JW Insider


That depends on whether the Dan. 4's '7 times' calculation = (360 days x 7 =) 2,520 days = ('day for a year') 2,520 years is sound hermeneutic, and also depends on whether Luke 21:24 has anything to do with Dan. 4.
If not, then 'no.'

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. 
 

Another thought on this is that some people remembered both temples. They remembered the old one destroyed 70 years earlier, according to Zechariah, and were celebrating the dedication of the new temple in Zechariah's and Haggai's time. Of course, the Watchtower's tradition that this was a 90-year period instead of 70 means that these same people who were celebrating were likely about 96-100 years old or more. Since the Bible says that a lifespan was 70, or 80 only "by special mightiness" it is surprising that nothing more was said about these persons of  super "special mightiness" who were nearly 100 years old or more. (And survived the ravages of war and forced travel as prisoners and exile and long travel back at an advanced age.)
Of course, if Zechariah was right that these persons were more likely only 75 to 80 or more, then it's understandable that there could have been quite a few of them.
(Psalm 90:10) 10 In themselves the days of our years are seventy years; And if because of special mightiness they are eighty years,. . . (Ezra 3:12, 13) 12 Many of the priests, the Levites, and the heads of the paternal houses—the old men who had seen the former house—wept with a loud voice when they saw the foundation of this house being laid, while many others shouted joyfully at the top of their voice. 13 So the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shouts from the sound of the weeping, for the people were shouting so loudly that the sound was heard from a great distance. Note, from Ezra, that there are enough of the 75-85 year olds (per Zechariah) that their loud weeping competes with the loud cries of joyfulness. If these were really 95-105 year olds (per current teaching) among the remnant who came back, then it is less likely that such a small mumber in this "remnant" of a "remnant" would really have been able to compete in volume.

Wow! Ann! Much appreciated.
I started to work out a post like yours, but didn't have time yesterday. Even if I had, it wouldn't have been as good and not half as complete.  Also, I got bogged down in finding some other interesting material. I even read about half of a book called:
The Bodleian Manuscript of Jerome's Version of the Chronicles of Eusebius
https://books.google.com/books?id=lixAAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Eusebius+chronicon&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFyrzJp9rOAhXPsh4KHSLjD4YQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=chaldean&f=false

It was most interesting in the introduction where it discussed the state of the extant manuscripts and how closely they came to going all the way back to manuscripts that were written in a hand that matched the time of Jerome himself. It's easy to forget that everyone worked from copies, and errors sometimes creep in. But sometimes these types of errors can be corrected when there are at least two "families" of copies and translations of Josephus, or two major manuscripts of Eusebius. (The translation of Eusebius from the old Armenian copy is excellent: http://www.attalus.org/armenian/euseb2.htm by Robert Bedrosian.) 
Eusebius' Chronicle - The Chaldean Chronicle
Of course, Eusebius (4th century - Constantine) compared some of these same discrepancies among the classical historians. Some of the items that Eusebius reviewed get directly to the point that the Watchtower ultimately wishes to make about the 70 years. In his section quoting Josephus, he is able to show that Josephus is in agreement with the Bible chronology:
Nebuchadnezzar . . . . He had reigned for 43 years. His son Amel-Marduk took the kingship. . .  He was murdered by his sister's husband, Neriglissar, after ruling for two years. Then that Neriglissar, who had committed the murder, held power for four years. The latter's son Labesorachus ruled as a child for nine months. . . . After his murder, the conspirators . . .placed . . . Nabonidus on the throne. . . .  Now in the 17th year of his reign, Cyrus [g72] came from Persia with an enormous army with which he conquered all the other kingdoms. . . . . After Cyrus had taken Babylon, he ordered that the city's outer wall be razed to the ground because of its [effective] fortification and the trouble it had presented [to him] in capturing the city.
This is all true and in accord with our literature, which states that in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar our temple was destroyed, and remained ruined for 50 years. In the second year of the kingship of Cyrus the foundations were laid and in the sixth year of Darius' reign it was completed.
That "50 years" is the same period for which the Watchtower has traditionally assigned a period of "70 years." (Eusebius: c. 587 - c. 537 B.C.E.) The temptation to make that same mistake goes back many years because the temple destruction seems like a more definitive event from which to start counting the 70 years, instead of counting it from closer to the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's rule. Just a couple of sections back when Eusebius is reviewing Polyhistor's account, he makes a specific point to note that the beginning of the 70 years must begin with the start of Nebuchadnezzar, not the 18th year. (i.e., 19 years prior to the temple destruction).
The account chronologically is in harmony with what is [g43] written in Scripture. According to Polyhistor, Sennacherib ruled during the period of Hezekiah for 18 years; his son succeeded him for 8 years; Sammuges followed, for 21 years; followed by his brother, for 21 years. Then Nabupalasar ruled for 20 years, followed by Nebuchadnezzar, for 43 years. From Sennacherib up to Nebuchadnezzar the regnal years total 88.
If one examines Hebrew writings, nearly the same [information] will be found. For following Hezekiah, his son Manasseh ruled over the remaining Hebrews for 55 years. Then Amos [ruled] for 12 years, followed by Josiah, followed by Jehoiakim. At the beginning of the latter's reign, Nebuchadnezzar came and besieged Jerusalem and took the Jews captive to Babylon. From Hezekiah to Nebuchadnezzar there are 88 years, just as Polyhistor calculated from the Chaldean sources.
. . .Then Nebuchadnezzar ruled for 43 years. He massed troops and came and took captive the Jews, Phoenicians, and Assyrians. Since the Hebrew sources are in harmony with Polyhistor here, there is no need to elaborate.
Following Nebuchadnezzar, his son Amilmarudochus  [Amil-Marduk] ruled for 12 years. .  . . After him, Polyhistor says, Neglisarus ruled the Chaldeans for 4 years, followed by Nabodenus for 17 years. It was during his reign that Cambyses' son, Cyrus, massed troops and came against the country of the Babylonians.
Berosus described the Chaldean kings briefly one by one, and so does Polyhistor. Now it is quite clear that from the time when Nebuchadnezzar massed troops and took the Jews captive until the time of Cyrus' rule over the Persians, 70 years had transpired. Hebrew history also confirms this, considering that they had been in captivity for 70 years, reckoning [that event] from the first year of Nebuchadnezzar until the time of Cyrus, king of the Persians.
 
Eusebius was able to add up the 88 years from Senacherib to Nebuchadnezzar and check it against the Bible account correctly. So he must have also been able to check that from the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar to the 2nd year of Cyrus was about 70 years. Yet, Polyhistor is listed in Eusebius as having 12 years for Amel-Marduk instead of two which would make this same period about 80 years. But since he elsewhere noted that Amel-Marduk ruled only two years, and he summarizes the total as if it says only 2 years, then it's clear that there is a copyist error that crept in somewhere.
(If Amil-Marduk's reign may have been documented somewhere as only about 18 months, this could also explain the "18" in the Josephus column, but we also know that Eusebius quotes Josephus above as having correctly listed it as only 2 years. So in either case a copyist error is obvious.)
The potential to assume 70 years instead of 50 from the destruction of Jerusalem to the first couple of years of the reign of Cyrus is a mistake with a long tradition among Jewish Bible commentators, and it was easily fixed by historians who looked at the specifics more closely, which of course included the work of Berossus who actually lived in Babylon only a few hundred years after these events, and who could also read the cuneiform writing.
Some interesting footnotes in the book here https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0567629309  in the section on "Priestly Chronology of the World." on page 40 and 41 showing that some Jewish traditions had shown confusion over the 50 and 70 year periods so that later Jewish tradition moved the 70 years "desolation" from the destruction to the foundation in the second year of Darius, not Cyrus using Zechariah 1:1. Footnote 30 says:
Bimson is incorrect . . . 2 Chronicles 36:21; the previous verse refers to the prophecies of Jeremiah. However the Jeremiah passages which refer to ta period of 70 years ascribe this to the total duration of Babylonian domination, which followed Nebuchadnezzar's victory at Charchemish in 605 ('the fourth year of Jehoiakim). See also the comments on page 78 of his book: https://books.google.com/books?isbn=9004117911
Of course, one of the most interesting types of corrections is when the author makes it himself in a later attempt to address the same chronology. You mention this with Josephus when he wrote "Against Apion." Previously he had assumed, evidently, that 70 years had transpired from the time of the destruction of Jerusalem to Cyrus, but after all these years of writing and reviewing sources like Berossus, he made a correction -- and even stated that the source was already to be found in various other Jewish books, too. The direct quote from Josephus (not just through Eusebius) is in "Against Apion" Book 1, 21: (found here: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/apion-1.html )
Josephus' Against Apion
These accounts agree with the true histories in our books. For in them it is written, that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, (16) laid our temple desolate; and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years. But that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus, its foundations were laid; and it was finished again in the second year of Darius. 
The second year of Darius was considered to be 70 years later, so this was a solution that addressed the confusion over tying a 70-year period to two important events betwen the temple destruction and the restoration of the Jews by Cyrus (the second year of Cyrus). The Jews in Zechariah's day also understood that this was a 70-year period (about 587 BCE to about 518 BCE). The events were too close in their memory in Zechariah's time to have made the 20-year mistake that we have made today. In any case it shows that persons living in Zechariah's day understood that there were NOT 70 years from the destruction of Jerusalem to the second year of Cyrus, as the Watchtower has traditionally claimed:
The Bible - Zechariah
(Zechariah 1:1-16) 1 In the eighth month in the second year of Da·riʹus, the word of Jehovah came to the prophet Zech·a·riʹah son of Ber·e·chiʹah son of Idʹdo, saying: 2 “Jehovah grew greatly indignant at your fathers. . . . 7 On the 24th day of the 11th month, that is, the month of Sheʹbat, in the second year of Da·riʹus, the word of Jehovah came to the prophet Zech·a·riʹah son of Ber·e·chiʹah son of Idʹdo, saying: . . .12 So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?” . . .16 “Therefore this is what Jehovah says: ‘“I will return to Jerusalem with mercy, and my own house will be built in her,” declares Jehovah of armies, “and a measuring line will be stretched out over Jerusalem.”’
Because of the 20-year mistake required to make the 607 BCE date work, the Watchtower has been forced to claim that this period that the angel of Jehovah called "70 years" (587-518) was actually about "90 years" (607 - 518).
 
 
 

Your math is off. The abuse of 'A' was about 25 years ago. Anyway the point remains about how to best safeguard children and address abuse allegations in the here-and-now.
That is your personal opinion of my personal opinion, but it is not my personal opinion. 
The courts' and ARC's findings, based on the evidence presented by all parties (and not on my personal opinion, btw), is that the Org. has had a woefully inadequate set of child abuse policies and procedures which, in practical terms, has focussed on protecting the Org's image, on protecting the alleged abuser's 'right to confidentiality' at the expense of the victim's welfare, enabled abuse to continue, and victims who disclosed to be further traumatized. The Org. needed to improve its attitude and approach, which it has to a limited extent over the years, but it still fails in key areas.
Is not the Organization spirit-directed? 
If the holy spirit directs, does it direct imperfectly? I.e. is it the holy spirit's (God's) fault when the spirit-directed Org. gets things wrong?
If it isn't the holy spirit's fault that the Org. has made mistakes, and if the holy spirit directs perfectly, has the Org. been ignoring the spirit's direction?
If the Org. has been ignoring spirit-direction, it wasn't being directed by holy spirit.
Sure, the Org. is made up of imperfect people, but those imperfect people make grand claims about how wonderful they are and how they are the only ones being directed by God's holy spirit to act and teach a certain way.
I think you are confusing the Commission with civil court.
(Give me strength. Talk about delusional.) So you do believe Watchtower inflated its own figures and included other sexual 'sins' in its list of child sexual abuse cases? Lolol. Smh.
Isn't this what you originally claimed in the second post of this thread?
"No different than any other religion that is dealing with a worldwide problem." - AllenSmith, 8/12/16
So which argument are you going with? Do you think the Org. is better than other religions at safeguarding children, or 'no different from any other religion'?
 I'm glad to see you've finally dropped the 'JWT is my brother' charade.
This is why you should follow your own counsel about not searching through legal websites for a quick response to win an argument. You have completely misunderstood its content. 
 (6)     A person ceases to be a registrable offender if—
... (c)     he or she is a registrable offender only because he or she is subject to a sex offender registration order and that order is quashed on appeal.
In other words, if a person who, due to having been convicted and sentenced for a registrable offense was court ordered to be on the register, later has that court order overturned on appeal, s/he ceases to be a registrable offender. 
*Sigh*

The OP has changed since the last time I checked in here. 
The somewhat misleading table from the Watchtower article makes it look as if the classical historians sourced the kings' regnal years independently from each other and that's why there are different figures. Yet most readers will be unaware that Berossus is the ultimate source for all of them. 
Polyhistor got his data from Berossus. Polyhistor's works are lost. To get Polyhistor's figures, you have to consult Eusebius.
Eusebius in Chronicon, bk. 1.9 cites Polyhistor, whose source was Berossus, who gives 20 years for Nabopolassar and 12 years for Evil-Merodach.
Eusebius in Praeparatio Evangelica, bk. 9, ch. XL (and in Chronicon) cites Josephus, whose source was Berossus, who gives 21 years for Nabopolassar and 2 years for Evil-Merodach.
Interestingly, Insight Vol. I, p. 453 provides a possible ... um ... insight into why some of Polyhistor's figures (as given by Eusebius) are different:
"Of his [Berossus'] writings Professor Olmstead remarks: ' . . . only the merest fragments, abstracts or traces have come down to us. And the most important of these fragments have come down through a tradition almost without parallel. Today we must consult a modern Latin translation of an Armenian translation of the lost Greek original of the Chronicle of Eusebius, who borrowed in part from Alexander Polyhistor who borrowed from Berossus direct, and in part from Abydenus who apparently borrowed from Juba who borrowed from Alexander Polyhistor and so from Berossus. To make a worse confusion, Eusebius has in some cases not recognized the fact that Abydenus is only a feeble echo of Polyhistor, and has quoted the accounts of each side by side!' He continues: 'And this is not the worst. Although his Polyhistor account is in general to be preferred, Eusebius seems to have used a poor manuscript of that author.' (Assyrian Historiography, pages 62, 63)" [emphasis added]
Could the different figures attributed to Polyhistor be corruptions in the text? It would seem so.
The full quote by Olmstead is available at http://www.aina.org/books/ah.pdf. To punch home the point about all roads leading back to Berossus, Olmstead adds in his following paragraph,
"Summing up, practically all the authentic knowledge that the classical world has of the Assyrians and Babylonians came from Berossus."
As regards the Josephus column in the Watchtower article's table, it's telling that only the figures from Antiquities, X.11 are given, as if these are solely the ones Josephus uses. Nabopolassar's regnal years are omitted in the table presumably because in the midst of that section, Josephus quotes Berossus who assigns 21 years to him. Naturally, Josephus' later book, Against Apion, has regnal years identical to the first Berossus column in the table - indeed, to get these Berossus figures in the table, one has to consult Josephus!
The Ptolemy column matches the Berossus column anyway - with the exception of Labashi-Marduk who reigned less than a year and didn't need counting.
Here is a table that doesn't compare Berossus with a row of historians whose source was ultimately Berossus (other than, perhaps, Ptolemy):

Source: Berossos and Manetho, Introduced and Translated: Native Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt - Gerald Verbrugghe, John Wickersham, John Moore Wickersham (University of Michigan Press, 2001).

The history and evolution of the tenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the letter י (yud). A Chart of the Ancient Hebrew alphabet is available through the Ancient Hebrew Research Center
 
 

If by this you are implying that the present system will end later rather than sooner, then surely Paul's words to the Hebrews at 11:13 would continue to apply to many currently alive who do not live to see God's intervention in human affairs:
"In faith all of these died, although they did not receive the fulfillment of the promises; but they saw them from a distance and welcomed them and publicly declared that they were strangers and temporary residents in the land."
In fact, many who truly serve Jehovah will continue to have an experience similarly to Abraham (Gen.25:8) : "Then Abraham breathed his last and died at a good old age, old and satisfied, and was gathered to his people."
These scriptures hold good regardless of when the Gentile Times end and would do so even if we had never heard the expression in our lives.

I agree with much of what you have said in your post. The areas where we disagree the most have been discussed earlier and I have no need to discuss them with you any further until you have tried to answer the scriptural reasons that were brought up at the time. Besides, those discussions mostly touch on subjects that are not of much concern in this current topic.
Consider:
*** w95 6/15 pp. 21-22 “Sacred Service With Your Power of Reason” ***
Slaves of God and Christ, Not of Men
13 Elders have to allow those under their care to use their power of reason. The members of the congregation are not slaves of men. “If I were yet pleasing men,” wrote Paul, “I would not be Christ’s slave.” (Galatians 1:10; Colossians 3:23, 24) In contrast, the Pharisees wanted people to believe that it was more important to gain the approval of men than that of God. (Matthew 23:2-7; John 12:42, 43) The Pharisees took it upon themselves to become moral dictators who formed their own rules and then judged others by how well they measured up. Those who followed the Pharisees were weakened in the use of their Bible-trained conscience, in effect becoming slaves of men.
14 Christian elders today know that the flock is not principally accountable to them. Each Christian must carry his or her own load. (Romans 14:4; 2 Corinthians 1:24; Galatians 6:5) This is as it should be. Indeed, if members of the flock were to be slaves of men, obeying simply because of being monitored, what would they do when those men were not around? Paul had reason for joy over the Philippians: “In the way that you have always obeyed, not during my presence only, but now much more readily during my absence, keep working out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” They were truly slaves of Christ, and not of Paul.—Philippians 2:12.
 
 

With only a few exceptions. I'm not going to get into details, but I'm sure I could manage to get whatever is necessary reported to the proper authorities and also meet the obligations of the congregation.

I do not mean just eye-witness evidence; after all, eye-witness or video evidence is rare. I mean "direct" in the sense that the case, or a confession, or complaint, were brought directly to my attention.
Having spoken at some length with a couple of abuse victims, I also know that behavior and trust characteristics on the part of the victim can also be evidence, but I am no expert in such difficulties. I'm talking about persons who suspect that a child has been abused, or when parents, guardians, or the child himself/herself makes the claim, or an adult makes a claim about a past case of abuse (or series of abuses) when they were a child.
At this point, the suspicion may not even deal with who is suspected of being the perpetrator (although this is usually part of the accusation). Parents don't want to believe a relative or spouse can be guilty, and often refuse to suspect the right person, or even provide evidence that they suppress psychologically or purposefully. The remaining evidence is often just the claim of a victim, and it often comes to light many years after the abuse occurred -- and by this time memories and projections and confusion will often need to be factored in. There are cases when an abused person, years later, will even blame the wrong person, sometimes a parent who was only indirectly responsible through negligence or suppression of obvious clues. Also, victims often go through stages of behavior after abuse that make them vulnerable to multiple abusers through their lives, and dealing with the painful memories of multiple abusers is often a factor that leads to mistaken memories. And sometimes it's a very simple matter, even if it happened years ago. Sometimes there is a diary, or letters to a parent, relative, or friend. Often there is the evidence that shows up when an accused perpetrator moves to another congregation, and new accusations come to light in the next congregation,  or a search into his background shows up previously unreported accusations from a prior congregation.
These complexities just point out that we need all the help we can get in such situations. Whether the evidence is recent or from years ago, we still need to inform the authorities as quickly as possible. We need all the help we can get from persons trained to investigate such matters. (Romans 13) 

If I had direct evidence that a JW had committed a serious crime (murder, rape, child physical abuse, child sexual abuse). I would definitely report it to the police. My wife, as a school principal has had to report several such instances, even of suspected child physical and/or sexual abuse, because she has always worked in very large school districts, where she has had an obligation under the law to do so..One of those instances involved a JW parent. I have never witnessed or seen direct evidence of a JW committing a serious crime.
I guess, to be totally honest, I should explain what I mean by "serious crime.".I don't consider a typical spanking the same as child physical abuse although I have seen some borderline situations, but have never reported them. In almost 50 years as a baptized JW, I have also heard many admissions of guilt in a congregation setting (admission of smoking, abortion, adultery, etc. - against such things there is no "law."). Outside the judicial setting I have learned of financial fraud, insurance fraud, welfare fraud, shoplifting, theft of services, returning used clothing as new, etc. I have never reported such things to secular authorities, and only reported to the congregation in one case when I knew it was another brother defrauded, and "we" (mostly "I") took it to the other brother first.  In these cases, I expressed my personal disapproval, offered scriptural counsel, recommended confession to the elders, and recommended ways to make amends. I do not think that every such case needs to be reported to the congregation (elder body) by me personally.
When a Bethelite robbed me of a couple hundred dollars, I took it to his congregation elders, not Bethel elders, after warning him that he had 2 months to pay me back. (The kinds of things I believe Paul had in mind that the congregation could try to handle without going to court are internal cases of financial and property fraud between brothers.)
I have turned in a lecherous photographer to park authorities, who was obviously focusing on getting lascivious pictures up little girls' dresses and that sort of thing. I'm almost 100% sure he was not a JW, but it never occurred to me. I would not have asked and it would not have made a difference.

LOL! Hilarious response to AllenSmith (and JWTheologian).
I was thinking about the reasons for the use of duplicate accounts by Allen. Anyone here who has the IP address displayed already knows for a fact that AllenSmith and JWTheologian are the same person. Not that anyone actually needed specific evidence since Allen has also used these same two names (among a couple of others) in the JW-Archive forum. And he ties them together with a unique vocabulary including the same misspellings, and the unique use of words like "recreants" etc.
But what actually ties them together even more clearly is the fact that he regularly resorts to using the language of abuse and bullying. On the jw-archive forum, in fact, his new names were used specifically so he could continue his abusive behavior when prior user names had reached the limits of the abuse allowed by moderators.
I did a little experiment with Allen that might seem either funny, revealing or embarrassing. I'll explain below:
As many people know, Allen's prime use of the two names on this forum is not so much to allow him to hide his abusive behavior. After all, both names are still in use, both have been equally abusive, and I'm sure that AllenSmith is aware that the two names don't really fool anyone here who is involved in dialogue with him.
In fact (and this may be the primary use) both names: AllenSmith and JWTheologian have been used to bolster the reputation of each other. AllenSmith very often give "likes" or a "reputations" to his own posts of both names. And JWTheologian has also given "likes" or "reputations" to his own posts of both names. In fact, for most of his posts that have been given a like or reputation, he is the only one who likes them.
Knowing this, I wondered how important that self-made reputation was to Allen. I decided to give a "Down-vote" as a "reputation" which hurts AllenSmith's and JWTheologian's overall numerical "reputation." But I only gave that "down-vote" to a small number of his posts. (In fact there have been a couple of posts in the past where I have given a "like".) I only down-voted a few of the posts where AllenSmith and/or JWTheologian had already boosted his own reputation by giving himself an up-vote AND where he was being nasty, abusive, or was clearly using an ad hominem.
The experiment worked. Both AllenSmith and JWTheologian quickly came back at past posts of mine under several topic areas. He left some with a "minus one" reputation and some where he just knocked a point off the overall count where others had already up-voted my post.
It seemed a bit ironic in topics like this one where one of the sub-topics is a discussion of how and why a society or entity will cover up abuse for the sake of "reputation." My own view has always been that I should do my best, where possible, to expose this kind of problem, whether I would learn of evidence of it in a local high school, or a sleazy photographer surreptitiously taking pictures of children in our local park, or even our own Organization. Exposure is the best solution that most of us can help with.
And now, I've also done my small part to expose the abuses of an individual perpetrating abuse, ad hominem and bullying on this forum while simultaneously trying to boost his own reputation.

LOL! Hilarious response to AllenSmith (and JWTheologian).
I was thinking about the reasons for the use of duplicate accounts by Allen. Anyone here who has the IP address displayed already knows for a fact that AllenSmith and JWTheologian are the same person. Not that anyone actually needed specific evidence since Allen has also used these same two names (among a couple of others) in the JW-Archive forum. And he ties them together with a unique vocabulary including the same misspellings, and the unique use of words like "recreants" etc.
But what actually ties them together even more clearly is the fact that he regularly resorts to using the language of abuse and bullying. On the jw-archive forum, in fact, his new names were used specifically so he could continue his abusive behavior when prior user names had reached the limits of the abuse allowed by moderators.
I did a little experiment with Allen that might seem either funny, revealing or embarrassing. I'll explain below:
As many people know, Allen's prime use of the two names on this forum is not so much to allow him to hide his abusive behavior. After all, both names are still in use, both have been equally abusive, and I'm sure that AllenSmith is aware that the two names don't really fool anyone here who is involved in dialogue with him.
In fact (and this may be the primary use) both names: AllenSmith and JWTheologian have been used to bolster the reputation of each other. AllenSmith very often give "likes" or a "reputations" to his own posts of both names. And JWTheologian has also given "likes" or "reputations" to his own posts of both names. In fact, for most of his posts that have been given a like or reputation, he is the only one who likes them.
Knowing this, I wondered how important that self-made reputation was to Allen. I decided to give a "Down-vote" as a "reputation" which hurts AllenSmith's and JWTheologian's overall numerical "reputation." But I only gave that "down-vote" to a small number of his posts. (In fact there have been a couple of posts in the past where I have given a "like".) I only down-voted a few of the posts where AllenSmith and/or JWTheologian had already boosted his own reputation by giving himself an up-vote AND where he was being nasty, abusive, or was clearly using an ad hominem.
The experiment worked. Both AllenSmith and JWTheologian quickly came back at past posts of mine under several topic areas. He left some with a "minus one" reputation and some where he just knocked a point off the overall count where others had already up-voted my post.
It seemed a bit ironic in topics like this one where one of the sub-topics is a discussion of how and why a society or entity will cover up abuse for the sake of "reputation." My own view has always been that I should do my best, where possible, to expose this kind of problem, whether I would learn of evidence of it in a local high school, or a sleazy photographer surreptitiously taking pictures of children in our local park, or even our own Organization. Exposure is the best solution that most of us can help with.
And now, I've also done my small part to expose the abuses of an individual perpetrating abuse, ad hominem and bullying on this forum while simultaneously trying to boost his own reputation.

I'm still not sure he's allowed by law to visit homes of minor children even if it is with others.  I'm sure it can be startling to have someone all of a sudden with a camera in your face being loud, but he should have known that having that record in his past and being out in public someone was bound to confront him.  So yes, being prepared with an answer ahead of time would have been adequate, instead of total denial.  If everyone is in denial, nothing will change.  There should be an ongoing restriction against anyone underage being left alone with individuals accused of sexual abuse.  This would be added protection for everyone, while understanding everyone should be treated with love and respect.

It was once said by a well-meaning circuit overseer at an assembly; “You can’t be an introvert in the truth”. More accurately the statement should have been; “It’s more difficult for the introvert in the truth”. Why is that the case? Well let’s first find out a little about the Introvert.
Do you know publishers who need to spend time alone every day? Publishers who love quiet conversations about feelings or ideas. Publishers that can give good talks at congregation meetings, but seem awkward when it comes to socialising and reluctant to participate during the meetings? They may appear to growl, grunt or wince when accosted with pleasantries by publishers who are just trying to be nice? If so, then you know publishers who are Introverted.
New Look
It’s time for a new look at introversion. It may come as a surprise to you that introverts are a legitimate personality type. Introverts comprise between 10-30% of the population. The problem is that their self image is defined almost exclusively by that other 70% (or more) of extroverts who don’t understand them and think they are wrong because they are different.
This is like saying a person is wrong because they are black. Racism in the truth, unlike the world hardly exists, but the area of introversion could be called one of the last frontiers of prejudice.
And don’t think it’s a choice to be this way, it’s all in the brain, literally. Researchers have established a positive correlation between alpha waves generated in the frontal lobes of the human brain and personality traits that characterise introverts or extroverts. Introverts have more acetylcholine, a chemical that enhances “long-term memory, the ability to stay calm and alert, and perceptual learning.” They also have increased activity in the frontal lobe, which has been linked to high-level problem solving skills, long-term planning, and a facility with language.
Misconceptions
The Introvert is not simply a shy person. They are not necessarily depressed and they are not social outcasts, although it may appear this way to the extroverts who need ongoing social contact to be healthy and happy. Introversion is not a pathological condition; it is not an abnormal response to the world. It is simply a personality trait found in a smaller percentage of the total population. Introversion is not shyness or a lack of social skills. It’s temperament, hard wired in ones genetic code, and cannot be altered.
Differences
Introverts are different from extroverts and this difference is very difficult for the extrovert to understand because they do not operate in the same way. As they do not understand it, many continually try to ‘help’ the introvert become more social, more gregarious, more outgoing, and have more fun, all, of course, from the extroverts point-of-view. As an example I know of one introvert who used to love going to parties, they used to plant themselves in an unobtrusive place where they could get a good view of the room, and with drink in hand they spent the evening 'people watching’ and were more than happy in doing so. That is until the continue barrage from extroverts to get up, have a dance, enjoy yourself, became too much to cope with.
In essence the terms Introvert and it’s antonym extrovert can be summarised by the source of our energy. Extroverts get their energy from the outer world and feel drained when they are by themselves too long. Introverts get their energy from within and lose energy quickly when having to deal with a lot of people. To illustrate; extroverts are like solar cell batteries they need to be in the sun to get charged up, introverts are more like rechargeable batteries, they need to be by themselves to restore their energy, to enable them to go back out into the world of people.
Two statements sum up one of the main differences between the extrovert and the Introvert.“If you don’t know what an extrovert is thinking, you haven’t listened”. “If you don’t know what an introvert is thinking, you haven’t asked.” Introverts tend to mentally rehearse what they are thinking. When they have it all worked out in their mind, then they might tell you. It is not that they want to conceal their thoughts. It just doesn’t occur to them to say them out loud. That is why it is wise to ask. Silence does not necessarily mean consent. Never presume you know what an introvert is thinking, or you know what they want.
Participation
Participation or commenting at meetings has for decades been seen as a good sign of spiritual progress. A means of sharing an expression of our faith. A means to encourage others. That of course has not changed. What needs to change however is our perception of those who do not readily avail themselves of this avenue.
Ask the teacher of any Introvert attending school and they will say the same; “Does not participate much in class”. Does that mean that they are not a good student? Far from it, in fact in most cases they are usually better as they excel in listening and reading.
As one student put it: “Receiving a grade for class participation has always been a great source of anxiety for me, since I am rarely the person in the class who speaks the most, and sometimes I am the person who speaks the least. I watch other students who speak often and I am frustrated by the knowledge that they are being rewarded for the quantity of their participation while I am being punished.” Introverted learners tend to participate less in class, since they prefer to process ideas by thinking to themselves rather than by speaking to others. The difficulty with this style of learning is that it does not fit well with the traditional concept of participation by commenting at meetings. The fact that lack of participation is looked down upon adds to the frustration of an Introvert. When others try to encourage an introvert to comment their discomfort usually increases due to the extra pressure. One of the best compliments a publisher was given was that although they didn’t comment often at the meetings, when they did, they always said something meaningful. Unfortunately, this advantage often seem undervalued in the congregation.
In the same way that the introverted makes the effort to participate during a meeting, extroverted publishers must make the effort to refrain at times from participating just to fill the silence. Introverted publishers need space in which to comment, and if the conductor provides this space, rather than taking the first hand they see, it will encourage them to continue to make the effort to participate. Bear in mind the conductor should not use that space with any phrase along the lines of, “Who hasn’t answered yet?”, as that will add further pressure and anxiety.
As has been proved in the school classroom, participation should be encouraged rather than required. The use of participation at the meetings is a valid and important instructional technique. However, what is valuable and beneficial to some, is not necessarily so to others. Forcing highly apprehensive, ethnically and socially divergent, or skill deficient people to participate is harmful. It will increase apprehension and reduce self-esteem. Thus, at the meetings participation should be encouraged but never required from those that are quiet. Try to remember that introverts often cannot relax unless they are alone with a teacher or in a very small class, which is why introverts were more inclined to comment on a book study level (when small groups met in private homes).
The reluctance to participate has nothing to do with preparation or lack of it, in fact the opposite is most likely true. Knowing the material is likely to keep the introvert from participating as they dislike redundancy. As one introvert said, “The only thing worse than talking about something twice is thinking something I’ve already thought”. They often do not feel compelled to demonstrate all that they know, hence they may sometimes surprise those around them when they do choose to speak up.
In view of the percentages mentioned earlier you need to keep constantly in mind that most publishers are moderately to highly verbal people, and hence different than the quiet publishers within the congregation. What makes good common sense to such ones may be the worst thing they could do for someone who is quiet. So please don’t ever say, “What if everyone was like you?” (that will never be the case). One final pointer in this area, when an introvert does answer, and they will if they have something to say and feel up to it, don’t ever make a big issue of it for that will draw further attention and hence stress to that one. Therefore never say after the meeting; “I enjoyed your answer”, or “It was good to hear you answer”. If you feel you need to say something then mention something about their comment rather than about the fact that they commented.
Where to Sit
Kingdom Halls have high, moderate, and low interaction areas. The highest are near the front and centre. The lowest are along the sides and in the rear. One of the potentially most harmful things an elder (or attendant) can do is to force a quiet publisher to sit in a high-interaction area of the hall. While the publisher is not likely to talk any more in such an area than if he or she were seated elsewhere, the threat of communication will be felt much more consistently. Under such pressure it is more difficult for the publisher to concentrate on the talks being delivered, and learning will decrease. Allowing publishers to select their own seats avoids harming the quiet ones.
Ministry
Introverts are unlikely to initiate a conversation either with acquaintances or strangers. Introverts will prefer to wait until someone approaches them. This of course doesn’t happen very often in the ministry. Therein lies the problem for Introverts, they have a constant fight to bring themselves to speak to people in the ministry. A fight that subsequently leaves one drained emotionally and physically.
An introverted publisher is most likely happier when working in field service alone as they tend to not like being watched. Although happy to be out with a group in service, they would prefer to be alone on the door-step. This of course would also apply to telephone witnessing or street witnessing. They find it hard to concentrate on what they are doing as well as concentrating on someone else.
Ministry that is much easier on introverts would include aspects such as letter writing.
Socialising
Introverts can feel quite uncomfortable going to a social event where they may not know anyone. If you are hosting a party, you will be doing the Introverts a favour by introducing them to several people, being sure to indicate what they might have in common. Another good idea is to pair them up with an extrovert who will carry the conversation until the Introvert feels more comfortable. Introverts are known for being good listeners.
If you want an introvert to share their thoughts, ideas, concerns and feelings with you then you need to make it easy for them. One would need to stay with them, sit quietly and patiently hear them out. They do not like to be hurried or interrupted as they very easily forget their thoughts.
They may seem reluctant to join in as they will tend to avoid doing anything they have not mastered. They will not risk looking the fool. Their opinions are not easily swayed by others and they will rarely do anything they don’t really want to do just to impress, please, or be accepted by others. This sometimes causes others to erroneously classify them as stubborn and inflexible, as extroverts, in general, feel they can easily manipulate the introvert as they may appear quite and timid.
If the way they see the world is ignored the risk of creating a constantly contentious and hostile environment is greatly increased. Tolerance is communicated when they are accepted for who they are. While they may not appear to be especially happy, that is most often a false appearance. They are different from most people and their style often diverges from the way society in general operates.
The Last Vestige
The Written Review: The one area where the introvert could truly feel comfortable has been replaced by the extrovert friendly Oral Review.
Some Characteristics of Introverts:
- Territorial - desire private space and time
- Happy to be alone - they can be lonely in a crowd
- Become drained around large groups of people; dislike approaching others
- Need time alone to recharge
- Prefer to work on own rather than do group work
- Act cautiously in meeting people
- Are reserved, quiet and deliberate
- Concentrate well and deeply
- Become absorbed in thoughts and ideas
- Limit their interests but explore deeply
- Communicate best one-on-one
- Get agitated and irritated when without enough time to think or act.
- Do not enjoy being the centre of attention
- Do not share private thoughts with just anyone
- Form a few deep attachments
- Think carefully before speaking (practice in head before speaking)
- See reflection as very important
- Select activities carefully and thoughtfully
- Contributed
 

No, nothing was said publicly as far as I can remember. The branches responsible for their own language mastheads had to be informed, and I don't recall any discussion or reasons given in those communications either. These changes weren't even well publicized within the headquarters.
Suggestions for changes began when phototypesetting became available -- and a new masthead became easy. Artists pushed for more room on the front cover for artwork, now that art could become much more detailed, and there was talk of getting a complete press changeover to "offset" which would make it much easier to make the changes in record time. The new "Photoplate Department" was started over in the 8th floor of factory #1 (117 Adams) to fit into this new process. That department was located just below the Computer Department.
(The computer department was also set adjacent to the new MEPS typesetting equipment which had a feed built right down into the darkroom area of Photoplate..Note however that MEPS had nothing to do with the masthead changes; it was only a new part of a new defined process where changes were to be made more quickly. For a few years it just created an expectation of a faster process. It took a while to get fully implemented.)
Still, the ease of changing the masthead was in place, and it could be changed almost as easily as artists could order specialty fonts (headline fonts) for article titles. You'll notice that in the late 1970's we started using dozens of different fonts for the first time that weren't hand-drawn. (A few hand-drawn titles kept being made into the 80's.)  The process was not as easy as using a computer, since every font was actually a set of characters set onto a negative filmstrip on a long "stick". The "stick" was positioned in a machine over a light source and a couple lenses so that it shined the light directly through the character, and onto a piece of "stat camera" film. The light exposed the shape of the letter, and that portion of the film turned black, and then the next letter was found on the stick and positioned onto the film. The font size was made by repositioning the light. "Kerning" -- the space between letters -- was all done manually, so that we could overlap letters if we wished. We could play with the exposure and switch between negatives and positives on the stat cameras to create outline fonts, or manipluate the letters into the artwork. Artists from the home art department would go over to the factory and play with this equipment when it was new, but soon started letting Photoplate personnel do all the work when the novelty wore off.
But back to the masthead changes. A couple of the early customizations were driven by an artist. When it seemed easy (it wasn't) it drove a more official "branding change" to look more modern, we were told internally. But that turned out to be a big problem for other branches and languages. (In the 70's the Spanish magazine came out a few weeks after the English, but other languages were sometimes a few months behind. So their masthead changes were sometimes a version or two behind, or they just ignored the change.) So it was decided (one more time) to make a "final" masthead decision from the top down with more consensus. Naturally, not everyone liked it even after voting for it. So it changed again. I forget how many  changes there were from 1975 to 1980, but there were several obvious ones and a couple more subtle ones. 

Yes, this is true of JWs and true of so many other organizations too. One might argue that the reputation of the organization is even more critical among JWs because we are dependent on reputation for disciple-making for growth, and growth is still tied to proof of Jehovah's blessing. The unjust procedures were kept for too long, and this might have been based on the fact that they served to protect the reputation of the organization. If so, that's a travesty.
I don't know if anyone has posted the latest procedural updates anywhere but they have improved the procedures about as far as I had ever expected the organization to go. (I'm referring to the August 2016 update to the previous 2012 procedures. They are still just incrementally better than the previous version, but better nonetheless.) It's true that they do not ask the elders to automatically report sexual abuse of minors to the authorities, but it is assumed that the legal department will always make sure that local jurisdictional laws are always followed correctly by the elders. It's also true that neither elders nor the legal department will always providing counsel for victims to report the crime. .
This gives the impression that they will only do the minimum required under the law in any particular jurisdiction, but I believe the organization now has almost as much incentive to handle things correctly with the secular authorities. The reason is that the organization has been "burnt" so many times by not doing the right thing that the previous bad habits (process-wise) have also brought reproach on the organization. And, as stated, this organization is dependent on reputation.
I think the best thing that any of us can do as Witnesses is to just expose the problem so that the organization faces it more honestly. Hopefully, I have done that above. The idea that it's better to hide such things, including any and all accusations, continues to produce an environment that is passively hostile to exposure. Exposure is the best medicine. The criminals should know that no one will side with them to help them hide their crimes. Also, exposure of all accusations (within reason) will also help a congregation learn that not all accusations are immediately credible and this is a good reason to ask for all the help we can get investigating such accusations as early and openly as possible. We should be glad that the secular authorities, who are generally trained, will thus take some of the burden off the elders and the organization where almost no professional training in such matters exists.

Yes, this is true of JWs and true of so many other organizations too. One might argue that the reputation of the organization is even more critical among JWs because we are dependent on reputation for disciple-making for growth, and growth is still tied to proof of Jehovah's blessing. The unjust procedures were kept for too long, and this might have been based on the fact that they served to protect the reputation of the organization. If so, that's a travesty.
I don't know if anyone has posted the latest procedural updates anywhere but they have improved the procedures about as far as I had ever expected the organization to go. (I'm referring to the August 2016 update to the previous 2012 procedures. They are still just incrementally better than the previous version, but better nonetheless.) It's true that they do not ask the elders to automatically report sexual abuse of minors to the authorities, but it is assumed that the legal department will always make sure that local jurisdictional laws are always followed correctly by the elders. It's also true that neither elders nor the legal department will always providing counsel for victims to report the crime. .
This gives the impression that they will only do the minimum required under the law in any particular jurisdiction, but I believe the organization now has almost as much incentive to handle things correctly with the secular authorities. The reason is that the organization has been "burnt" so many times by not doing the right thing that the previous bad habits (process-wise) have also brought reproach on the organization. And, as stated, this organization is dependent on reputation.
I think the best thing that any of us can do as Witnesses is to just expose the problem so that the organization faces it more honestly. Hopefully, I have done that above. The idea that it's better to hide such things, including any and all accusations, continues to produce an environment that is passively hostile to exposure. Exposure is the best medicine. The criminals should know that no one will side with them to help them hide their crimes. Also, exposure of all accusations (within reason) will also help a congregation learn that not all accusations are immediately credible and this is a good reason to ask for all the help we can get investigating such accusations as early and openly as possible. We should be glad that the secular authorities, who are generally trained, will thus take some of the burden off the elders and the organization where almost no professional training in such matters exists.

Yes, this is true of JWs and true of so many other organizations too. One might argue that the reputation of the organization is even more critical among JWs because we are dependent on reputation for disciple-making for growth, and growth is still tied to proof of Jehovah's blessing. The unjust procedures were kept for too long, and this might have been based on the fact that they served to protect the reputation of the organization. If so, that's a travesty.
I don't know if anyone has posted the latest procedural updates anywhere but they have improved the procedures about as far as I had ever expected the organization to go. (I'm referring to the August 2016 update to the previous 2012 procedures. They are still just incrementally better than the previous version, but better nonetheless.) It's true that they do not ask the elders to automatically report sexual abuse of minors to the authorities, but it is assumed that the legal department will always make sure that local jurisdictional laws are always followed correctly by the elders. It's also true that neither elders nor the legal department will always providing counsel for victims to report the crime. .
This gives the impression that they will only do the minimum required under the law in any particular jurisdiction, but I believe the organization now has almost as much incentive to handle things correctly with the secular authorities. The reason is that the organization has been "burnt" so many times by not doing the right thing that the previous bad habits (process-wise) have also brought reproach on the organization. And, as stated, this organization is dependent on reputation.
I think the best thing that any of us can do as Witnesses is to just expose the problem so that the organization faces it more honestly. Hopefully, I have done that above. The idea that it's better to hide such things, including any and all accusations, continues to produce an environment that is passively hostile to exposure. Exposure is the best medicine. The criminals should know that no one will side with them to help them hide their crimes. Also, exposure of all accusations (within reason) will also help a congregation learn that not all accusations are immediately credible and this is a good reason to ask for all the help we can get investigating such accusations as early and openly as possible. We should be glad that the secular authorities, who are generally trained, will thus take some of the burden off the elders and the organization where almost no professional training in such matters exists.

As of 1956, pioneers began receiving a reduced rate on the magazines. (See "Informant" February 1956, p.2.) At that time they were sold for a nickel, and yes, we were still using the word "sold" into the 1950's. The reduced rate was a penny. The magazine quota for Special Pioneers was 110 per month, and for Regular Pioneers, it was 90. If they made their quota, that was about $4 per month they could now "pocket" but it usually went to transportation expenses.
[Edited to add that I don't think there was a Pioneer School in 1960. Even in 1973, you just became a Pioneer if your application was approved, and there was no school.]

Any religion that has the same problem, that has mishandled the problem, that has negligently allowed victims to be harmed, needs their failings exposed - whether it's the Catholics, the Church of England, the Jewish or Muslim faith communities, the LDS, Moonies, Scientologists or Jehovah's Witnesses.
Damn right that the JW Org is feeling the pressure too. The Org has a history of naivety and stubbornness in this area and has to be dragged by 'worldly' authorities into improving their safeguarding protocols. The Org is still lagging too far behind current best practice - even now after the latest BOE letter guidelines.

No, nothing was said publicly as far as I can remember. The branches responsible for their own language mastheads had to be informed, and I don't recall any discussion or reasons given in those communications either. These changes weren't even well publicized within the headquarters.
Suggestions for changes began when phototypesetting became available -- and a new masthead became easy. Artists pushed for more room on the front cover for artwork, now that art could become much more detailed, and there was talk of getting a complete press changeover to "offset" which would make it much easier to make the changes in record time. The new "Photoplate Department" was started over in the 8th floor of factory #1 (117 Adams) to fit into this new process. That department was located just below the Computer Department.
(The computer department was also set adjacent to the new MEPS typesetting equipment which had a feed built right down into the darkroom area of Photoplate..Note however that MEPS had nothing to do with the masthead changes; it was only a new part of a new defined process where changes were to be made more quickly. For a few years it just created an expectation of a faster process. It took a while to get fully implemented.)
Still, the ease of changing the masthead was in place, and it could be changed almost as easily as artists could order specialty fonts (headline fonts) for article titles. You'll notice that in the late 1970's we started using dozens of different fonts for the first time that weren't hand-drawn. (A few hand-drawn titles kept being made into the 80's.)  The process was not as easy as using a computer, since every font was actually a set of characters set onto a negative filmstrip on a long "stick". The "stick" was positioned in a machine over a light source and a couple lenses so that it shined the light directly through the character, and onto a piece of "stat camera" film. The light exposed the shape of the letter, and that portion of the film turned black, and then the next letter was found on the stick and positioned onto the film. The font size was made by repositioning the light. "Kerning" -- the space between letters -- was all done manually, so that we could overlap letters if we wished. We could play with the exposure and switch between negatives and positives on the stat cameras to create outline fonts, or manipluate the letters into the artwork. Artists from the home art department would go over to the factory and play with this equipment when it was new, but soon started letting Photoplate personnel do all the work when the novelty wore off.
But back to the masthead changes. A couple of the early customizations were driven by an artist. When it seemed easy (it wasn't) it drove a more official "branding change" to look more modern, we were told internally. But that turned out to be a big problem for other branches and languages. (In the 70's the Spanish magazine came out a few weeks after the English, but other languages were sometimes a few months behind. So their masthead changes were sometimes a version or two behind, or they just ignored the change.) So it was decided (one more time) to make a "final" masthead decision from the top down with more consensus. Naturally, not everyone liked it even after voting for it. So it changed again. I forget how many  changes there were from 1975 to 1980, but there were several obvious ones and a couple more subtle ones. 

One of the other important factors surrounding this problem might just explain why Witnesses have had so much trouble dealing with it.
The most surprising aspect of child abuse (to me) is the fact that this crime is apparently commonly related to "authority." The higher the "authority," the more common the crime. It's not limited to religious authority; it occurs via the levels of authority with family, teachers, bosses, boy scout leaders, military authority, etc.
"Authority" is used as the means to create the circumstances.
"Authority" is used as the means to convince the victim that it's OK. 
"Authority" is used as the means to convince the victim when the victim knows it is not OK.
"Authority" is used as the means to convince the victim not to talk.
Of course, most of this idea about the misuse of "authority" is common sense, but the part that might be most surprising is the prevalence. Abuse by persons in authority is so prevalent that you can almost predict that the higher the level of authority reached in a group, the more likely that you will find the crime of child abuse at that level. The higher the level of priests, the higher the percentage accused of child abuse. And this is known is in spite of the opportunities for authority to cover up the crime.
I believe, and this is only a little bit more than opinion, but I believe this explains the problem that no religion, including Jehovah's Witnesses wants exposed. It's the fact that the higher level of authority one reaches even within the JW Organization, the more likley one will find evidence of child abuse.
I am only going on the evidence of accusations here, and no first hand knowledge of whether these accusations mean anything real. But this would explain why the documentation of how child abusers were handled among JWs can never be open to the public. It explains why, even though the JWs have greatly improved their procedures, we can still never expose the individual cases to a court. It's because it would provide evidence that the crimes are greater and more frequent the higher up one goes in the organization. It would show that those at higher levels of authority in the organizational structure have been the most protected from public and congregational exposure. It would show that, in the not-to-distant past, there have been cases at some levels that were "forgiven" based merely on the promises of the perpetrator, with no apparent punishments.  
Some evidence of this is the fact that rumors and accusations of terrible child abuse crimes reached to the very highest levels of authority in the Australian Branch. At least two past Australian Branch overseers have been implicated, although I know nothing about the current branch overseers except that I know they were aware. Brother Jaracz of the Governing Body was even accused more than once. I have been told that persons treating victims who are not allowed to speak out for professional reasons have provided ambiguous evidence that Brother Jaracz was involved in more than one such incident.
More evidence of such rumors and accusations of terrible child abuse cases reached the highest levels of the UK Branch Office, and I'm told the UK Charity Commission was aware of this. When three or four persons were dismissed from very high levels within the UK branch recently, I was told that the problem was two-fold, but the most serious was not only the process of covering up child abuse, but also the accusations of involvement in child abuse crimes by more than one member of the leadership of the UK branch office.
I've heard of such issues at other branch offices, but never heard enough details.
And of course, most Witnesses are already aware of the fact that not only  Brother Jaracz, but also Brother Greenlees (both of the Governing Body) had been accused of the crime of child abuse. Also, hundreds of Bethelites, including me, witnessed the strange behavior of Brother Fred Franz who held a weekly Wednesday-night sauna session where about a dozen naked and nearly naked young Bethelites would act like sycophant disciples to listen to a naked Franz pontificate. This evidently went on for years, although I only witnessed it once.
Again, except for the evidence of actual dismissals that have sometimes included an admission of the sin (crime), and except for my first-hand knowledge of the behavior of Fred Franz - which might have been innocent, even if weird -- most of what I mentioned above refers to "rumors and accusations." It's easy to make a rumor or an accusation, and they might not be true. You can't just say where there is smoke there is fire. We must be careful of judging and misjudging. But in general, there is still evidence of the trend toward a bigger problem among those in higher levels of authority. These are also the ones who are the least likely to be caught, so we often have a misperception of this particular part of the problem.

One of the other important factors surrounding this problem might just explain why Witnesses have had so much trouble dealing with it.
The most surprising aspect of child abuse (to me) is the fact that this crime is apparently commonly related to "authority." The higher the "authority," the more common the crime. It's not limited to religious authority; it occurs via the levels of authority with family, teachers, bosses, boy scout leaders, military authority, etc.
"Authority" is used as the means to create the circumstances.
"Authority" is used as the means to convince the victim that it's OK. 
"Authority" is used as the means to convince the victim when the victim knows it is not OK.
"Authority" is used as the means to convince the victim not to talk.
Of course, most of this idea about the misuse of "authority" is common sense, but the part that might be most surprising is the prevalence. Abuse by persons in authority is so prevalent that you can almost predict that the higher the level of authority reached in a group, the more likely that you will find the crime of child abuse at that level. The higher the level of priests, the higher the percentage accused of child abuse. And this is known is in spite of the opportunities for authority to cover up the crime.
I believe, and this is only a little bit more than opinion, but I believe this explains the problem that no religion, including Jehovah's Witnesses wants exposed. It's the fact that the higher level of authority one reaches even within the JW Organization, the more likley one will find evidence of child abuse.
I am only going on the evidence of accusations here, and no first hand knowledge of whether these accusations mean anything real. But this would explain why the documentation of how child abusers were handled among JWs can never be open to the public. It explains why, even though the JWs have greatly improved their procedures, we can still never expose the individual cases to a court. It's because it would provide evidence that the crimes are greater and more frequent the higher up one goes in the organization. It would show that those at higher levels of authority in the organizational structure have been the most protected from public and congregational exposure. It would show that, in the not-to-distant past, there have been cases at some levels that were "forgiven" based merely on the promises of the perpetrator, with no apparent punishments.  
Some evidence of this is the fact that rumors and accusations of terrible child abuse crimes reached to the very highest levels of authority in the Australian Branch. At least two past Australian Branch overseers have been implicated, although I know nothing about the current branch overseers except that I know they were aware. Brother Jaracz of the Governing Body was even accused more than once. I have been told that persons treating victims who are not allowed to speak out for professional reasons have provided ambiguous evidence that Brother Jaracz was involved in more than one such incident.
More evidence of such rumors and accusations of terrible child abuse cases reached the highest levels of the UK Branch Office, and I'm told the UK Charity Commission was aware of this. When three or four persons were dismissed from very high levels within the UK branch recently, I was told that the problem was two-fold, but the most serious was not only the process of covering up child abuse, but also the accusations of involvement in child abuse crimes by more than one member of the leadership of the UK branch office.
I've heard of such issues at other branch offices, but never heard enough details.
And of course, most Witnesses are already aware of the fact that not only  Brother Jaracz, but also Brother Greenlees (both of the Governing Body) had been accused of the crime of child abuse. Also, hundreds of Bethelites, including me, witnessed the strange behavior of Brother Fred Franz who held a weekly Wednesday-night sauna session where about a dozen naked and nearly naked young Bethelites would act like sycophant disciples to listen to a naked Franz pontificate. This evidently went on for years, although I only witnessed it once.
Again, except for the evidence of actual dismissals that have sometimes included an admission of the sin (crime), and except for my first-hand knowledge of the behavior of Fred Franz - which might have been innocent, even if weird -- most of what I mentioned above refers to "rumors and accusations." It's easy to make a rumor or an accusation, and they might not be true. You can't just say where there is smoke there is fire. We must be careful of judging and misjudging. But in general, there is still evidence of the trend toward a bigger problem among those in higher levels of authority. These are also the ones who are the least likely to be caught, so we often have a misperception of this particular part of the problem.