Anna

The "Keep yourselves in God's Love" book page 223. This is from the 2008 edition. This book was studied in the form of a question and answer at the book study, and is a book that is studied with those wishing to get baptized. Unfortunately, as you say, some chose not to go to the authorities because of worry of reproach, and host of other worries (https://1in6.org/get-information/common-questions/why-do-adults-fail-to-protect-children-from-sexual-abuse-or-exploitation/) Even as late as 2014, one of the elders testifying at the ARC expressed similar sentiments to one of the two adult survivors who wanted to testify, by asking her: "why would you want to drag the organization through the mud?". To keep child sexual abuse from the authorities however has never been JW policy. But Tom, you can't reason with the unreasonable. Thankfully, as we know, the ARC turned out to play a key part in what we all see as a welcomed improvement. Not so much in our policies, but in their clear transparent presentation to ALL Jehovah's Witnesses (and anybody else who is interested).

True heroes, those who do not give up what they stand for despite torture etc. only seem to exist in movies, for the most part. And then there are Jehovah's Witnesses.

You are comparing apples to oranges. The ARC was not a court proceeding. G. Jackson was asked by the ARC to represent the GB. Gerrit Losch was not asked by the court to represent the GB. It is always easier to run from trouble than to face what trouble may come. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have its approval. Rom 13:3 Think about the case. Did the Watchtower "do what is good" to begin with? I am sure you have something specific in mind when you ask that. What is it? As far as I know it is not the GB's objective to be concerned with anything being sound from a human stand point. Something being "sound" from a human point of view doesn't guarantee it is right, nor that God agrees with it. Which "illogical" doctrine are you talking about? I do not subscribe to Perl Doxsey's interpretation of scripture

So who runs Watchtower?

This had nothing to do with "testifying" for the organization but everything to do with being summoned under wrong assertions. If you testify under certain statements made about about you, then you are agreeing that those statements are true. You cannot do that if those statements are false. It would be like if I was asked to testify in court under the assumption that I was a 6ft black male doctor in his 70’s, whereas the truth is I am a 5ft white female secretary in her 20's. It would be wrong to testify under those erroneous assumptions and I would have to make a declaration to quash that summons by stating that I was NOT a 6ft black male doctor in his 70’s. Gerrit Losch was summoned by the plaintiff (his lawyer) to appear in court under wrong assumptions about him. And you can see by Losch’s declaration what those assumptions were, and they were not correct. The judge was obviously satisfied that under the correct description of Losch’s function, it was not useful to ask Losch to appear in court. Had the judge decided Losch’s participation as helpful to the case even after the declaration, he would have not accepted Losch’s declaration as relevant. (When spelled with an "umlaut" it's Lösch, if you do not use an "umlaut" it should be Loesch)

You talk as if Losch can act on his own, as if he personally had something to do with that case. Why would he be in trouble? As I said, if the court (the Judge) was not happy with his declaration they would have summoned him to testify. And he would have gone.

For Christ's sake; yes, you do. Not in court

You obviously do not understand how the legal system works. It's not some kind of discussion at the kitchen table. It is very specific, with rules and regulations and you have to be very exact. You do not go beyond what you are asked to do. Because the court was satisfied with his declaration, he was not asked by the court to testify, nor to represent anyone. Here is the declaration in full:

The declaration is legal speak and is absolutely correct from a legal point of view. Gerrit Losch has never been a corporate officer........employee.......etc. of WT, and as an INDIVIDUAL he has never had or has authority to make or determine any policy for WT or any other department. This can only be done collectively as the GB with all 8 members participating.

True, I shouldn't have made it sound like every witness thought that, it's just practically every witness with children in the 80's that I have known that said it. It became a "phrase".

Now don't let that get to your head, because you ain't nothing until you have at least 300K followers on Instagram

Sometimes you make me think you have been living under a rock. I don't know what you mean by unfavorable messages, but it is clear that every Witness generation has been living with the thought that "our children won't make it to high school", it doesn't matter whether this is the 20's 30's 40's..............80's 90's.... you get my drift. Perhaps this is a good thing as it keeps everyone on their toes, but it can also backfire, like crying wolf one too many times. Being ready at all times doesn't equal putting a date or time period on it.

He does that too

It depends for how long this would be. I am assuming just for a short time.....few years?.....So I think we would manage just fine! As long as we keep to the laws and principles that make up the foundation of the Bible that all JWs are familiar with, and encourage, remind, and support one another in upholding these standards. Also most JWs have a Bible trained conscience that operates with or without having access to a Bible.