Do Jehovah's Witnesses Say Their Policies are Divinely Inspired?

StandFirm has issued the following challenge:

Apparently so, according to this comment:

"The other churches do not claim to be exclusively chosen by Jesus in 1919. Because your religion does make such a claim, every single piece of information, doctrine, policy etc etc published by the Watch Tower Society comes from God himself, according to your faith's beliefs."

I challenge the author of this to prove his assertion.

Can Someone Address This Discrepancy Please?

I'm going to keep this really simple so that the Governing Body apologists don't need to run down little rabbit holes of distraction.

Firstly, what the public sees:

For the protection of our children, a man known to have been a child molester does not qualify for a responsible position in the congregation. Moreover, he cannot be a pioneer or serve in any other special, full-time service.—Compare the principle at Exodus 21:28, 29. [emphasis mine]  - Watchtower, 1997. 1/1 p. 29 Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked 

StandFirm's Little Pejoratives

Dear StandFirm,

You need to be careful with the stones you're throwing at specific individuals.

First of all you've called Bill Bowen a liar.

Now you've called me a slanderer.

What If a Person's Been Accused of Child Abuse and Then Moves Kingdom Hall?

What are the policies from the Watch Tower Society, under the leadership of the Governing Body, that the elders need to follow if a person has been accused of molesting a child, but the accused denies the allegation and there are no witnesses to the alleged abuse?

More Duplicity From the Watch Tower Society Regarding Child Abuse

Previous articles;
- The Watchtower and it's Duplicity Regarding the Abuse of Children

- Does the Watchtower Society Protect Pedophiles From the Authorities?

- Do Jehovah's Witnesses Think Molesting a Boy is a "Homosexual Sin"

The Watch Tower Society continues to speak out of both sides of its mouth regarding the subject of child abuse with Kingdom Halls around the world.

For example;

For the protection of our children, a man known to have been a child molester does not qualify for a responsible position in the congregation. Moreover, he cannot be a pioneer or serve in any other special, full-time service.—Compare the principle at Exodus 21:28, 29. [emphasis mine]  - Watchtower, 1997. 1/1 p. 29 Let Us Abhor What Is Wicked

Shepherding the Flock; Can You Say "High Control"?

I'll just let this letter from the Watch Tower Society to all elders in the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses around the world speak for itself. I've highlighted in bold what I feel are the pertinent parts.

Do Jehovah's Witnesses Think Molesting a Boy is a "Homosexual Sin"

UPDATE - Please also read this new post regarding further Watch Tower duplicity revealed in the "Shepherd the Flock" "secret" elders' manual.

Jehovah's Witnesses show tremendous levels of cognitive dissonance when it comes to the proven subject of the systematic abuse of children within their organisation, the publishing corporation Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. This publishing corp. has for years vilified the Catholic Church's cover up of the sexual abuse of minors by priests, yet fails to adequately face up to the same abuse taking place within the Kingdom Halls of Jehovah's Witnesses around the planet.

Evidence of this cognitive dissonance can be see here and here. Rather than facing up to the destroyed lives of children at the hands of elders and other Jehovah's Witness men, men who were seemingly protected by a layer of secrecy and 'sealed envelopes' and phone calls to the Branch office rather than phone calls to the authorities, Jehovah's Witnesses like the one linked to above, focus in on technicalities. Rather than looking squarely at the Governing Body's claim that the "spiritual food" contained in the magazines and books printed by the publishing corporation is from God himself, which means that Jehovah God himself is behind the Watch Tower Society's duplicity regarding child abuse (according to Governing Body logic), a Witness will doggedly "strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel" to defend a group who say they speak for God, but do so without evidence.

Yet, disturbingly, Jehovah's Witnesses will turn a blind eye to that lack of evidence, while at the same time turning an eagle-eyed lawyerly frown towards any claim that their religious order, incorporated in the United States, has poor child protection policies; "where's the evidence?", they growl.

Sometimes in my opinion, however, they take their defence of the publishing company that dominates their lives too far. Such as in this response from StandFirm;

The lying Bowen's letter is saturated with falsehood. Many of these lies are documented at Thirdwitness' website.

Here's but one example:

Bowen:
"This policy was again stated to the public in The Watchtower 1995, 11/1 pages 28-29 in the Article, ”Comfort for Those With a Stricken Spirit”, under the heading, “What Can Elders Do?” it plainly states:...If two different persons recall abuse by one pedophile, how could he be viewed as “an innocent” man?"

Here Bowen makes it seem as though if two separate people testify that someone abused them, their testimony will be ignored unless it is to the same act of abuse (which is of course impossible). That is a total lie. The 1995 Watchtower was talking about repressed memories (note how "remembers" is in quotes). The elders' manuals make clear that two witnesses to the same type of sin on differentoccasions is acceptable as a basis for judicial action. ("Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock" p. 111; "Shepherding the Flock of God" p. 71.)

As for the Thomas Gold case: Homosexual acts are simply sexual acts performed with a member of the same gender. Thomas Gold molested a boy, thus it was homosexuality; albeit worse than consensual sex. Put 2 and 2 together, note that the elders told him to go to the police. Clearly they saw it as more than just homosexuality, since homosexuality is not illegal.

The elders may have messed up in not ensuring that the abuse was reported. However, in so doing they went against organization policy. One also wonders why the victim or his family did not report, as it is really primarily their responsibility.

There is no systematic cover-up of child abuse in the organization. You knew this before your leaving the Witnesses. The elders are people too and so hate child abuse just as much as you and I. This letter to elders sums things up nicely.

My intention was to reply to StandFirm's comment within the comments of the blog post. However, it's my opinion that his mindset so clearly reflects the very worst of mental leaps a Jehovah's Witness will make to defend a handful of business-suited men in North America that it bears closer scrutiny.

The lying Bowen's letter is saturated with falsehood. Many of these lies are documented at Thirdwitness' website. 

But is Bill Bowen lying about the children who have been abused within the Watch Tower Society or about the elders who were instructed not to contact the authorities unless there are 2 witnesses to the abuse, yes or no?

Homosexual acts are simply sexual acts performed with a member of the same gender. Thomas Gold molested a boy, thus it was homosexuality; albeit worse than consensual sex. Put 2 and 2 together, note that the elders told him to go to the police. Clearly they saw it as more than just homosexuality, since homosexuality is not illegal. 

 Molesting a child is homosexuality because the child is a boy? Are you actually serious? "Albeit worse than consensual sex"? Are you actually serious?

"Put 2 and 2 together" and get what? The problem with StandFirm, and the men who make up the rules at the publishing corporation's headquarters in North America, is that they thing abusing children is just another sin, much like getting drunk or "copping a feel" of your girlfriend.

But perhaps the reason they are willing to belief such an absurdity is because the Watch Tower Society policy is to treat it as such;

• sin has been committed
• sin has been reported to the elders
• does the sin have 2 witnesses to prove that it was committed
• if no, dismiss report and warn the accuser of the sin to remain silent about it for fear of themselves committing the sin of gossip
• if yes, hold judicial hearing whereby the accuser has to face the one whom they are accusing

It doesn't matter to this process if the "sin" is abusing children or getting drunk.

But abusing children isn't "just" a sin; it's a crime. And all crimes should be left to the authorities who are trained and qualified to investigate the crime. You let them decided whether there is a case to answer, not the "elders who are people too".

Let's face it, and I'm speaking from experience, Jehovah's Witness elders have little or no training on how to deal with the "big stuff". They're unpaid, volunteers and what little training they do get is all based around perpetuating the unsubstantiated premise that they're part of the true religion, chosen by Jesus in 1919 (although proving that date isn't actually possible).

 One also wonders why the victim or his family did not report, as it is really primarily their responsibility.

And now we get down to classic Watchtower apologist fare; apportion some sort of blame on the victim.

StandFirm, are you able to place yourself in the shoes of someone who has either been sexually abused within the Watch Tower Society, or has a child who has been abused? Can you put yourself in their shoes as they go to the elders and ask to speak to them about something, something they want to get off their chest? Can you try and imagine plucking up the courage to unburden yourself about the abuse that's happened to you or your child, doing so while you sit in a small room at the back of the Kingdom Hall, facing all of the elders in their business suits, with their large briefcases full of Watch Tower Society policy and dogma?

Can you imagine listening to the elders telling you that, because there's no witnesses to the abuse, they can't do anything about it? Can you picture yourself hearing the news that, because there's no witnesses to the abuse, you can't discuss the abuse with anyone? Can you feel your heart sinking as you know you'll need to carry the weight of what's happened on your own for fear of "bringing reproach on Jehovah's name" by taking the story of your abuse outside the walls of that small room at the back of the Kingdom Hall and going to the authorities? I mean, why would the authorities believe you when the most important thing in your life, the Watch Tower Society, has told you via it's representatives that they can't believe you because you don't have two witnesses?

Can you understand why, when you honestly evaluate the amount of power and dominance the elders have over your life or the lives of the people you love, that someone would choose not to go to the police?


You see, "one also wonders" about the people involved in this case;

• who were the elders that told Thomas Gold to go to the police?
• what were their opinions on Gold before the accusations were brought up?
• did they have any intuitive misgivings about the man?
• how did these elders feel when they told the victim and his family that there was nothing they could do about the abuse as they didn't have two witnesses?
• did this make them feel uneasy, or where they happy that they were protecting the "name of the congregation"?
• did they start treating Gold differently after that?
• did they start keeping a close eye on him around children, their own children perhaps?
• did they have a sealed envelop in the congregation's "permanent file" with Gold's name on it?
• did they contact the British branch office with the allegation levelled against Gold?
• if so, what was the response of the branch? Did it already have info on Gold, per Society policy?
• did Gold remain in the congregation where the abuse occurred, or did he move on to pastures new?
• if so, did the elders notify, even unofficially, the elders in the new congregation that there had been an accusation of abuse concerning Gold?
• how do the elders feel now that Gold has been convicted and their congregation, and "Jehovah's name" is in the news?
• how do the elders feel now that it looks like they 'covered up' his abuse by not going to the police about it themselves?
• do they see that they are no better than the Catholic Church, long vilified by the Watch Tower Society, and its handling of abuse?

StandFirm, and other Jehovah's Witnesses reading this, what lengths will you go to to defend the Watch Tower Society, a publishing corporation that claims, without any corroborating evidence, to speak for God?

Does the Watchtower Society Protect Pedophiles From the Authorities?

Bill Bowen's letter of resignation as an elder and (as they were then known) Presiding Overseer;

12-31-00

Watchtower
25 Columbia Heights
Brooklyn, NY 11201

Dear Brothers,

I am writing to resign as an elder and Presiding Overseer effective the date of this letter. I bear no ill will or malice toward anyone in the congregation or the Body of Elders. In my twenty-plus years of special service I have enjoyed many privileges, of which there have been many fond memories. So, it is with sadness I must make the following statement: I simply cannot agree with an organizational policy that as an elder I am required to enforce. This policy, in my opinion, has harmed thousands, is leaving many unprotected, and provides refuge to outright criminals.

I am referring to Watchtower policy to keep information about pedophiles confidential. Pedophiles are protected by a code of silence and in many cases remain, Ministerial Servants, Elders, Pioneers, Circuit, District Overseers, members of the Bethel Family, etc., while their victims suffer in silence or face sanctions. This policy is unethical and immoral in my opinion.

As an elder, I am instructed (1994 Elder School) if it is one person’s word against another and not two witnesses to the wrong, no action would be taken and no authorities would be notified. The victim? Cautioned to keep silent or face discipline within the congregation that could go as far as being disfellowshipped for slander.

This policy was again stated to the public in The Watchtower 1995, 11/1 pages 28-29 in the Article, ”Comfort for Those With a Stricken Spirit”, under the heading, “What Can Elders Do?” it plainly states:

“If the accusation is denied, the elders should explain to the accuser that nothing more can be done in a judicial way. And the congregation will continue to view the one accused as an innocent person. The Bible says that there must be two or three witnesses before judicial action can be taken. (2Cor.13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19) Even if more than one person “remembers” abuse by the individual, the nature of these recalls is just too uncertain to base judicial decisions on them without other supporting evidence. This does not mean that such “memories” are viewed as false (or that they are viewed as true). But Bible principles must be followed in establishing a matter judicially.”

Does this offer comfort to those with a stricken spirit?
How often are there witnesses with “supporting evidence” to an act of child molestation?
If two different persons recall abuse by one pedophile, how could he be viewed as “an innocent” man?
How hard would it be for a person with the disposition to molest children to deny the act when accused?

The 3-14-97 Letter to Bodies of Elders, page 2, paragraph 5, states:


“It may be possible that some who were guilty of child molestation were or are now serving as elders, ministerial servants, or regular or special pioneers. Others may have been guilty of child molestation before they were baptized. The bodies of elders should not query individuals. However, the body of elders should discuss this matter and give the Society a report on anyone who is currently serving or who formerly served in a society-appointed position in your congregation who is known to have been guilty of child molestation in the past.” Paragraph 6 continues at the end: “this information is not to be made available to those not involved.”

The only way a person within the organization can be guilty of child molestation is by confession, conviction by a court of law, or by the mouth of two witnesses who were there for the same event. For the individual who meets this criteria, the above information states the “body of elders should not query individuals” and “this information is not to be made available to those not involved.” For those who do not meet the above criteria, as in the case of a victim who accuses a person of molesting them, the code of silence is even more strictly enforced. What about potential victims, parents of children who do not know of these accusations? They are left in the dark without any knowledge that their children could be exposed to an accused sex offender on a regular basis.

These directives make the Watchtower organization a pedophile paradise, where children can be freely molested, as long as there is not substantial evidence or two witnesses to the same event, pedophiles are protected by Watchtower policy which is enforced by the Body of Elders.

How often are there witnesses to an act of child molestation? How can there be evidence of molestation, when 90% of the time the crime is reported weeks or sometimes years later? How many pedophiles will tell the truth, knowing if they do they could go to jail?
Does the fact that the average pedophile will molest seventy children in his lifetime and is never convicted of a crime mean we should allow them anonymity within our organization?

Due to this organizational policy, we have become saturated with pedophiles holding positions from top to bottom within our organization, in my opinion. In my forty-plus years in the organization, I have yet to find one congregation that did not have serious problems with children being molested.

The most incriminating fact lay with it not even being a matter of record, as in many cases when it is one word against another, not one word is recorded within the congregation file. Watchtower policy gives no direction in this regard. When elders call or write the Service Department for home office direction on how to handle matters involving child molestation, they are instructed that they will have to make the decision locally as to whether it should be taken care of judicially. The Service Department in effect lets local elders make the decision and as a result, the locals will take the responsibility if anything goes wrong. Thus protecting the Watchtower legally. How often will local elders in effect, “take care of a fellow accused elder,” protecting him from a judicial meeting using technicalities as an excuse? But when it comes to the victims, they are discredited, humiliated, and told to be silent. There is a silence of the lambs, the little ones, who look to You and Bodies of Elders for protection, but instead are crushed and ostracized by an organizational policy when they needed help the most. The Watchtower is protected; the pedophile is protected, too bad for the silent lamb.

How bad is it? With this policy you will allow one out of three “witness children” to be molested in their lifetime, in my opinion. I can no longer serve as an elder in an arrangement that promotes unethical and immoral behavior toward children. I refuse to support a pedophile refuge mentality that is promoted among Body of Elders around the world. Criminals should be ousted, identified, and punished to protect the innocent and give closure to the victim.

Each day that passes, more children are being molested, and victims suffer as abused lambs with a shepherd who seems not to care. For myself, I feel I can trust no one within the Watchtower organization with my children. If my children were to accuse a pedophile of molestation, all he would have to do is deny it and as a father I would be silenced with the threat of disfellowshiping if I were to try to say something (slander of a perceived innocent man) in a way of warning to protect others who may be in harms way. I state for the third time, this is wrong it is unethical and immoral to not protect children.

It is my sincere hope that this letter will result in an adjustment to completely overhaul Watchtower policy to address this horrific stance of protecting pedophiles and exposing children to danger.

Sincerely,

William H. Bowen

Source.
Why aren't more Jehovah's Witnesses upset and angry about the Watch Tower Society's policies regarding the abuse of children?
Perhaps they think this sort of thing is made up, that the elders aren't discouraged from alerting the authorities to accusations of molestation? Maybe they don't believe that a man (or woman) within the Society can be accused of molestation, but because there are no witnesses to the abuse/assault no action by the elders is taken, not even contacting the authorities so that they can do their job and investigate the allegations?

If that's the case, maybe this news story from the BBC will open your eyes;

A Jehovah's Witness who groomed and sexually abused a boy has been jailed for six years and eight months.

Thomas Gold, 45, of Alloa, Clackmannanshire, was sentenced at the High Court in Edinburgh.

He previously admitted committing indecency at a house in Tullibody between November 1996, when the boy was seven years old, and November in 2003.

Unemployed Gold took the boy canvassing for the Jehovah's Witnesses and to the Kingdom Hall.

When he became a teenager, the victim told elders at his church about the abuse.

Advocate depute Alison Di Rollo said the church leaders told Gold his behaviour was wrong and warned that if it continued he would be "disfellowshipped", or expelled, because the church disapproved of homosexual behaviour.

They also tried to persuade Gold to go to the police.

'Systematically groomed'

The judge, Lord Bannatyne, said it was clear Gold's criminal conduct had "a considerable impact" on the victim.

He said that a background report on Gold had described him as having "systematically groomed" the youngster in order to sexually abuse him.

Defence solicitor advocate Brian Gilfedder said: "As far as the offence is concerned it is very difficult for me to stand here and say anything that could be described as mitigation.

"The accused is well aware and has been well aware that this was wrong. It is accepted by him that a sentence of imprisonment is inevitable."

Gold was placed on the sex offenders' register for the rest of his life and given a supervision for 40 months after his prison sentence.

"church leaders told Gold his behaviour was wrong and warned that if it continued he would be "disfellowshipped", or expelled, because the church disapproved of homosexual behaviour."


Since when is abusing a child "homosexual behaviour"? By all means "disapprove'' of "homosexual behaviour", but don't lump abusing a child in with it.


And elders? Man up. Rather than trying to persuade a man who's been accused (and I'm guessing admitted to) of abusing a child to go to the police do it yourself.

Evidence: Where Has the Post Gone?

Diligent JW apologist and defender, StandFirm, has been challenged to do the job the Governing Body should be doing, namely provide evidence that Jehovah's Witnesses alone are "the truth".

Optimistically, StandFirm had outlined the sort of case he was having to defend, this took the form of a blog post published on September 10th 2010. However, as of today (20th October) his blog hasn't been updated with any content. In fact, the only obvious activity on the blog is the deletion of said blog post.

However, here is a screengrab for posterity, along with a copy/paste of the text (hopefully this means that StandFirm is about to publish proof of the 1919 selection once and for all);

Appointment of the Faithful and Discreet Slave in 1919

As promised, here is a breakdown of the belief of Jehovah's Witnesses concerning their appointment over all of Christ's belongings in 1919. This post is not intended to discuss these points, but rather to outline the points that need to be proven to show that the Bible Students (Jehovah's Witnesses) were indeed appointed in this way in 1919.

1. That the faithful and discreet slave (Matthew 24:45-47) refers to a class of Christians.

2. That Jesus came in the sense in Matthew 24:46 in 1914.

3. That, if the first 2 points are true, that Jesus would actually have chosen the Bible Students.

4. That, if the first 3 points are true, that the historical evidence indicates that the prophecy of Malachi 3:1 began applying in 1918 and the Bible Students were chosen in 1919.

This is the outline used to arrive at that teaching. This post is not to discuss any of those points.

Incidentally, even if we were to imagine that the appointing over all Christ's belongings is future or does not apply, this still would have no bearing on whether or not the organization and Governing Body should have the same authority it had in the first century. It also has no bearing at all on other doctrines such as no Trinity, no immortality of the soul, and so on.

Further reading can be found in The Watchtower, March 1, 2004, pp. 13-18.

Evidence: How Long Have I Been Asking For It?

I've been asking Jehovah's Witness apologists (like Stand Firm* who at least started to man-up to the task on September 10th 2010 [update: as of 20th October 2010 StandFirm has removed the blog post I'm linking to]) to stump up with evidence that their religious order is the only true religion on the planet approved by Almighty God (after selection by Jesus Christ). I first made this request for evidence in May 2010.

Not one Jehovah's Witness has had the courage, confidence or facts to supply this evidence.

Why not?


* interestingly, Stand Firm, the only "active Jehovah's Witness" who has acknowledged my request for proof, makes the following claims on his blog;


Q: Who are you?
A: I go online as StandFirm. As far as a reader needs to know, I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I enjoy defending my faith, especially against the claims of opposer. [emphasis added by me]


Surely providing evidence to back up the claims of Jehovah's Witnesses being "the truth" would be part of defending your faith in the Watch Tower Society.


He also says;
Q: Are you really one of Jehovah's Witnesses?
A: Yes! I am an active baptized publisher, and I have privileges in the congregation. Moreover, I wholeheartedly support the faithful and discreet slave as represented by the Governing Body, as well as what they teach, as it is firmly based on the Bible and on reason. [emphasis added by me]


Again, if the teachings of the Governing Body are based on reason, then is should be a straightforward exercise to provide an opposer - or an honest-hearted one - with evidence to prove that your religious order was chosen by Jesus in 1919, particularly if you whole-heartedly support the ones making the claim.


The reason cited by Stand Firm for starting his blog was that he'd seen some of the claims opposers like me have made about "the truth";
Q: How did you come to know these ideas?
A: I read them out of weakness and curiosity. As I examined ever further, however, I was surprised at how unconvincing opposers were. Thus, after reading defenses written by other Witnesses, I decided to write my own defense blog. [emphasis added by me]


However, when Stand Firm's feet are held to the fire, he is unable to provide evidence to overturn unconvincing opposers who claim that, actually, Jesus most certainly did not select Jehovah's Witnesses/Bible Students in 1918/1919. If what we claim is so unconvincing (i.e. that the Governing Body are deceitful manipulators of the truth and that Jehovah's Witnesses are not "in the truth") then it should be extremely easy to rebut.


I have to confess to admiring Stand Firm's efforts enormously. He's the only Jehovah's Witness apologist I've come across who is willing to debate the claims of the Governing Body/unique beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses without resorting to ad hominem attacks.


It is my sincere prayer right now that he goes onto see the truth about "the truth".

Proof? It Shouldn't Be This Hard

The easiest task for any loyal Jehovah's Witness (JW apologist in question as removed their attempt to broach this subject) should be to provide proof that his religion is the only true one. Jehovah's Witnesses believe their religious order was chosen (JW apologist in question as removed their attempt to broach this subject), according to their unique interpretation of Malachi 3:1*, in the year 1919 by Jesus Christ himself.

Providing proof that this happened should be incredibly simple, straight-forward and second nature to all Jehovah's Witness.

Why am I still waiting for one shred, then?(JW apologist in question as removed their attempt to broach this subject)

* Jehovah's Witnesses start with the presupposition that Christ returned, invisibly, in 1914. From this presupposition comes the belief that Malachi 3:1 was fulfilled in 1918 when Christ returned to "his temple" and undertook an inspection of all Christians on earth at the time. His satisfaction with the Bible Students, a sect of the Adventists, led by C.T. Russell, himself a failed haberdasher, was such that he selected them to be God's only channel of communication on earth, the "faithful and discreet slave" "class".


This presupposition assumes the following unique teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses to be true;

• Christ returned in 1914
• based on that date, Christ inspected all of Christianity in 1918
• Matthew 24:45-47 applies to a "class" of Christians
• that "class" of Christians was found only within the membership of the Bible Student sect

Obviously, only Jehovah's Witnesses believe these things. They do so because they are taught them by the Governing Body, which itself claims to be the 'voice piece' of the above mentioned "faithful and discreet slave" "class". The reason Jehovah's Witnesses believe what the Governing Body teaches them (the afore mentioned unique beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses) is because they believe in the above 1919 selection of the Bible Students. And the reason they believe in the 1919 selection of the Bible Students is because of their unique beliefs, including Christ's return in 1914 and his subsequent inspection of Christianity in 1918. And the reason they believe that.... 

By now you can hopefully see the circular logic that keeps faithful Jehovah's Witnesses blind to the truth: there is no proof for any of this (JW apologist in question as removed their attempt to broach this subject).

What is a Generation? Does the Dictionary Agree with the Watchtower

From the "Aid to Bible Understanding" volume, now replaced by the "Insight on the Scriptures" volumes.

Why, why, why have the Governing Body decided to change the definition of the word 'generation' that in Hebrew, Greek and English means "all of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively"?

The only possible reasons are;
1. it suits their purposes*
2. they think Jehovah's Witnesses are stupid

* for those who don't understand the purpose of this post;
Consider, however, the definition the Governing Body give to the word "generation" in the April 15th 2010 Watchtower magazine;

How, then, are we to
understand Jesus’ words about “this generation”?
He evidently meant that the lives of the anointed
who were on hand when the sign began to become
evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of other
anointed ones who would see the start of the great
tribulation. 

Would Jehovah's Witness Elders Protect a Murderer?

As professed "true Christians" one wonders how the Watch Tower Society instructs the "gifts in men", who oversee the "Christian" congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses around the world, when they discover a murderer is in their midst.

Will they advise the elders to report the matter to the authorities so that justice can be served? Perhaps this letter provides the answer.

Now, what if a Jehovah's Witness has confessed to molesting children? What would the elders do then? Any Jehovah's Witness apologist wish to take this one on?