Srecko Sostar

.., significance of the organization lies in its dedication to spreading the message of God's love and promoting religious freedom to governments.., Maybe my memory is not serving me well, but I can't remember any Bible text that writes about how Jesus, as the Pillar and Model of the Perfect Preacher and Proclaimer of the Gospel, promoted religious freedom to the political elites in the 1st century?

Lobbying, Advocacy, Open Communication First source: https://research2policy.org/advocacyvlobbying/ LOBBYING RULES FOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS Many researchers’ workplaces and affiliations are likely nonprofits and, more specifically, nonprofits categorized as 501(c)(3)s (e.g., public colleges or universities, research institutes). As such, it is important that researchers are aware of the lobbying rules for nonprofit organizations. Nonprofits classified as 501(c)(3)s public charities must not use “substantial” resources for lobbying, though it is not prohibited outright. These organizations have the right to lobby for issues they believe in or against issues they do not. It is only when this advocacy deals with specific legislation that calculated cost limits apply. If the rule that “no substantial part” of activities be dedicated to lobbying seems too vague, consider an “h election” to allow your organization to precisely report the amount of money spent on direct or grassroots lobbying. Researchers should consult with their organizational leadership about lobbying definitions, allowable activities, and how their paid time may be used when communicating recommendations to legislators. Next source: https://www.churchlawcenter.com/political/what-is-the-difference-between-lobbying-campaigning-and-advocacy-why-does-it-matter-for-charities/ Nonprofit organizations with 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) are subject to specific restrictions on their political activities. Violating these rules can lead to loss of tax-exempt status, so all nonprofits need to be aware of these restrictions to avoid any potential problems. Lobbying Restrictions IRS regulations generally prohibit charities with tax-exempt status from engaging in lobbying except to an “insubstantial degree.” Historically, if a charity spends more than about five percent of its budget, time, and effort on lobbying, it may be considered “substantial” and thus violate IRS regulations, although there is no regulation that defines “substantial” with precision. The other alternative for charities under IRS statutes is to use the 501(h) expenditure test under Section 501(h) of the IRC. Under the formula defined in 501(h), a charity’s lobbying activities are subject to specific dollar limits with an overall cap of $1 million. However, any lobbying activities by volunteers on behalf of the charity do not count toward those limits. WTJWorg is full of volunteers, isn't it? They are actually all volunteers. https://www.runn.io/blog/open-communication What is open communication? Open communication is the ability to express your thoughts freely while interacting with other people. In a workplace, it refers to the ability of employees to share and receive feedback, provide ideas and suggestions, and raise concerns, which makes them active participants in the work process. Open communication is about honesty, availability, and transparency. It means that you have to tell the truth as it is and be willing to hear it in return. It also means you have access to the information you need, and you have to provide the information to those who need it, too. Finally, it means nothing can be kept secret – so there is no chance for politicking or intrigues. Open communication is based on the following principles: Trust. When you know you will hear an honest opinion, you do not expect a get knife in your back. You can rely on your colleagues. You can ask for help. This highly reduces the risk of workplace conflict, and lays the foundations for healthy work relationships. Psychological safety. It is the ability to express your thoughts without fear of judgment or rejection. A workplace is psychologically safe when employees can openly raise up sensitive issues and be sure that they will not be scolded or fired for challenging someone else’s authority. Consistency. For communication to be truly open, it has to be open on a regular basis. This is why it’s important to establish specific open communication policies that would normalize this phenomenon in the workplace. The role of the leader is crucial here – leaders set an example for the whole team and motivate people to act in the same way. When WTJWorg destroys important documents and refuses to hand over documents to the courts that request it, can we talk about open communication? Or when GB publishes manuals for elders that no other member of JW society is allowed to see?

Unfortunately for many JWs who deeply believe in WTJWorg doctrines and instructions, we have to ask, is the WT Society really a Logical Society? With the passage of time, the GB leaders deny with their own statements the possibility that such an assessment is correct. I'm sorry.

This article shows the position of the JW Corporation that "lobbying" within JW congregations is impermissible. And only that. Nothing says that such action is forbidden in relation to the "outside world". This is the same as the method used in "theocratic warfare". Every JW is obliged to tell the complete truth and not withhold anything when talking to the elders. But he is permitted to speak untruths or half-truths or withholding the truth from those "who are not authorized to hear it." That's why you have JW elders and JW lawyers who appear before the Courts and actually manipulate the information given, that is, they lie.

Lobbying and Open Communication are not synonymous terms. Are you suggesting that WTJWorg representatives have and want Open Communication with the Political System? In other words, the talks between WTJWorg and political elements are not within the scope of lobbying, but are mutual efforts to better understand the two sides and achieve mutually beneficial agreements and/or compromises? If Open Communication is a desirable feature between WTJWorg and Politics, then it should be applied to Other Religions that have different and similar doctrines, too. However, WTJWorg firmly rejects interfaith activity and communication with them. However, WTJWorg has excursions into interreligious activity when it comes to some religious freedoms, so they sit together at the same table with priests of other religions. (OSCE) Since Politics and Religion are actually part of the same Pot that is in the "hands of Satan", according to JW doctrine, then what you, as JW member, defend is indefensible.

26 Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah,u so it will be in the days of the Son of man:v 27 they were eating, they were drinking, men were marrying, women were being given in marriage until that day when Noah entered into the ark,w and the Flood came and destroyed them all.x 28 Likewise, just as it occurred in the days of Lot:y they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building. 29 But on the day that Lot went out of Sodʹom, it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed them all.z 30 It will be the same on that day when the Son of man is revealed.a- Luke 17:26-30 https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/luke/17/ From these words of Jesus, it is not at all apparent that the actions of the people of past time will differ from the actions of the people during Jesus' rediscovery, aka arrival on the world scene. There is no indication of differences in the amount and intensity of described human activity through history. An increase or decrease in humanity and/or wickedness is not the criterion to be considered as the (only) one preceding the prophesied change.

I get the impression that some commenters haven't watched the video, as the video mentions actual WTS persons and quotes WTJWorg literature. Perhaps it would be constructive to comment on the events and cite from the WTJWorg publication and refute or prove them through commenters own interpretation.

WTJWorg also lives in the best possible time for its activities. They will only do better in the NW. So the JW global campaign that humanity is in crisis would mean that non-JWs are in crisis. The only thing that remains to be seen is how the prophecy that everyone will hate JWs is to be fulfilled. Because JWs claim that now the world hates them (this hatred towards JWs has been going on for decades or towards the NT since the 1st century) and they (JW) despite such "fact an claim" are doing so well in terms of the number of members and number of branches, the number of KH and preaching and the like. Can the world hate them more than today in the "last day of the last days"?

It might be useful for JWs to explain how "lobbying" of any kind by WTJWorg representatives to the authorities of a country can be explained through the JW theology doctrine called "Christian neutrality". Given that JWs are against any kind of "social" engagement (activity) through participation in the existing systems of a country, even those of a humanitarian nature, and that they forbid JWs to hold any political office, because that would mean that they are not "neutral", then it becomes doubtful whether they can and are allowed to have contacts with people who hold state and political functions with the intention of "imparting" more favorable treatment for the WTJWorg organization and JW members? It is one thing to "appeal to the law and justice" before the courts because we believe that others have damaged us, and the other is to use various means and methods to influence individuals and institutions that are political in nature and therefore, according to JW belief, part of the "satanic system". Is cooperation of this kind with the "enemies of God" really "Christian neutrality"? Is even seeking the help from "secular courts," which again according to WTJWorg doctrine is an indivisible part of the "satanic system," to administer justice to JW followers, a contradiction in JW teaching and belief? While at the same time labeling every religion, politics, and commerce of this world as part of the "satanic system" that is "soon to be destroyed at Armageddon," and on the other hand, using time, strength, and means to gain a favorable position from these "worldly people" for WTJWorg, which inevitably involves a certain kind and measure of "friendship with the world", aren't JWs in fact in conflict with declarations in their own theology?

Prehistoric animals (dinosaurs and the like) experienced their end of the world, but that did not worry anyone (neither then nor now) because Adam and Eve had not yet lived, sinned and been thrown out of Paradise. The planet experienced its ends through processes of transformation so that life would be possible at all. Thus, the various forms of life that existed then arose and disappeared. And who cares about that today? Now, if our skin is in question, then it is really worrying that it will be some new end of the world. And this should be preached to everyone through global preaching. Imagine! In a way, this JW global campaign of "lobbying" for the Kingdom that will be the means of selective destruction of life on planet Earth "fits in" with the foreordained processes that concern not only this planet but the entire galaxy.

Throughout its history, WTJWorg has worked for social/religious/political change in various parts of the world in several ways: -With their activity, they do not agree to obey the authorities when they were forbidden to do some religious activity (eg preaching). -Then through actively not doing things that the governments asks for (eg military service or voting in elections). -Furthermore, JWs have actively influenced the governments through various lawsuits until today. -What is less known and unnoticed or even unknown to the general and especially JW public is the influence of the WTJWorg Corporation through specific actions to influence certain parts of the governments. This is called "lobbying" in modern parlance. Watch an interesting and instructive video covering a rather long period of WTJWorg history in which representatives of WTJWorg are mentioned whose actions before the authorities are rightly linked to "lobbying".

I don't know enough about the human psyche to be qualified to explain human actions. But I dare to say that sometimes we are "strange" in our reactions. On the one hand, it's nice to see that someone has empathy for another when that person is going through a difficult period. Even if it referred to animals which, according to the Bible, are goods that man can manage as he pleases. Even though people/slaves and servants were goods, they had a bad status and some treated them in the past and today even worse than animals. When someone who declares himself a JW shows humanity towards a person he considers and labels as an enemy, an apostate and other bad attributes, then one has to think a little. What is it that moves a JW to compassion because someone like Pudgy lost a dog, while on the other hand dismissing the suffering of the many human victims of CSA by members of his religion and dismissing the responsibility of the WTJWorg institution for covering up that evil and suffering, not only from their own brothers and sisters but also from the authorities who "were tasked by God to carry the sword" and punish the perpetrators of crimes. The task of punishing not only the "godless" but also the "true servants of God" who are lawless. I think that the GB leadership (together with the congregational elders, most of them) has long since become too immersed in the imaginary role of "kings and judges", so they forget that they have unjustifiably gone beyond the scope of mortals, which they actually are, and placed themselves above other mortals. They (GB) instill this sense of too much importance in JW followers as well, so most of them lose their natural sense of "love" and "human affection" that should be beyond the control of GB.

Since when do the terms "perfect" and "imperfect" date? Who was the first to use them to denote things, persons, phenomena as one or the other? According to the first words of the book of Genesis, God marked things as "good". When he warned Adam about the tree, he didn't frighten him with punishment and told him; "if you eat from the tree you will become imperfect". They were warned that they would die. He did not tell them that they would grow old and get sick. Just that they will die. There is no indication that the people in Eden knew of the existence of (the difference between) perfection and imperfection. They were the way they were and it was "good" for them. And everything around them was "good" for them. Who is responsible for "creating the imperfection"? When a bad event or even a crime happens between people, then we talk about the perpetrator and the victim. The law says that the perpetrator is responsible for the damage. Who is the victim and who is the perpetrator in Eden? The Bible describes the Serpent, Adam and Eve as perpetrators who were punished. No victim appears to have been harmed. The children born of Adam and Eve seem to be treated not as victims, but as children of criminals and suffer all the troubles from the beginning like their parents. The same God who punished the first people and all their children to this day, apparently did not hate them, but "only" punished them for disobedience. And he also showed no hatred towards their offspring because he sent his Son to redeem them. So God does not consider people and their babies as his enemies, big and small, but as his lost sons and daughters whom he calls to himself. Apparently Stephen Lett doesn't know that or has forgotten it in the meantime.

Perhaps this could be looked at with the following idea. Angels materialized after their perfection was taken away. Similar to Adam and Eve, who bore children after their perfection was taken away, so their children were imperfect, too. The Logos did not materialize like the aforementioned angels, but was born as the man Jesus. His perfect DNA could prevail in the genetics of his children, so the children would perhaps be less imperfect and thus less hostile to God? This whole discussion was caused by one frivolous statement of a GB member. Now we see how much damage the leading people at WTJWorg are causing by generating botched discussions due to GB botched instructions. And so for 140 years.

Did David and Bathsheba give birth to the enemy of God? Did their son die because he was an enemy or did God punish David and Bathsheba by killing their baby? Adulterers were spared life, and the price for keeping them alive was the death of a newborn child? That child must have been a real danger to David's Kingdom. A dangerous little enemy. Perhaps the fate of that child would have been better if it had been a female child.

Is this statement in any context? Be that as it may, it gives the message that GB members, who according to your own words and their own are imperfect, are ultimately enemies of God. So the enemies of God run WTJWorg? Commentary through the question about materialized angels. Are their children, the Nephilim, evil because they were born of angelic fathers and earthly women? Or because they were not well raised by their parents? If Jesus had children with an earthly woman, would his children be evil from birth, because he is of angelic origin as well (I say angelic because WTJWorg considers him to be the angel Michael)?

baby 1 of 3 noun ba·by ˈbā-bē pluralbabies Synonyms of baby 1 a(1) : an extremely young child especially : INFANT https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/baby A speaker like S. Lett probably knows how to use a noun and probably knows in which context he can use it. From the video clip, he used the noun in a temporal context that includes the moment/time after the birth of a child by a woman.

Based on the above, we can accept other possibilities of conclusion. The idea "that we have the capacity to become enemies of God" was realized by the very act of God's creation of angels and the first humans. The possibility and capacity to be an enemy does not arise from the fact that someone is born/created perfect or imperfect, but from the fact that all of them have the freedom to decide that all of them have free will, which they received from God. So, God is the cause of this possibility for someone to become his enemy. And what are we going to do now? Free will exists only when we can realize it in reality. Before that it is just a fantasy of the mind. When can a baby realize, exercise its free will?

Something else is sad. That something else is not a state of wariness of former or "spiritually" weak JWs, but complete trust in one's own religious leaders. Thus, the invitation by which Gerrit Losch asked JWs to have complete trust in GB as if it were Jesus and JHVH is being fulfilled. And other biblical passages are fulfilled which warn us not to trust in the dignitaries of this (WTJWorg) world.

Belief in the theological doctrine that we all inherited the sin of Adam and Eve and are therefore born sinful and therefore destined to make major and minor mistakes throughout life (that we are prone to sin) is a type of assertion and dogma. Claiming that babies are enemies of God is beyond that first concept. Does the claim/fact that you were born/created imperfect and prone to sin inevitably mean that you are an enemy of God from the first day of your life? Does the claim/fact that you were born/created perfect mean that you are not an enemy of God? Adam and Eve were created/born perfect, says the WTJWorg interpretation. Nowhere in the Bible does God call the two of them His enemies, before or after sin. On the other hand, the rebel perfect angel was called Satan or enemy/adversary only after the rebellion. When can an imperfect baby be held responsible for rebellion? Enmity between them and God was not automatically established from the act that happened to Adam and Eve. Because they did not rebel against God in the way that the Angel did. They "just" disobeyed him about eating the fruit from the tree. That is why God had no reason to call them enemies. If God did not call these two adults and mature people enemies, why would, according to the interpretation of GB member S.L. , babies should be considered enemies of God? The Bible, in its later NT writings, connects the concept of enmity with God to certain activities that cause the persons who do so to be associated with enemies. Babies are never called enemies, as far as i know. Furthermore, the question of hatred also opens up here. Does the Enemy deserve our hatred? Yes or no? Does God show hatred towards Adam and Eve? Towards Satan? To people who aren't his fans/worshipers? But JWs are ready to hate "their enemies"? Yes or no?

Unlike this JW religious leader, Jesus said to do good and love your enemies. Jesus never labeled children as enemies of God. On the contrary, he told his followers not to prevent children from reaching him. Stephen Lett is a false religious teacher because he teaches the opposite of Jesus.

The actual or present "truth" vs past and future "truth". Never ending story.