Anna

All you have to do to be a power player here is to hang around This is a commercial site, after all 
The only one who has ever been deleted is Allen, (as far as I know) which both JWI and I tried to prevent/undo. And he DID get abusive at times, which is a little different than obnoxious. Many here are obnoxious with no penalty whatsoever. That’s okay. But abusive is not. Even I was once penalized for being abusive. (for beating up on apostates, to a FAR greater degree than you.) I have preserved the experience, with embellishments, in the introduction of TrueTom vs the Apostates.
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/917311
Butler is right. I shamelessly self promote (but it is for the best)
 
None of these have that power. The ones that do, @admin and @The Librarian (that old hen) would not want you erased.  You contribute to eyeballs on this forum, and that drives traffic, which drives money in the form of advertising. This is a commercial site.  The worst you can do from their point of view is to disappear. JWI has been given minor clerical powers. They are mostly so that he can straighten out the messes that his posts mak in the form of launching tangents. The Librarian is a Witness, I would call her an ‘avante gard’ one, which to some means she is not. Admin is not a Witness and is ambivalent in how he feels towards them. Certain posts of his have not been encouraging, but he stays on his side of the fence. Business, you understand.
You have made your point well. Possibly I may mention it again, but I have no plans to bring it up again. An ‘agree to disagree’ thing, and yours is undeniably the majority view among our people. Perhaps it must be that way.
I will be with you as I am with him. In the words of the great American forefather, ‘I may not agree with what you say, but I will argue mildly for your right to say it!!’
That being said, that being said.

I swear that that the fate of Roger Chillingsworth looms ahead for some of the most virulent haters, and it must make some of them very uncomfortable:
Chillingworth cries out, “Thou hast escaped me!”
Left with no object for his malice, Chillingworth wastes away and dies within a year of the minister’s passing, 
It is no surprise that Chillingworth dies, because the “leech’s” source of vitality has been removed. 
https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/scarlet/section13/

When was it ever anything else?
From my point of view, that is almost the sole purpose of this site. 
Come, come, we must not squabble. We have the same goal, even if we go about it in different ways. I will allow that I am probably too flippant, and post in that spirit what you take seriously. For example, I did a quick & fictional snippet of Fred. That is my bad, and I apologize.
JWI deals with egghead stuff that I only skim. Things dealing with dates are not my thing. These are not the ‘motivating’ things that cause people to develop a bad heart. Rather, if some have already developed a bad heart, they latch onto the fact that people ‘at the top’ disagree (Duh) and make maximum hay out of it. Or they find that there has been much hashing out over what eventually comes out as a unified whole, and they bail on that account.
The one of good heart sees such disagreement & says ‘Ah, well, they’ll figure it out,’ and carries on without undo fuss. Since we have been wrong many times before, it seems a little foolish to insist that it will never happen again. ‘If they are on the wrong side of this or that bit of prophesy, they’ll figure it out and get on the right side,’ says the one of good heart.
No. I don’t care about such things. Why some do I’ll never know, but it’s a good thing that they do. Everyone has a gift. I like to focus on what I think is more relevant  - the qualities attributed to ‘apostates’ in Jude and 2Peter—an insistence on self-determination, and a disdain for authority. I am in my element when I get to kick back at those who would capitalize on genuine tragedies, such as CSA, to seek to destroy the ones preaching the good news.
With a major ‘reform,’ making clear that there is absolutely no reproach in reporting vile things to the authorities, some of the most virulent of our critics lose something huge to them - a little like ‘what is Tom Brady going to do with himself after he retires?’ Some face withering away like Roger Chillingsworth. They almost have no choice but to find some pissy little thing that could conceivably allow something bad to yet happen and harp on that to the cows come home.
Since I don’t care about the aspects of theocratic life that you do, I have probably overstepped in some places and drawn your reproof. I apologize. One of the prime things Jehovah hates is anyone spreading contentions among brothers. I won’t do it. When I once ‘liked’ a post of Captain Zipzeronada, a brother who was solid but rigid was stumbled. I apologized to him and didn’t do it again for the longest time - until the old pork chop said something to reveal that beneath his breathtaking pig-headedness, he was  likable in some respects and I couldn’t resist.
Our people do not typically do well online. They take shots at each other for not toeing the line in this or that aspect of service. Or they say: “This is what Jehovah has said:” to people who don’t necessarily care what he has said. They look ridiculous as they try to make the Internet behave like the congregation. As much as I appreciate your goal, if you told your circuit overseer that you were having a hard time purifying the Internet, what do you think he would say?
You have to cut brothers some slack online. If they shouldn’t be here to say it, you shouldn’t be here to hear it. You know very well that Bethel isn’t thrilled about any of us being here.

This is very interesting. It would also be interesting to know the time and place. I'm guessing you are not so young, having spoken about seeing the 1975 issues first hand, and speaking about attending college at around age 30. I'm guessing you are in your 60's, at least. And this question would have been before 1980, I assume, as Raymond Franz was disfellowshipped shortly after 1980. And he wasn't in the United States, as he was still in missionary work until the late 1960's. So this puts the question between about 1970 and 1980.
 But it's even more interesting that you would ask both of them the same question. Was it just because Fred Franz didn't give you a real answer? Why would you go to Raymond Franz to ask? Were these the only two persons you chose, or did you also ask others?
And your question itself is very good. Thinking about that exact question is what led the Watchtower to finally accept the basic concept of the "rapture." I think it had been at least 80 years since a rapture, of any sort, had been considered a valid doctrine in the Watchtower before this was finally written:
*** w15 7/15 pp. 18-19 par. 15 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! ***
Does this mean that there will be a “rapture” of the anointed ones? . . .  So those who will be taken to heaven will first need to be “changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.” (Read 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.) Therefore, while we do not use the term “rapture” here because of its wrong connotation, the remaining faithful anointed will be gathered together in an instant of time.
Coincidentally, this was part of the same reasoning used in the 2015 Watchtower. The "marriage" of the Lamb wouldn't make sense if some of the "bride" were still spending their days waiting to die on earth. And the indication from Revelation is that the 144,000 share in the battle that will conquer the nations as "these" will all battle together with the Lamb.
So your question puts you at least 35 years ahead of the answer given in the Watchtower.
This gives the impression that Fred Franz was aware that you were expressing a strong interest in the "anointing." He got questions about the anointing a lot. A young sister in my hometown Missouri congregation sought opportunities to question F.Franz about this issue. I can understand this especially of those who were born after 1935 and were looking for some kind of validation of their heavenly hope. After all, F.Franz was usually considered the one person, the primary example of someone whose anointing had been made "sure." Not saying it's necessarily true of you, I have no idea, but your additional words seem to fit this idea. After F.Franz says: "If the Holy Spirit truly dwells in you there is no question as to what scripture means." And then you say that this "sunk in" as you grew older. 
And then you asked Raymond Franz the same question. And he has no idea how to treat a kid. This is actually believable of so many at Bethel, even persons in high positions. It's because they often never had a child, left home early, never got married (or had to remain childless if they did), and were sometimes raised up under Rutherford's presidency, whose children evidently grew to hate him. So I can believe, even though he was a missionary and had many wonderful experiences with children, that he could have been awkward around a young person with questions for him.
Interesting that you would tie Enoch and Elijah to a rapture doctrine, when the Society's publications of the time always made clear that they were still earthbound no matter what the implication.
Wow! That's child abuse, plain and simple. You are saying that sometime between around 1970 and 1980, R.Franz told you: "This is why stupid children need to grow up to understand." That's incredible. Especially since there were so many children in the Spanish congregation he worked with, while at Bethel. Also, one of the first things that he and his wife Cynthia looked into after leaving Bethel in 1980 was whether it might be possible for them to still have children of their own.
If you are remembering this episode correctly, it would explain why you have expressed the kinds of feelings toward him that you have. And why you believe he must have been acting hypocritically as he gained such a reputation at Bethel for patience and kindness.
That is undoubtedly true that not everyone who partakes will be of the anointed class. I suppose we could expect some to feel disappointed if they survive Armageddon and are not "raptured" with the rest of Christ's bride. Of course, there are still a lot of things we don't know for sure. Also, for such a person who has partaken, and makes it through Armageddon, I'm sure they will be thrilled anyway to have made it thus far into their opportunity for eternal life.

Ok, you don't want to discuss it, fair enough, although you were the one who brought the two witness rule up and said it was a problem.
So I will reiterate for others in case it is not clear to them either:
The two witness rule only applies to the elders handling an accusation of child abuse in the congregation. The two witness rule does not prevent anyone from taking the matter to the police as stated clearly in par 15 of the study WT May 2019 : https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-may-2019/love-justice-face-of-wickedness/
which says: .".......Does this mean that before an allegation of abuse can be reported to the authorities, two witnesses are required? No. This requirement does not apply to whether elders or others report allegations of a crime.
I am not quite sure, because John won't explain, so I will have to guess: Despite this clear black on white statement in the WT, it seems that John's concern was that elders would not actually follow through. Well....I would think that since this WT article is going to be studied by almost all of Jehovah's Witnesses, then I would think that any one of those Jehovah's Witnesses would feel free to report an allegation to the authorities even if there were no two witnesses, in other words even if the elders were unable to handle the situation congregationally because of a lack of two witnesses. So IF an elder for some reason would feel that a publisher should not report it, because there isn't enough evidence, (two witnesses) then all the publisher has to do is show him this clear statement in the WT. Done.

Oh I see, so you are one of these vigilante brothers/sisters who thinks that no one else can see or understand anything as well as they can. Well you are actually completely wrong about Eoin. Please get your facts right before you judge someone adversely. I can private message you a list of who are the apostates or have apostate leanings on this forum, and Eoin Joyce isn't one of them.
Proverbs 13:18

In the Hebrew scriptures it was necessary to discuss things relating to sex fairly graphically.  No beating around the bush. Jehovah wanted his people to be holy so he had to say in detail what he wanted and didn't want. Jehovah is not shy.
"(Leviticus 20:10-21) . . .who commits adultery with another man’s wife: The one who commits adultery with the wife of his fellow man should be put to death without fail, the adulterer and the adulteress. 11 A man who lies down with his father’s wife has exposed his father to shame. Both of them should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them. 12 If a man lies down with his daughter-in-law, both of them should be put to death without fail. They have violated what is natural. Their own blood is upon them. 13 “‘If a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them. 14 “‘If a man takes a woman and her mother, it is an obscene act. They should burn him and them in the fire, so that obscene conduct may not continue among you. 15 “‘If a man has intercourse with a beast, he should be put to death without fail, and you should kill the beast. 16 If a woman approaches any beast to have intercourse with it, you must kill the woman and the beast. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them. 17 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother, and he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of the sons of their people. He has exposed his sister to shame. He should answer for his error. 18 “‘If a man lies down with a menstruating woman and has sexual relations with her, both he and she have exposed her flow of blood. Both of them must be cut off from among their people. 19 “‘You must not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister or your father’s sister, because that would be exposing a blood relative to shame. They should answer for their error. 20 A man who lies down with his uncle’s wife has exposed his uncle to shame. They should answer for their sin. They should die childless. 21 If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is something abhorrent. He has exposed his brother to shame. They should become childless."
People are doing all these things now to a greater degree, so it needs to be discussed. In first century the Bible said fornication was being practised by a member in the congregation which was not heard of in the pagan community. Imagine all the perverted things being practised with all the latest technology (sex dolls etc.) and depraved standards.)
(1 Corinthians 5:1) . . .among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 
 

I get the feeling TTH is like a clever drugs dealer.  The clever drugs dealer gives away small quantities of drugs to get people started on taking them regularly. Then when the people need the drugs, the dealer starts charging them money for them. 
Perhaps TTH is giving away 'samples' of his 'works' just to get people 'hooked' on his books. Then, he will start charging high prices. This time next year he'll be a millionaire.  

@JOHN BUTLER
I wanted to know why you were so upset over this conversation we had about the two witness rule:
 
 

Obviously there are some who push the boundaries and think it's ok as long as there is no actual intercourse/oral sex involved. You know, they rationalize.... a bit like Clinton, when he said he wasn't being unfaithful to his wife because oral sex isn't really sex.
The WT wouldn't have printed this unless it was a problem.

You need to use the complete phrase: "sexual immorality requiring judicial action"

If some don't know anything abot it, they will by now, or at the latest in July.
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-may-2019/
 

adjective: permissive
1. allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behavior. "the permissive society of the 60s and 70s" synonyms: liberal, broad-minded, open-minded, nonrestrictive, free, free and easy, easygoing, live-and-let-live, latitudinarian, laissez-faire, libertarian, unprescriptive, unrestricted, tolerant, forbearing, indulgent, lenient; More  
No, Jehovah Witnesses have never been permissive or tolerant towards immorality of any kind. Anyone practicing these things is disfellowshipped.
 
 
 
 

I can try to move the CSA centric posts here to there, but they will sort themselves by the time of the post and might cause some confusion there too as they "interleave" with the original posts, there. I'll look to see if it might improve things.
OK. I moved them. This will effect posts by @Witness, @Srecko Sostar, @Anna, @JOHN BUTLER, @TrueTomHarley

Moved a bunch of posts from another thread to here. This will effect posts by @Witness, @Srecko Sostar, @Anna, @JOHN BUTLER, @TrueTomHarley, @Shiwiii.

Yes, Shiwiiiiiii, let’s go at this again:
I repeat, the problem is solved. Where law requires it, elders report & any concern that might make members reluctant to do that has been removed.
Where is it not required? If, with all the worldwide outrage over CSA, you cannot get it mandated, then it is time to give up all hope and admit that the world you have chosen will never rise above the civilization where it finds roots—ancient Greece, where CSA was an enshrined practice in society.
Moreover, when confronted with an issue with obvious legal implications, I know of no other scenario where consulting with one’s attorney first would be spun as an evil, as it is when BOE’s speak with WT Legal first. This is done, not to evade law, but to ensure compliance with it. Unless there has been human error, JWs always act in compliance with law, but the outrage over CSA (and the disillusionment with religion) triggers reinterpretation of law to present it that they did not.

Same answer I gave to John:
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-may-2019/love-justice-face-of-wickedness/
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-may-2019/comfort-victims-of-abuse/

I don't see a problem there at all. The two witness rule is irrelevant when it comes to reporting to the police, as has been mentioned several times already. The two witness rule is only for elders handling the issue.

Still waiting to hear about the new IICSA inquiry here in UK. They are so busy looking into so many other organisations.
https://www.iicsa.org.uk/ 

Of course. This demand for public apologies is largely a PR event. It is worth noting that when Australia apologized and opposers praised that apology to the heavens because they thought they could thereby embarrass JWs, the victims nonetheless rejected it as ‘too little, too late.’
I think it also fits in well with a certain legal strategy in that it constitutes a clear admission of guilt, thereafter better enabling lawsuits. Few things are done for the noble ‘window-dressing’ reasons that are given.

Sorry i find some of this funny, but of course it isn't funny from God's viewpoint.
Any true Christian, well in my opinion, would not even enter such a place of 'entertainment'. 
But then I don't even drink alcohol and never go into pubs / bars, as i see no need for any on it.  
 

Lap dance all you want, Jack. You have moved on, so it is hardly your concern.

People should be concerned about how these things look Jehovah not just to men.  If we get the mind of Christ, we would see the seriousness of this lawless act.   Some scriptures that shed light of this kind of behaviour are:
1 Thessalonians 5:22-24 King James Version (KJV)
22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.
 
(Psalm 97:10) 10  " O you who love Jehovah, hate what is bad. He is guarding the lives of his loyal ones;. . ."

(1 Peter 4:3, 4)" For the time that has passed by is sufficient for you to have done the will of the nations when you carried on in acts of brazen conduct, unbridled passions, overdrinking, wild parties, drinking bouts, and lawless idolatries. 4 They are puzzled that you do not continue running with them in the same decadent course of debauchery, so they speak abusively of you."
 
(Proverbs 13:19, 20) . . . 20 " The one walking with the wise will become wise, But the one who has dealings with the stupid will fare badly."