Anna

Anna makes a very good point:
If it IS an idol representing something ... what SPECIFICALLY is it?
Does it have a name?
Does it have a description?
Does it have a history of any religious significance?
Anybody now leaving bags of Potato Chips at the base?
I remember seeing your (?) original picture posting.
It is an impressive piece of abstract massive art as far as i can tell. (?)
Reminds me of the old story of a psychiatrist showing Rorschach  ink blot cards to a sexually criminally insane prisoner, and to every ink blot card he was shown, he gave a vile, sexual, and ugly description of what he supposedly saw.
Finally, the shrink lost his temper and called him several unprofessional names befitting the prisoner's warped mind.
The prisoner replied:
"Why are you angry with ME?
... YOUR the one with the dirty pictures!"
Or, as the Eagles once sang about standing on the corner, in Winslow Arizona ..
" Don't let the sound of your own wheels ... make you Craaaaaa-zeee !"
 
 
 

All you said is true .. BUT ... all men are fallible, and even hardened combat soldiers  whose determination is to be steadfast, loyal, courageous, faithful and discreet  reach the limits of what they are ABLE to do ... and crumble and fall.
... been there ... done that.
Seen it many times in many places.
Not every conscientious soldier can be like the fictional John Rambo, and it is unrealistic to assume anything close to that.
That is why, while acknowledging all that has been talked about here in the last ten years, and more, is mostly true ... Justice requires OUR mercy and understanding when our "Drill Sergeants", and "Officer's Corps" get us and our friends killed because they were not as good at what they claimed to want to be.
Nobody is.  
Not You, Not me, not anybody.
My Uncle Bill was shot from behind in North Korea in the 1950's by his own men, and three 50 caliber machine gun bullets almost tore his left arm off, which was one massive scar.
Making weak, wimpy decisions based on fear of an endless list of things ... IS WHAT WE DO!
That is why I stick with Jehovah's Witnesses ... not because of the phony crap and self serving self aggrandizement of the leadership, that looks like a clown car that has run off the road and into a tree ... It's because the core Theology is TRUE ... and Jehovah really does have a Congregational Arrangement, and Jehovah's Witnesses , globally, "ARE THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN!"
FROM THE BOTTOM UP,  we have to show THEM mercy and understanding, even when they royally screw up.. (John 9:41).
Remember, Jehovah "tolerated" a whole dedicated nation of Jews, his "special possession", to get completely over run with pagan practices and dishonesty, before it finally reached a certain point, that "enough was enough!."
Justice must be tempered with mercy for blind guides who do not fight well when the enemy is engaged.
Everyone does what we know ... and nobody is good at everything.
A clumsy dentist is often better than no dentist., but ....
STUFF HAPPENS
(paraphrased)
 
 
 

Far too busy with the other institutions which must pose a far greater threat.

If they are, they have "hidden" their intention up to now. They are investigating:
Cambridge House, Knowl View and Rochdale Children in Custodial Institutions Children Outside the UK Child Sexual Exploitation by Organised Networks Institutional Responses to Allegations Concerning Lord Janner Lambeth Council Nottinghamshire Councils Residential Schools The Anglican Church The Internet The Roman Catholic Church Westminster Where did you pick up that information? Where did they say they are going to do an investigation into the UK branch of JW's? The only mention of Jehohavah's Witnesses so far has been by Rod Jones, social worker for  Nottingham, who said he had to deal with cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses children and blood transfusions although there are no specific details.
 

Isn't an idol something you worship? Otherwise it's just sticks and stones in the shape of a man isn't it?
Or firewood:
"He plants a laurel tree, and the rain makes it grow. Then it becomes fuel for a man to make fires. He takes part of it to warm himself; He builds a fire and bakes bread. But he also makes a god and worships it. He makes it into a carved image, and he bows down before it. Half of it he burns up in a fire With that half he roasts the meat that he eats, and he is satisfied. He also warms himself and says: “Ah! I am warm as I watch the fire. But the rest of it he makes into a god, into his carved image. He bows down to it and worships it. He prays to it and says: “Save me, for you are my god.” They know nothing, they understand nothing,Because their eyes are sealed shut and they cannot see, And their heart has no insight.  No one reflects in his heart Or has knowledge or understanding, saying: “Half of it I burned up in a fire, And on its coals I baked bread and roasted meat to eat. Should I, then, make the rest of it into a detestable thing? Should I worship a block of wood from a tree?”” Isaiah 44: 15-19

Isn't an idol something you worship? Otherwise it's just sticks and stones in the shape of a man isn't it?
Or firewood:
"He plants a laurel tree, and the rain makes it grow. Then it becomes fuel for a man to make fires. He takes part of it to warm himself; He builds a fire and bakes bread. But he also makes a god and worships it. He makes it into a carved image, and he bows down before it. Half of it he burns up in a fire With that half he roasts the meat that he eats, and he is satisfied. He also warms himself and says: “Ah! I am warm as I watch the fire. But the rest of it he makes into a god, into his carved image. He bows down to it and worships it. He prays to it and says: “Save me, for you are my god.” They know nothing, they understand nothing,Because their eyes are sealed shut and they cannot see, And their heart has no insight.  No one reflects in his heart Or has knowledge or understanding, saying: “Half of it I burned up in a fire, And on its coals I baked bread and roasted meat to eat. Should I, then, make the rest of it into a detestable thing? Should I worship a block of wood from a tree?”” Isaiah 44: 15-19

Exactly!

Well you are having a good go at ithe hoodwinking, but actually you aren't having much success. Just lengthy diatribes of multicoloured text. There are some scriptures there, the only relevant sections actually, but what lies in between is just a set of bitter sounding words without meaning or substance.
Jesus said "his sheep will by no means follow a stranger but will flee from him because they do not know the voice of strangers" John 10:5. I'm sorry to say, yours is a very strange voice.

One effect of a disenfranchised anointed-in-the-wilderness model is that unity of Christians diminishes and ultimately dissolves. Christianity becomes little more than a personal code, molded differently in each individual by the greater forces of national, social, wealth, racial, educational divisions. Inevitably, Christians are at each other’s throats, each happy to do “what is right in his own eyes,” modified by a smileyGod face.
Sometimes I think it is chosen for just that reason. It is the disunited world that Christians came out of. Why on earth would anyone want to go back into it?
The point is, Witness, I haven’t seen any evidence that you actually DO anything, beyond crashing posts and reading half the Bible to those within.

And Abʹsa·lom would say to him: “See, your matters are good and straight; but there is no one from the king giving you a hearing.”  
And Abʹsa·lom would go on to say: “O that I were appointed judge in the land, that to me every man might come that happens to have a legal case or judgment! Then I should certainly do justice to him.”
 

This is such a pathetic, narrow-minded, microscopic and miniscule application of a prophecy that has a global relevance. What a waste of spirtual space if this is all Jehovah had in mind in prompting Paul to prophesy in such a manner! 

If you want to get that technical, then probably yes. But I think secular authorities recognize the term Overseer,  (or Church Overseer) so they may not find the need to resort to those labels.

Possibly the lawyers discard some because they are not convinced that they are truth.
Or (more likely) they are not convinced that they have anything to do with the Watchtower 

It is answered. And I just answered it too. It's not rocket science James

But when we are dealing with secular authorities, we have to speak their language. In their eyes we are clergy.
As per Miriam Webster: : Clergy: a group ordained to perform pastoral or sacerdotal functions in a Christian church.
By the same token we do not call our organization a "church", but in secular speak we are a church.
Miriam Webster: Church: a body or organization of religious believers: such as the whole body of Christians.
(and a Kingdom Hall is a also a church (building) in secular speak)

The next thing you know, the 40 days or so in which we have articles, talks and videos leading up to the Memorial of Christ's Death every year, we will be calling "Lent", and Memorial Invitations will allude to the Cadbury  Bunny.

You are overthinking it John! I am just an ordinary sister. And I explained why I said "we".

I will believe THAT, if Anna baptizes her Bible Study in a neighbor's pool, and Anna does not get disfellowshipped, and the baptism "nullified".

The question above remains unanswered by the Society .....  so So I guess the GB Helpers would be the College of Cardinals.

You know John, sometimes people really do have their own opinion.

Is there an option for a publisher, the one doing the accusing, to say which elders he wants on the committee? I don't think there is. Has the publisher got any say in who should handle the issue if the publisher feels the elders who are handling it are not suitable?

Ok, I will rephrase it. Why does a judicial committee not consist of the entire body of elders in a given congregation.
A little bit of background info: This question was raised by someone who was concerned about justice being carried out correctly, especially if a situation involved one elder who was being accused. How does a judicial committee judge one of their "own", especially, if there is a possibility of bias due to obvious friendship above and beyond just a brother in the congregation. So for the purpose of an example, lets say the BOE of a congregation consists of 8 elders, one of whom had been accused of a sin, which if unresolved, could lead to a disfellowshipping, or at least the deletion of his position. So that leaves 7 elders who decide to form a judicial committee (on the grounds that the situation with the accused elder had not been settled). Why can't all 7 elders consist of the committee?
 

As Suzy says "A Jehovah's Witness" is grammatically wrong in English. And as Melinda points out it is a label. We are witnesses for Jehovah, we are HIS witnesses, plural. If we are talking about one person (singular) then he/she is either one of (all the other) Jehovah's Witnesses or "a witness for Jehovah". In some other languages it is grammatically wrong as well. For example how would you say in Spanish if someone asked in court whose witness are you. Would you say I am "John's witness", or "one of John's witnesses" (if there is more than one witness for John). Or would not say I am "a John's witness"?

It is not the perogative of a publisher to choose the elders that deal with a judicial matter that involves a proven offense that could result in a disfellowshipping. However, there could well be a suitability issue that an accuser (if it was that kind of a case) might make known. This might well influence the selection of elders. If elders were unaware of such an issue prior to the forming of a committee, it is still possible that alternative arrangements could be made. The responsibility for determinations in these cases lies with the body of elders though, not the "accuser".

As Suzy says "A Jehovah's Witness" is grammatically wrong in English. And as Melinda points out it is a label. We are witnesses for Jehovah, we are HIS witnesses, plural. If we are talking about one person (singular) then he/she is either one of (all the other) Jehovah's Witnesses or "a witness for Jehovah". In some other languages it is grammatically wrong as well. For example how would you say in Spanish if someone asked in court whose witness are you. Would you say I am "John's witness", or "one of John's witnesses" (if there is more than one witness for John). Or would not say I am "a John's witness"?