the first things I was shown that disturbed me a bit was when a Bethel elder (in Writing) showed me an old Bible commentary that made the statement that it is the height of presumptuousness for Christians to continue to believe that it is only specifically their own generation that Jesus is referencing. Since then I have been concerned with the level of presumptuousness apparent in the writings of so many religions who have found "Biblical" ways to determine almost every every generation since 1260 C.E. to be the "final generation" or "the end of the Gentile Times."  In fact, I think that Jesus was giving us a warning to be humble and realize that we are trying to put ourselves in the place of God if we believe that we can work out a chronology to determine the times and seasons. I remember how haughty it sounded when one of our own "Governing Body" members (F.W.Franz) would defend his speculation and promotion of the year 1975 against those who would point out that Jesus said no one knew the day and hour. If you remember or know of people who honestly remember that time period, you will know that many Witnesses used to say: "Well Jesus said we wouldn't know the day or the hour, but he didn't say we wouldn't know the year!" Brother Franz himself would imply that 1975-naysayers were only amateurs who didn't know how to use Jesus'  words, and were just playing with them as with a toy.
*** w68 8/15 pp. 500-501 par. 35 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? *** 35 One thing is absolutely certain, Bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man’s existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34) This is, therefore, no time to be indifferent and complacent. This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matt. 24:36) To the contrary, it is a time when one should be keenly aware that the end of this system of things is rapidly coming to its violent end. 3. You make a common claim above that Brother Russell had "some" things right about 1914. This is very misleading. In fact, Russell had NOTHING right about 1914, not a single thing. The closest we can come to making this claim is that he said it would mark the "end of the Gentile Times" but even here he meant something completely different about the meaning of the "end of the Gentile Times." He thought it meant that the Gentile Times, their kingships and rulerships and political organizations would disintegrate in a time of trouble that would END in 1914 and they would therefore witness the collapse of all world organizations into a chaos that would prove total within a year. He used the expression to mean that there would be no more Gentiles ruling within a few months of 1914. That Gentiles could no longer trample on the chosen ones. Saying that he was right all along about the "end of the Gentile Times" is disingenuous. We can't change the whole meaning of the expression "Gentile Times" just so we can say that Russell got ONE thing right about 1914. Yet, outside of that ONE thing, the use of a term "Gentile Times" he got NOTHING else right, and yet we still say that he got "SOME THINGS" right. That only shows that we have a "desire" to believe in things that were not true.
 
 

Aruana, I agree that we have no need to go back to Russell and we can and should evaluate our current beliefs about chronology based on their own merit. I'd love to do that here and perhaps a new thread on Matthew 24 or Daniel 4 would be a place to start as long as the relevant supporting prophecies from elsewhere are also shown, too. 
However, as it happens I am just reading through this thread more carefully and saw a few things I wanted to respond to. I'm not planning on focusing only on things you have said, and I'm not trying to get you or anyone to respond or argue for or against Russell in the process. It's just that his ideas were made part of the topic. (As I got to your second post, I realized just now that you had already said a lot of the things I also wanted to say about Russell and the pyramids. Sorry for the overlap.)
Your comment, requoted above, about the reliance on the secular date for when the Jews were allowed to go back to Jerusalem is correct within a year or so. But one of the problems with Barbour's and then Russell's use of that date was that he admits that it was a cut-off point before which he assumed that we need not pay attention carefully to the other secular dates within this same period. What he hadn't noticed, therefore, was that the only reason this secular date was "well-established" was because the entire Neo-Babylonian period was well-established, and this included the secular date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th and 19th year which therefore established the date for the destruction of Jerusalem. Both dates, 587 for the destruction of Jerusalem and 539 for the conquest of Babylon, are not only well-established, both dates area established through the exact same methods. But what should be even more interesting to our own reliance on them, is that in addition to the same methods for establishing both dates, there are some additional evidences for the dates within the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, which makes 587-586 even BETTER attested than 539 for the Babylonian conquest by Cyrus and BETTER attested than 537 for the return of the Jews to Jerusalem.  This, in itself, doesn't mean that the other dates might be wrong, only that 587 is even better attested. Also, of course, whenever the Bible makes mention of the destruction of Jerusalem's temple, it marks it as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th-19th year (which is 587-6 if 539 is correct). The Bible also gives us another indication in Zechariah's time (agreed to be about 519 BCE in the Watchtower) that about 70 years have passed since the destruction of Jerusalem about 68+ years earlier. We also know that Daniel started considering the 70 years prophecy of Jeremiah at the time that he personally was in Babylon for 70 years. We also have the comments in Ezra that quite a large and vocal portion of the 60,000 or so in attendance for the second Temple had seen the first Temple. This was not so likely if those people were over 95 years old (current WT reckoning). But it seems a little more likely if those persons were 75 years old.
 

This is not true. It is true that all of the events that Russell expected (and predicted) for 1914 did not come true. But none of these were derived from the Great Pyramid. It was the other way around. All of the events were derived from beliefs he inherited from Nelson Barbour who inherited the methods from Millerite Second Adventists and the specific dates of 1874 that was already mentioned by Miller and promoted by other Second Adventists after Miller's dates failed. A lot of things were expected to happen between 1874 and the end (Armageddon) in 1914/1915.
Others were already promoting the mysterious and supposedly uncanny wisdom emanating from the Great Pyramid, before Russell published anything about it. Russell, realizing that God would need something besides the Bible to appeal to the new "scientific" orientation of the world wanted to believe that all this potential "craze" about the Pyramid was that opportunity for God to show that such knowledge was there all along but not ready to be seen until wisdom went "to and fro" in the last days. He agreed with the prophecies that proved that the last days started in 1798-1799. So "now was the time"! (Daniel 12:4 and Isaiah 19:19,20)
It was Russell's desire to see "truth" in these pyramids that pushed him to see Nelson Barbour's dates and events in the various air vents and drainage vents that zigzagged their way through the structure. It was more like reading tea leaves, coffee grounds, or the entrails of birds. (Since these various lengths added up to a timeline, it was probably a little more like palmistry.) You can pretty much see what you want to see in them.
For a while (from a published paper diagram) he saw an overall timeline that reached from OT times with the exact number of inches in one place to reach 1874. Then later in the exact same space, as 1914 became more important than looking backwards to 1874, he saw the exact number of inches to reach 1914 after that same space was measured again more closely. But he also used various broken rocks and directional changes and "puddles" along the way to also point out the timing of various other events expected mostly between 1874 and 1914. But these events were always believed first and then imposed upon what he thought he could see in the pyramid. He saw so many things in it that he called it "the Bible in stone" and called it "Jehovah's witness." Yet, as far as I could see, he didn't see any hints in the pyramids first and then look for Biblical events that might fit the timeline.
He promoted the Great Pyramid idea in most of the six volumes of Studies in the Scriptures. But he went into more detail in only two of them. (Volume 1 and 3) He also answered some Watchtower questions that came from readers about whether or not a certain event had a parallel in the Pyramid.
You and I would look at these disconnected drainage ditches and air vents and not see any connection to dates even if we measured them perfectly. But Russell was of a different mindset. From things he said, we know that he actually thought it gave evidence that the Watch Tower was the true "faithful slave" providing truths at the proper time if he, ironically, could declare that he found the "presence of Christ" in the inner chambers of this structure.

Useless debates:  Cut and paste, cut and paste - reminds me of some of the school and adult debates I've seen here in America.  People are "trained" in this form of debate in the school system and do not know any better... and I do not say this with distain - I have noticed this in all of American society - even in the work place - it is a form of social conformity. They "expect you to conform to this way of talking about a subject...  One does not think about the positive points in the opponents discussion - one just hones in on the points that you don't like - no matter how logical they may be - because if you can score a point only for a moment - then you are a winner!!!  America is full of these winners who cannot think for themselves... The justice system is a good example.... it is not about what is justice or injustice  - it is about winning a case - even if the person really perpetrated the crime.... many examples of this.  
People each get time to give their opinions and not really consider what the opponent is really saying..  and then people get to choose.  This is why American politics is in such a mess - same system - where the louder more aggressive person (and the one who appears to win the points for the present moment) walks away with the prize.  People do not really "think" about things....it is about scoring points ... It is not about what is really right or wrong.... it is about the supremacy....   

Isn't it more likely that just as lightning is visible from east to west, that Jesus' return WILL be visible and that's why we aren't to believe those who say, 'Look! Here is the Christ', or "There!' or 'He is in the wilderness.'  Because He will be visible to all, 'every eye will see Him.'

I don't know who you were addressing, but can you tell me what the tangible difference is between the words 'present' (as in somebody being in another's presence) and 'coming'? Can somebody 'come' and not be 'present'?
And I discussed that the NWT rendering 'took no note' was literally 'knew not' in the original Greek, which puts a whole new light on it, does it not?
Another thread.
Another thread.
Jerusalem's trampling could only begin in Jesus' future - "will be trampled" and not "continue to be trampled."
Another thread.
Are you one of them?
How about addressing Holly's Scriptures in the OP? What do you think? Based on the Bible texts, can the timing of Jesus' Second coming, or Presence, be calculated through Bible chronology? 
 

Are you saying that a person can be present without coming? It's nonsense. You have to first arrive/come and, as a result of that, you are then present.
Imagine a roll call in a classroom.
The teacher calls, "Allen Smith?" No answer.
The teacher calls again. Nothing. "I'll note him down as absent ..."
A fellow student says, "Excuse me sir, Allen is present. He's here." The teacher looks around then quizzically at the student. The student continues, "He is present, it's just that he's not arrived at school yet."
Teacher and class go 
Besides ...

So you can see the words 'coming,' 'second advent' and 'presence' are used synonymously by Russell to refer to the same event that had been calculated to have occurred in 1874.
No, the WTS thought Christ's enthronement was in 1878, which date was discarded back in the days of Rutherford and replaced with 1914.
Learn some Watchtower history, Allen, for Pete's sake. 

That's not quite what he said in the excerpt. He said that Christ's presence will become revealed to people's 'eyes of understanding' over the next few decades, just like Christ's presence has been already been revealed to Russell and his fellow Bible Students living in 1881.
Correct. If you read the context of the excerpt (that is why I gave a full reference so you can look it up), you will see that the Watch Tower was addressing the Second Advent Church's and others' expectations, based on Mother Shipton's prediction that Jesus would visibly come back in 1881.
YES! Holly has already reproduced Russell's predictions.
But regarding Christ's second coming or presence, my excerpt shows he rejected others' calculations about an impending second coming because he (really Barbour) had already calculated that the Lord's second coming or presence had happened invisibly 7 years earlier.
He felt that Christ had been enthroned in 1878.
"It will be remembered that after the spring of 1878, (when we understand Jesus was due as King) that the subject of holiness or the wedding garment, was very much agitated." - ZWT, January 1881, p. 4 [R180]

As I say, learn your Watchtower history.
 

I am addressing Allen's misconceptions about Russell's beliefs. That is why I am reproducing Watchtower quotations, properly referenced so that anyone can read the surrounding material and check for themselves what was being taught. You will find that Allen makes erroneous statements that are corrected by the historical literature.
Please do not confuse trolling with having an open discussion, which is what Holly and I are trying to do here. Challenging a view is not trolling. If you really want to see examples of troll-like behavior, you only need to read through Allen's posts. 
So what? Well, Holly's thread is titled, 'The timing of Jesus' 2nd coming' and her OP asks whether that 2nd coming can be calculated through Bible chronology. Seeing as the Organization has a Bible-derived chronological scheme to calculate Jesus' 2nd coming or presence which was partly inherited from Russell and his friend Barbour, a discussion of Russell's beliefs are relevant to this wider topic.
Allen asserted the same and I asked him to provide that 'proof.' He has yet to do so. Maybe you can give it a shot instead? 

Well..........it does present an interesting conundrum for the thinking person I'll agree. We know there are things God cannot do. He cannot lie, cannot die, cannot fail to accomplish his purpose for example.
It is abundantly clear that indestructible life exists and that it is not limited to Jehovah (Heb.7:16). But as for us deciding what Jehovah can or cannot do based on our relatively puny experience and intellectual capacity, that is a step too far for me.
And as for putting anyone or anything "on a par with the Supreme Deity" ? That seems to be decidedly dodgy ground (Is.40:25) and likely ground upon which even (most) angels would fear to tread.

And people really think that we humans can cooperate to manage the earth well?  This incident proves that humans cannot even do it on a local scale. We are mismanaging the earth by poisoning absolutely everything.  The funguses in the ground and microbes (on which our lives depend) are dying off, we are destroying forests, desertification, our fresh water is poisoned and full of chemicals, we are decimating the animal populations....climate change - too much to mention... soon we will be at the point of no return. 
And then I still get people who tell me the world was "always" like this....and that scientists will come up with an answer....  Yea?  They are ones manufacturing all this stuff that is destroying the earth ....and making money out of it ?  They will only stop when they are forced to.... Humans do not have the will to do this -  Jehovah will have to stop them at his appointed time.

There are Bible passages that I would not read with my children until they were old enough to understand them.
But if it helps, all of my work was from 1976 to 1982, and in '76 it was still just handbills, booklets, brochures. In 1977-79 some of the art got more time-consuming, but it was still mostly one or two-color. I didn't get to work on the Bible Stories book which was full-color,  and I only got ONE full paradise scene, no Armageddon scenes, and no pictures of Jesus. Nothing very startling or striking like the scenes you showed. I wasn't very good with drawing expressions on faces back then, although I could draw or paint a fair landscape. It wasn't until '79 - '82 that more of my time was spent in research than in art.

No. The Watchtower has not forgotten how Christ was persecuted on our behalf, nor have they forgotten that he set the perfect example under the harshest of trials. We are reminded that this was for the benefit of our own example to imitate. We are also reminded that Jesus was under the added difficulty of knowing that every move would be scrutinized even more closely because he was also claiming to represent his Father perfectly through all of these trials.
I don't believe it's fair to imply that the Watchtower removed this in some of the images of Jesus as a way to minimize just how much he suffered. Our memorial invitations have shown Jesus wearing the crown of thorns. The jw.org website shows it several times (I'll attach a couple of them below). But more importantly, these Bible accounts are discussed exactly as they appear in the Bible -- nothing is removed.
Art work often includes some conjecture. Some would conjecture that the crown of thorns was removed from Jesus at the time the cloak was removed, or at the time that his outer garments were replaced, or that it must have fallen off during the harrowing experience of carrying his own "stauros" (and perhaps even falling under its weight when the task was given to Simon the Cyrene). They might conjecture this based on the fact that the crown is not mentioned at the time that the soldiers cast lots over his garments, nor in connection with the sign that says "King of the Jews." There is nothing wrong with such a conjecture, because one should be careful about adding anything that might not be there.
Others would assume he still was wearing it at the time of execution, and yet there is no scripture that states this. On the other hand, there is no scripture that says it fell off, or that it was explicitly removed either. So one would also be justified to include it in the pictures after he left Pilate.
If one were to read the 4 different gospel accounts carefully, there are some differences among all the accounts that can make it difficult to make sure one is drawing the scene correctly. If you the four gospel accounts included below, you might wonder at some differences in detail. For example, at what point was Jesus carrying the stake, and at what point did Simon the Cyrene enter the picture? Did Simon carry it alone, behind Jesus, or did he carry it with Jesus? John does not mention Simon and says only that Jesus carried it himself. Another point of difficulty is whether Jesus was was completely naked on the stake since Matthew and Luke say that the soldiers took "his garments" and John explicitly says they even took his inner garment. Matthew only mentions that they distributed his "outer garments." (This nakedness could be considered part of his suffering, but for various and perhaps obvious reasons, the Watchtower does not depict him this way on the stake.)  There is even a question about when Jesus would have actually been wearing the crown of thorns during the questioning by Pilate. (It is nearly certain that he was NOT wearing it when questioned about whether he was indeed "a king.")
Many of us probably hadn't even noticed that Jesus appeared TWICE before Pilate, and on only one of these occasions, the second one, was he in front of Pilate when the purple robe and crown of thorns were put on him. The purple robe might actually have come along from Herod's soldiers, who dressed him in a splendid garment, and perhaps he was RE-dressed in that same robe in front of Pilate. In one of these accounts, it was only after Jesus left Pilate's immediate audience that the soldiers did this to him.  In another account, Pilate presents him while Jesus is wearing the crown and robe. 
Therefore, The Watchtower has made various pictures of Jesus standing in front of Pilate both with and without his hands bound, both with and without wearing his own garments, and both with and without any indication of having been whipped, and both with and without wearing a crown of thorns.
In other Watchtower pictures, he carries the stake both with and without outer garments, and both with and without the crown of thorns. In other pictures, especially recently, he has a large purple bruise on his face from being struck prior to being handed over to Pilate. 
Perhaps the details mentioned in the article in the Watchtower of December 15, 1990 caused some discussion about the time and exact place when the crown of thorns was worn.
*** w90 12/15 p. 9 From Pilate to Herod and Back Again ***
Disappointed, Herod and his soldier guards make fun of Jesus. They clothe him with a bright garment and mock him.
Notice that Matthew, Mark and John never mention Herod. So they do NOT say that a garment was put on him by Herod's soldiers but mentions that Pilate's soldiers did this at the governor's residence. Luke, the one who says it was Herod's soldiers who put this garment on him, never mentions the crown of thorns or his wearing of purple in front of Pilate or Pilate's soldiers.
All these differences in details can still dovetail into a plausible explanation based on the perspective of each gospel writer, but this does not mean that differences in various pictures definitely makes one right and one wrong.
(Matthew 27:1-37)  . . . 2 After binding him, they led him off and handed him over to Pilate, the governor. . . . 11 Jesus now stood before the governor, and the governor put the question to him: “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus replied: “You yourself say it.” . . . 26 Then he released Bar·abʹbas to them, but he had Jesus whipped and handed him over to be executed on the stake. 27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the governor’s residence and gathered the whole body of troops together around him. 28 And disrobing him, they draped him with a scarlet cloak, 29 and they braided a crown out of thorns and put it on his head and put a reed in his right hand. . . .  30 And they spat on him and took the reed and began hitting him on his head. 31 Finally, after they had mocked him, they stripped him of the cloak and put his outer garments on him and led him off to be nailed to the stake. 32 As they were going out, they found a man of Cy·reʹne named Simon. This man they compelled into service to carry his torture stake.. . . 35 When they had nailed him to the stake, they distributed his outer garments by casting lots, . . . 37 They also posted above his head the charge against him, in writing: “This is Jesus the King of the Jews.”  
(Mark 15:1-32) 15 Immediately at dawn, the chief priests with the elders and the scribes, indeed, the whole Sanʹhe·drin, consulted together, and they bound Jesus and led him off and handed him over to Pilate. 2 So Pilate put the question to him: “Are you the King of the Jews?” In answer he said: “You yourself say it.” . . . 15 At that Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Bar·abʹbas to them; and after having Jesus whipped, he handed him over to be executed on the stake. 16 The soldiers now led him off into the courtyard, that is, into the governor’s residence, and they called the whole body of troops together. 17 And they dressed him in purple and braided a crown of thorns and put it on him; 18 and they began to call out to him: “Greetings, you King of the Jews!” 19 Also, they were hitting him on the head with a reed and spitting on him, and they got on their knees and bowed down to him. 20 Finally, after they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple and put his outer garments on him. And they led him out to nail him to the stake. 21 Also, they compelled into service a passerby, a certain Simon of Cy·reʹne, . . .  to carry his torture stake. . . . 24 And they nailed him to the stake and distributed his outer garments by casting lots over them to decide who would take what. . . . 26 And the inscription of the charge against him was written: “The King of the Jews.” . . . Even those who were on stakes alongside him were reproaching him.  
(Luke 23:1-38) 23 So the multitude got up, one and all, and led him to Pilate. . . . 3 Now Pilate asked him the question: “Are you the King of the Jews?” In answer he said: “You yourself are saying it.” . . . 6 On hearing that, Pilate asked whether the man was a Gal·i·leʹan. 7 After ascertaining that he was under the jurisdiction of Herod, he sent him on to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem in those days. . . . 11 Then Herod together with his soldiers treated him with contempt, and he mocked him by clothing him with a splendid garment and then sent him back to Pilate. . . .  26 Now as they led him away, they seized a certain Simon of Cy·reʹne, who was coming from the countryside, and they placed the torture stake on him to carry it behind Jesus.. . . Furthermore, they cast lots to distribute his garments. . . . 36 Even the soldiers mocked him,. . . 38 There was also an inscription over him: “This is the King of the Jews.”  
(John 18:28-19:24) 28 Then they led Jesus from Caʹia·phas to the governor’s residence. It was now early in the morning. But they themselves did not enter into the governor’s residence, . . . 29 So Pilate came outside to them and said: “What accusation do you bring against this man?” . . . 33 So Pilate entered the governor’s residence again and called Jesus and said to him: “Are you the King of the Jews?” . . .  So Pilate said to him: “Well, then, are you a king?” Jesus answered: “You yourself are saying that I am a king. . . . 19 Pilate then took Jesus and scourged him. 2 And the soldiers braided a crown of thorns and put it on his head and clothed him with a purple robe, 3 and they kept coming up to him and saying: “Greetings, you King of the Jews!” They also kept slapping him in the face. 4 Pilate went outside again and said to them: “See! I bring him outside to you in order for you to know that I find no fault in him.” 5 So Jesus came outside, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And Pilate said to them: “Look! The man!” . . . The chief priests answered: “We have no king but Caesar.” 16 Then he handed him over to them to be executed on the stake. So they took charge of Jesus. 17 Bearing the torture stake for himself, he went out to the so-called Skull Place, which is called Golʹgo·tha in Hebrew. . . . 19 Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the torture stake. It was written: “Jesus the Naz·a·reneʹ the King of the Jews.” . . . 23 Now when the soldiers had nailed Jesus to the stake, they took his outer garments and divided them into four parts, one for each soldier, and they also took the inner garment. But the inner garment was without a seam, being woven from top to bottom.  

It was never consistent, and there were more examples without it. There are several pictures from the 80's that do not show it. There are several pictures that also tend to use solid black hair, sometimes even with a "spiky" hair  style (when on the stake) that tends to make the picture ambiguous. Also in the January 15, 1992 p.11, (the only such WT picture that year) there is no crown of thorns unless it's hidden in dark hair. (The picture is small.) But in the June 1, 1993 issue, page 10, issue the next year, it's back again while Jesus is dragging the stake. Also, the crown of thorns made the cover very prominently on the July 1, 1993 issue (and p.17), but this is in front of Pilate.

Sorry to disappoint. lol. I have no "perceptive" comments to make on this. I'll take a guess, below, but first, a small clarification:
This isn't true. Unless you are speaking only of current magazines, after the 1990's. While I was at Bethel we still had file cabinets with a lot of the old artwork and there were several pictures of Jesus with the crown of thorns, not just in front of Pilate, but also while on the "torture stake" or on his way to the place of execution, while dragging the stake. I don't know if they all had been used in print, but I remember seeing a few of them in print, and I remember seeing at least one or two more in the 1990's.
But here is my guess. The Art Dept at Bethel gets the articles from Writing with requests for appropriate artwork. The artists makes two or three sketches which go back to the Writing Dept. A choice from the sketches is made and when the art is finished it gets incorporated into the page layout of the article. Almost no Biblical or historical research went into most of the old artwork from the 1950's to the 1970's, but since the 1980's the organization has become more and more sophisticated with research. 
As you might imagine, when I was there, the Art Dept rarely got questioned about anything, and rarely had to redo artwork with one exception: pictures of Jesus. Pictures of Jesus got scrutinized outside the Art Dept, and sometimes the discussion went beyond the writer and editor. (By "editor" I mean someone like Rusk, Swingle, Barry, or Adams in the 70's and 80's.) A couple members of the GB worked in the Writing Dept and they might be questioned if pictures of Jesus were taking on a different quality from previous pictures.
There were a few things you could never do with Jesus. You couldn't give him even a hint of a hooked nose, and he always had straight hair, never curly (dark brown or black). You should make him "handsome" and with slightly above average muscles. We don't do this any more, but we used to avoid any pictures of blood and wounds after he was whipped or while on the stake. (See the picture in the Knowledge book for an example.) By 1978, we settled on a Bethelite as a "model" for Jesus' face and used that same general likeness for every picture for several years.
Just a few years before, artists weren't allowed (for about 30 years) to give Jesus a beard . And that fact alone probably explains the problem with the crown of thorns, too. It makes Jesus look too much like the pictures that "Christendom" produces. This should be pretty clear when you just take a look at the comments made over the years about the crown of thorns:
These articles came out when we still depicted the crown of thorns on the stake:
 
*** w56 4/15 p. 251 par. 14 Gaining the Prize of Life by Active Training Now ***
He was stripped of his clothes, nailed to the stake, wearing on his head a crown of thorns.
*** w81 5/15 pp. 20-21 pars. 15-16 The Kingdom—Is It Real to You? ***
There is no indication that Jesus tried to remove that crown of thorns. It remained on his head, and that served to highlight the issue at stake. No one was to be left in doubt.
*** w91 1/1 p. 9 “Look! The Man!” ***
After this torturous beating, Jesus is taken into the governor’s palace, and the whole body of troops is called together. There the soldiers heap further abuse on him by braiding a crown of thorns and pushing it down on his head. They put a reed in his right hand, and they clothe him with a purple garment, the type worn by royalty. Then they say to him mockingly: “Good day, you King of the Jews!” Also, they spit on him and slap him in the face. Taking the sturdy reed from his hand, they use it to hit him on the head, driving even further into his scalp the sharp thorns of his humiliating “crown.”  [In 1991 we still drew the crown of thorns worn on the execution stake, the "driving further" might have helped someone rationalize that it stayed there throughout the entire ordeal. Also, it's sometimes drawn as a kind of brambly thistle which would be difficult to remove from the hair.]
 
The following types of statements underscore the sensitivity to depictions of Jesus that make him appear too much like those of Christendom:
 
*** sl chap. 3 pp. 42-43 par. 29 A Transformed Messiah with Whom Politicians Must Cope ***
By their crucifixes and their church Masses the clergy of Christendom have caused the political element of the world to view Jesus Christ as a bedraggled figure. They claim that at his ascending to heaven he even took along with him the human body in which he was nailed to the stake, still bearing the scratches of the crown of thorns in his forehead and the gory nail holes in his hands and feet and the spear gash in his side.
 
*** sl chap. 3 p. 30 par. 2 A Transformed Messiah with Whom Politicians Must Cope ***
2 Political rulers, especially those of Christendom, are more or less familiar with the Gospel accounts of the earthly life of Jesus Christ. Likely the most familiar mental picture that they have of him is that presented by many religious artists, that of a Jesus with drawn facial features beneath a crown of thorns, nailed hand and foot to a cross. Little, or, rather, not at all, do the political rulers of today count on having a confrontation with Jesus Christ as a mighty heavenly King all equipped to fight with his earthly enemies. To their utter amazement, it will be a transformed Messiah whom they will have to confront shortly.
 
*** ip-2 chap. 14 p. 198 par. 11 Jehovah Exalts His Messianic Servant *** [This quote is from 2000, which was the same year when a picture was made that explicitly removes the crown of thorns while Jesus made his way to Golgotha, the place of execution.]
11 Today the misrepresentation of Jesus continues. Most people picture Jesus as a babe in a manger or as a tragic figure nailed to a cross, with his face distorted in agony under a crown of thorns. Christendom’s clergy have encouraged such views.
 
 
 
 

I always remind people that when Russell was studying the Bible and learning about truths such as 1914 (they did not have the 'whole' truth about 1914 but only some of it) the rest of the world was still in the time of the industrial revolution.  People in America were still moving West in wagons and they were shooting each other because there was not much law and order.... they were still fighting Indians and this time was quite some time before WW1 (No cars or the modern conveniences - only trains and the telegraph were on the horizon).   Similarly, when we look at the seventies and some people thought the 6000 years were almost done - they naturally made assumptions.  This is normal human behavior (to speculate) if one is very interested in the Bible. So when we evaluate the past - we must always evaluate what was said within the time frame (environment) that these things were said.  What was the rest of society like in this time? What was their level of knowledge compared to the light that Jehovah was slowly revealing?
As the light is getting brighter - we now understand so much about the future Kingdom and how it is going to function. We also understand the qualities that we need to develop if we want to be part of that future government.  It seems the governing body is now mainly focusing on strengthening us for the nasty world events which lie ahead.  We need to always be ready.
If one looks at the escalation of violence in the world, the aggressive posturing of nations, and one looks at the preaching work done in the entire world - reaching even the remotest places - then one remembers where one learnt these Truths regarding the mortality of the soul, the earth being a paradise, and many more truths.  Jehovah is using the governing body, which was only appointed in 1919 with the commission to preach to the world. 
Thank Jehovah for knowing the truth and giving it to us in little bites so we can absorb it - because without it - we are lost.  Always remember that people are people and they are imperfect individuals.... (prone to speculate).... but they are drawn to Jehovah because he sees something good in them. Without Jehovah's spirit no-one can come to him.  This is why we as witnesses should never think we are better than others because we know the truth. We must always remember who gave us the truth and who gives us Spirit to understand it.

I already replied to this topic.

The WT Library CD-ROM list is not intended to be a comprehensive list of doctrinal changes. It's from the "Index of Watch Tower Publications" (since 1985), and its purpose is to show which particular changes happened to be mentioned in print after 1985. Notice that about 110 years of Watch Tower publications (references from 1875-1985) are missing from that list. There was another such list made in the 1935-1985 Index, but again this was not comprehensive, and was intended to mention only the changes that had come up for discussion (in print) during that same period. Also, there were several changes to doctrines made that were not referenced specifically as a change which usually meant that the Index had no reason to mention them.

It's not just apostates and other opposers who would say that the destruction of Jerusalem was within a year or two of 587 BCE.
It's easily about 99% of everyone who has studied the currently available archaeology and the evidence. There is still no evidence that it could be anywhere near 607 BCE. The idea of 607 was promoted by some Adventists who influenced C.T.Russell to accept the date. Today only JWs and a few remaining Russellites and Adventists hold to a date near 607. In fact, over the years, even Adventists who have studied the evidence have had to become "apostates" to their original Adventist belief.
Also, there were at least 3 members of the Governing Body, at least one since 1974 and at least one since 1978 who also didn't believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607, and at least one who later admitted he had problems with that belief while writing the Aid Book article on chronology (admitting this in a book from around 1983 after being disfellowshipped.) There was at least one additional member of the GB who may or may not have believed in 607 but who didn't believe we were correct in saying that the generation had started counting in 1914. I worked for that same "one additional member" from 1977 to 1982. In 1980, he was able to get the two other members of the GB Chairman's committee to sign onto a proposal that would have moved the start of "that generation" from 1914 to 1957. That would have brought the total members of the GB who had in some way expressed doubts about 1914 from 4 to 6. There may have been others, but I have never heard that any others had said anything to anyone, if that were the case.
I knew the beliefs of two of these GB members personally, and learned of one other from his book after he was disfellowshipped. A very close friend and confidant told me of the beliefs of the 4th member. 
I have no idea what the current members of the Governing Body believe about 1914 and/or 607 BCE, but I do personally know one member of the current Writing Department who does not believe that either of those dates are related to Daniel's prophecy.
I know that the implication that it's "apostates and other opposers" actually comes from the link you provided where that same wording is used in the introduction. But I don't believe it is right, because it implies that even members of the Governing Body could be counted among these same apostates and opposers.
Also, I should add that those links you provided are full of false claims, false information, and specious reasoning. 
 

My my, Allen. I'm going to need a license to fish out all the red herrings swimming in your post.
Only in your imagination. 
Yes. Conti, Campos, Karen Morgan, 'A' (the one referred to in the OP), several more. 
Which cases have you followed? Seeing as I have asked you this a number of times now, I can only conclude that you haven't really followed any.
Was this a JW case? If so, who was it and where? I'd like to check it out. 
Do you think the cases I just mentioned above were ambulance-chasing, bogus ones? Or were they 'legitimate'?
So you didn't read them ... otherwise you wouldn't have written such twaddle. But for the sake of argument, what protocols in your opinion does the government need to recommend to improve institutions' responses to child abuse allegations? Do you have any concrete ideas? Or are you going to continue to blow smoke?
Was this a JW case? If so, who was it? I'd like to check it out.  
You asserted that the WTS was sued for breach of confidentiality when elders reported crimes to the authorities. You haven't backed up your assertion, and the evidence from Watchtower's own documentation and elders' own testimonies in court reveal that elders did not routinely notify the authorities about child abuse during the '80s and '90s. 
We've been over this, doofus. You are wrong. I have shown you why you are wrong. All 1006 cases were classified as Child Sexual Abuse. The commission is only interested in child sexual abuse incidents hence it being called (see if you can spot the clue in the title) 'The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.' 
Do you really think Watchtower Australia inflated its own figures by including adultery, fornication, masturbation and 'improper contact' in its child sexual abuse stats? Lolol.
Um, no. That's not how it happened. Watchtower didn't want to produce the necessary documents on some pretext that it wasn't practical because it would take a crazy amount of time (somewhere in the order of 20 years) to give the court what it wants. A computer expert testified that the needed info could be extracted in a couple of months so it became evident that Watchtower was talking BS. Although the default judgment (i.e. the terminating sanctions because Watchtower had violated the court's discovery order) was overturned on appeal, Watchtower is still ordered to produce the needed documents and will have monetary sanctions imposed for each day it doesn't.
http://dumaslawgroup.com/2016/06/28/jehovahs-witnesses-face-sanctions-withholding-documents-sex-abuse-case/
I should hope they are. That's JW publishers' dedicated funds they're wasting! 
Because it's not there in the ARC evidence.
Horse-hooey.  
Hahaha! Saying there were 2 testifying victims 'is a far cry' from my contention that there were 2 testifying victims? Brilliant. At least you've conceded on this point.
You have forgotten your own train of thought. The point I was responding to was your suggestion that Mr. Stewart was ignorant of the difference between 'criminality and civil culpability.' I asked whether you really believed that. You then answered with something completely irrelevant about 'spiritual cleanliness' so I cut it from my post.
Ah, now you are trying to proof-read. (Psst, you bolded and italicized the wrong part.) 
Why did you quote UK law, then?
Not if the authorities have taken no action - which is contrary to what you stated.
Clap ... clap ... clap. You caught one. I hope you don't mind me taking the liberty of highlighting every punctuation and spelling mistake of yours that I've copied and pasted in this post. I may not have caught them all (there were so many) but I've found there is always room for improving our written presentations, don't you agree? 
I'll give you a hint. If you look through my previous post, you might just see it among the 2 transcript extracts I quoted. Now, don't pester me for more clues. I don't want to spoil all the fun for you. Good luck! 
As I said, both victims had already disclosed to the elders seeking help, so yes, they were willing to participate in exposing the wrongdoing.
 The 'flip-flop' confusion is because your brain is jumping around like a frog in a box. 
The UK has no statute of limitations for sexual crimes. The U.S. does.
The main point is to do with the person (allegedly) responsible for sexually assaulting these women and calling him to account before a court of law. If there were others involved who had knowledge of and/or knowingly enabled the crimes to take place, hopefully they will be called to account too. But the only reason I mentioned Cosby was to make a connection in your head about the statute of limitations barring victims from initiating lawsuits after a set period of time since the crime, thereby countering your point about victims suing 40, 50 years later.

Did you mean 'cue' word? Anyway, despite your latest round of diatribes, the moderator's axe hasn't fallen on you yet. 
Much of your post is off-the-point invective (as usual) so I'll only home in on what is pertinent to the topic.
Which claims do you think are the ambulance-chasing, bogus ones? Which cases do you think are 'legitimate'? Have you followed any of them?
Governments have done so already. Did you see the .gov websites I linked to in my previous posts and read the recommendations?
Oh you didn't specify that they were wrongfully accused. 
If there was an allegation of abuse, it was proper to call the authorities, and Watchtower would not be liable for breach of confidentiality for reporting a crime. However, elders routinely did not call the authorities in the '80s and '90s, as has been evidenced in the ARC and numerous court cases - the woman 'A's' abuse mentioned in the OP article occurred in the late '80s/ early '90s ("The police were not told ... "). 
Watchtower is resisting allowing the U.S. courts access to their files on child abuse allegations (and it's costing Watchtower $thousands p/d in fines for every day it doesn't produce)  so you do not know the stats on how many, if any, abuse allegations were reported to the police by the elders. 
It is a matter of public record how many of the 1000+ allegations were reported by the elders in Australia, so you can DISAGREE all you want but these are the objective facts.
But they weren't - not by the Org, anyway.
Last I heard, adultery, fornication, masturbation and 'improper touching' (whatever that is) weren't felonies legislated against by the government. Child sexual abuse is.
 On what?
Actually, Mr. Stewart wiped the floor with him. 
You refer to (not 'my evidence' but) Watchtower Australia's list of 1006 Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) incidences that was submitted as evidence to the ARC. The title of the tabulated document is, "Jehovah's Witnesses - Incidence of CSA in Australia" so yes, they were all child sexual abuse cases.
You mention there are some convictions listed, but do you see the last column on the right of the table titled "Reported to authorities by JW"? Scroll down that column. Do you see any 'yes' entries there?
As I say, you can DISAGREE all you want but these are the objective facts.
There you go again. 'We.' Are you using the 'royal we,' perhaps? 
By reading the BOE child abuse letters (including this month's which made some improvements but still nowhere near what's needed), the elders manual, and the UK's WTBTSB Child Safeguarding Policy.
The point is always safeguarding children and young people by having a robust and up-to-date set of policies and procedures that meet current best practice in line with the recommendations of the government and other advisory bodies with expertise in this area.
The Org's approach remains inadequate. It has to be dragged by external pressures into making any changes. 
After the Conti case in 2012, when a stark light shone on the Org's shameful failures in dealing with a known abuser in their midst, Watchtower issued new directives to the BOE. 
Recent high profile UK cases drawing the attention of the Charity Commission as well as the ARC hearing and findings, where the Org's handling of abuse was dissected and laid out on public view, have likewise prompted Watchtower's revision of its directives that were circulated earlier this month.
Therefore, the Org is exhibiting a reactive mindset rather than a proactive one - which is indicative of an institution that won't acknowledge how far it needs to change.
2 victims testified for the ARC inquiry.
There's that 'we' again. Relay this message to the other voices in your head: 'Ann has never testified in court about Watchtower abuse issues; she has never claimed to have done so; quit making stuff up.'
You gave an example of a 'repentant' abuser who wasn't disfellowshipped and remained a member of the congregation? Did you also detail how the congregation's children were protected at the time? I must have missed that. Can you repost your example?
Good. We agree with each other here.
Are you one of the insane, then? For you are 'listening' to me and engaging with me. It looks like I was right about your mental state after all. 
How is your quoted extract relevant to my question?
Is that a 'no'?
I refer you back to previous answers.
 
I stand corrected on the terminology. The crux of the matter is this:
You stated,
"Now, if the authorities are alerted, and no action is taken by the authorities, the accused name is placed on a mandatory sex offenders list"
You are wrong. A 'caution' in UK law (which is to what your quote refers) is the consequence of authorities taking action against a criminal act (was your hypothetical 15yo boy deemed to have committed a sexual assault on the hypothetical 14 yo girl or was it a misunderstanding?), and during police interview, the 15yo would have to make "a clear and reliable admission of guilt" to a crime. The purpose of a 'caution' is "to resolve cases where full prosecution is not seen as the most appropriate solution."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_caution
If no action is taken by the authorities, the accused's name would NOT be placed on a mandatory sex offenders list!
If the WTS has been compliant, why have 'Caesar's laws' shown it to be otherwise?
Who should establish the validitiy of an accusation? Professionally-trained police bodies or untrained, volunteer elders?
Wrong again. Both victims testified. Do you not tire of looking like an idiot?
Transcript Day 1:
MR STEWART: Your Honour, the first witness will be the
first survivor witness, [BCB]. Her name and address are
known to the Royal Commission, and she is accompanied by
her husband for support.
THE CHAIR: [BCB], it will be necessary for you to be
sworn. Will you take an oath on the Bible or an
affirmation?
[BCB]: An oath on the Bible
<[BCB], sworn: [11.30am]
Transcript Day 2:
MR STEWART: The next witness, your Honour, will be [BCG].
THE CHAIR: [BCG], it's necessary for you to be sworn. Will you take an oath on the Bible or an affirmation?
[BCG]: Affirmation.
<[BCG], sworn: [12.14pm]
Which victim? 'AB' or 'BG'? *snort*
Both victims had already disclosed to the elders seeking help. Had the authorities been called from the get-go, they would have had the needed support, and the perps would have been stopped in their tracks earlier.
Your statement: not even wrong.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
The statute of limitations also applies to civil prosecution - whether honest or not.
You are citing a UN resolution about conflict-related rape and applying it to Cosby's alleged crimes? Smh.
Well, Cosby is the one accused of sexual assault. That'll be why the 20+ women would like to sue him. But they can't ... because the statute of limitations has run out.

 

What has that to with the price of beans? Again, instead of having a rational discussion about how the Org. has historically dealt with and presently deals with child abuse allegations, you resort to ad hominem and deflection. I think our conversation must soon come to an end if you continue to be incapable of rational discussion.
My questions resulted from your own words where you said the WTS and other institutions are getting hammered and negative publicity, not because of their failings but, because of "ambulance chasing lawyers." 
Do you think the dozens upon dozens of lawsuits in recent times are down to "ambulance chasing lawyers" and are not 'legitimate' cases? Which 'legitimate' cases have you followed?
What are you babbling on about? Which disgruntled witnesses? The abusers? When did the WTS or congregation elders notify the authorities about allegations of child abuse in the '80s and '90s? In Australia, according to the evidence brought out at the Royal Commission, the elders did not notify the police about the crime once in all 1000+ cases in the past 50 years.
Who's 'we'? Your duplicate accounts don't count.
I asked you a question. Do you know the difference between a statement and a question? You stated that the WTS will make changes through the Branches to comply with new government legislation. This prompted my question to you about whether you believe governments have to legislate to make 'God's organization' do the right and moral thing?
So what do you think? Do governments have to legislate so that 'God's organization' is made to do the right and moral thing? Or should the Org's own sense of morality and justice make it proactive rather than reactive when formulating its child safeguarding procedures?
Again, you are wanting to bend the discussion away from the issues and make it about me or other institutions. To steer you back on track, a reminder: the article in the OP is about JWs. This thread is in the JW section. Ergo, we are discussing how JWs deal with child abuse within their organization. 
Court case after court case after public inquiry after court case has shown there is a pattern in how disclosure of abuse has been mishandled by the Org. The directives to the BOE as well as JW culture explain why this pattern exists. There are huge flaws in the Org's approach that desperately need addressing.
 In general. Now you have that clarified, 
What if the wrongdoer isn't disfellowshipped because the elders believe s/he is repentant? How can the congregation's children be protected while s/he continues as a member?
Your suggestions please.
Do you not think child abuse to be a crime? Do you not think that negligence and failure to provide a duty of care to vulnerable members of a faith community should be brought to civil court? 
And, most hilariously, are you really suggesting that a professional lawyer with 20 years experience is ignorant of the difference between 'criminality and civil culpability'? 
Historically, the Org's elders have already been 'taking the law into their own hands' by investigating and passing judgment on child abuse allegations internally within the congregation. This is why so many cases have been grossly mishandled, pedophiles had opportunity to abuse more JW children, and victims were further harmed and traumatized.
Regarding your nonsensical objection about 'forcing' - reporting to the police or child protection services is forcing a criminal act to be exposed and stopped, and the perpetrator of that crime to be called to account and punished. 
What should the elder do if he suspects child abuse and/or neglect?
"If you suspect a child is being harmed, or has been harmed, you should report your concerns to the appropriate authorities, such as child protective services (CPS), in the State where the child resides. Each State has trained professionals who can evaluate the situation and determine whether help and services are needed. Most States have a toll-free number to call to report suspected child abuse and neglect. Child Welfare Information Gateway, a service of the Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), provides a list of State child abuse and neglect reporting numbers and information on how to make a report in each State.
"Another resource for information about how and where to file a report of suspected child abuse or neglect is the Childhelp® National Child Abuse Hotline. Childhelp® can be reached 7 days a week, 24-hours a day, at its toll-free number, 1.800.4-A-CHILD® (1.800.422.4453)." - http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/faq/can6
"Anyone can report suspected child abuse or neglect. Reporting abuse or neglect can protect a child and get help for a family it may even save a child's life." - https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/responding/reporting/how/
"Anyone." Rather than dump all the responsibility of reporting the crime to a frightened and perhaps dysfunctional family, the elders can take the initiative to report themselves. 
What if the crime wasn't child abuse but murder? Should an elder keep an allegation to himself about a murder having taken place thinking, 'It's the victim's family that has the responsibility to notify the authorities - not me"?
The article in the OP is not discussing this type of scenario but that of adults abusing minors. Besides, the latest August 2016 BOE letter clarifies what the Org. means by 'child abuse' on p.3:
10. Congregation Considerations: When discussing child sexual abuse from a congregation standpoint, we are not discussing a situation in which a minor who is a willing participant and who is approaching adulthood is involved in sexual activity with an adult who is a few years older than the minor. Nor, generally speaking, are we discussing situations in which only minors are involved. (See paragraphs 24-25.) Rather, we are referring to an adult guilty of sexually abusing a minor who is a young child, or an adult guilty of sexual involvement with a minor who is approaching adulthood but was not a willing participant.
Baloney. You have to be convicted as a sex offender to be put on the sex offenders list.
Elders are required to follow the Org's instructions. No mind-reading was involved. 
Exactly. The governmental authorities have those processes and powers. This is why they have to be called on to act when crimes have been committed. As the apostle Paul said,
"Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.  So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished.  For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you.  The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong.  So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience." - Rom. 13:1-5 (NLT)
And what 'rules of evidence' does the congregation employ in its handling of child abuse allegations?
Shouldn't 'evidence' rather be collected by professional police bodies rather than by untrained, volunteer leaders?
Actually 2 cases - 2 victims who, out of more than 1000 recorded cases by the Australian Branch, were brave enough to relate their experiences before a public inquiry. 
It means that the UK WTS have been unsuccessful in blocking the Charity Commission from investigating how the UK congregations deal with child abuse allegations. The Commission can now go ahead with their inquiries. Read the article.
Backing up to your initial statement, namely ... 
"as I recall, in the Australia case, that 1 witness “begged” the Elders NOT to turn her father into authorities. Are you suggesting by any means and force?"
... You were implying that, if a minor victim begged the elders not to turn in her father to the authorities for sexually abusing her, that the elders should comply; that the elders should not 'force' that action upon her. Hence my question about your mental state. Your suggestion is extremely irresponsible and dangerous, for such compliance would further enable the abuser to continue abusing. It's astonishing that I should have to spell this out to you as if you were a child yourself.
You are projecting once again. What was complete and utter bunkum was your argument that 'forcing the child to the police department' - whether by the elders or the child's mother - would amount to 'child abduction.' This fancy of yours is totally ludicrous. 
Well duh. And your point is ...? 
Aaaand another senseless ad hominem rant. Your trademark. To repeat:
The article in the OP is about JWs. This thread is in the JW section. Ergo, we are discussing how JWs deal with child abuse within their organization. 
Do you get how topical sections in a discussion forum work?
So you believe historical child sexual abuse cases are not 'legitimate'? 
Are the government-led inquiries into institutional historical child abuse, because the cases may include instances that occurred 40, 50 years ago, likewise not 'legitimate' and are decided with 'the aid of corrupt lawyers'?
Are you aware that many countries have a statute of limitations that bar victims from making civil claims for sexual crimes after a set amount of time? So, a victim would be unable to civilly prosecute somebody 40, 50 years later. Are you familiar with the controversy surrounding Bill Cosby and why it has been so difficult to prosecute him due to the time that has elapsed since his alleged crimes?
This is the most sensible thing you have said in the whole discussion. However, evidence gathering is done by the police and forensic teams, and the legal system decides whether there is enough to potentially secure a conviction in criminal court and/or a favorable judgment in civil court.
Huh? What does that even mean?
Yeah whatever. This scripture has no bearing on how best to safeguard children now.

    

It's nothing like what you said.
Bzzzt.   Aww and you'd done so well catching one in the other post. Never mind. Thanks for playing.
I suppose you think a display of ineptitude is virtuous.
I see that you, as 'Allen' have nothing more to further the discussion. It looks like your alter ego has submitted something worth addressing, however. ...
For heaven's sake, whatever 'God's government' is supposed to do in the future, we are talking about children's welfare in the here-and-now. Finding ways to better protect them or to better deal with allegations of abuse is not 'mindless.' 
James 4:17 . . .if someone knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him.
Besides, 'God's earthly organization' is representative of or an extension of 'God's heavenly government,' is it not? The spirit-directed Org. should be a trailblazer in children's safeguarding and its responses to abuse allegations, providing a shining example to 'worldly' institutions, right? Instead, it has been embarrassingly far below the higher 'worldly' standards.
I've asked (Allen) several times for suggestions on how the Org., and institutions in general, can improve their policies and procedures; or how to protect children in the congregation if the abuser doesn't get disfellowshipped and remains a member. No sensible answer is forthcoming from either of your identities so far. Responses such as 'God will sort it out' and 'Stop picking on us - we're not the only ones with a problem' aren't good enough. 
Allegations of child abuse are not 'frivolous,' and if Watchtower or its' agents reported a suspected incident of abuse to the appropriate secular authorities in good faith, there would be no legal cause for the accused to sue them for breach of confidentiality.
Your quotation, purportedly from a Watchtower letter about a query over confidentiality, was in regard to a JW insurance salesman revealing the urine test result of a fellow JW and prospective client which indicated he was a smoker. Nothing to do with the issue of reporting a crime to the police.
The court case you cite was to do with a lawsuit over being shunned - likewise irrelevant to the question about what should and shouldn't be divulged and to whom when suspected child abuse comes to light.

SEX OFFENDERS REGISTRATION ACT 2004 - SECT 6
Who is a registrable offender?
    (1)     Subject to subsections (3) to (6), a registrable offender is a person whom a court has at any time (whether before, on or after 1 October 2004) sentenced for a registrable offence.
- http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/sora2004292/s6.html (Bold emphasis mine.)
To be 'sentenced,' a person has to go through the judicial process and found (or pleaded) guilty, i.e. the authorities have taken action. Your (Allen's) statement remains erroneous.
... like you have, for example.