Srecko Sostar

"For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and nothing concealed that will not be brought to light."  Mark 4:22
Then perhaps they could be transparent, instead of "opaque".  What do they have to hide?
 
 

Jehovah’s Witnesses facing tax turmoil
The secretive Christian group has begun legal action against the charity watchdog after it quietly revoked the organisation’s tax-exempt status over concerns with its opaque global structure.   https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?offerset=ta_4for4_premium&sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fnation%2Fjehovahs-witnesses-facing-tax-turmoil%2Fnews-story%2F64acd93d531eb6b7301dda758e7ee2ff&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID%3D7EC7ED7628D12DA5-58A80C25FED2095D|MCORGID%3D5FE61C8B533204850A490D4D%40AdobeOrg|TS%3D1618785359&adobe_mc_ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
I received this alert in my Google feed as well as the exjw who posted it.  I am not getting a subscription to the Australian newspaper to verify the article.  I'll leave that up to the readers here. I am sure it will come out in other news sites soon.  As usual, the organization puts money ahead of the lives of individuals.
This is the copied article supplied by the exjw:
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have taken legal action against Australia’s charity watchdog after it ­revoked the organisation’s tax-­exempt status over concerns with the religion’s opaque global donations structure and alleged failure to protect vulnerable people.
The organisation’s charitable arm, the Watchtower Bible and Tract ­Society of Australia, which posted an income of $32m in the year to August 31, has been ­accused of pushing cash offshore after directors splashed $16m of its total expenses on undisclosed­ ­donations and “overseas aid”.
The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission informed Watchtower in November of its intention to revoke the ­organisation’s charity status, citing a litany of concerns about alleged contraventions of the Corporations Act and a failure to comply with a host of governance and conduct standards.
Lawyer and abuse survivor Alec Spencer, a PhD candidate at James Cook University, said the ACNC’s decision was comparable to the abolition of the so-called “Ellis defence” in NSW in 2018, which ended the Catholic Church’s long-standing immunity to lawsuits.
“If registration were to be removed, it would serve as a wake-up call for many other religious charities who have systemically failed to protect sexually abused children,” he said.
“The removal of charitable registration would be an extraordinary outcome, both for the commission and the religious charity sector in particular.”
The charity, which is seeking judicial review of the ACNC’s ­decision in the Federal Court, has been accused of “operating outside of Australia” and breaching its requirement to protect vulnerable people, including children, when conducting operations overseas.
In a statement, Watchtower ­director Terry O’Brien denied the ACNC had moved to strip the ­organisation of its charity registration. “The ACNC has assured the ­directors that they do not intend to revoke Watchtower Australia’s charity status,” Mr O’Brien said.
However, court documents filed last week reveal the ACNC sent a notice to revoke Watchtower’s charity registration to the group’s directors in November.
The ACNC has accused Watchtower’s directors of failing to comply with key conduct standards, including a requirement to disclose conflicts of interest and a requirement to protect children who are accessing benefits under the charity’s programs.
If the court upholds the ACNC’s decision, Watchtower will lose its status as a registered charity and will not be entitled to receive tax concessions, including lucrative tax breaks.
According to an application for judicial review filed by Watch­tower, the ACNC’s decision is ­“unlawful” and an “unreasonable and inappropriate exercise” of its discretion.
The organisation, which has nearly 70,000 members in Australia, has allocated almost $120m from 2014-20 to “donations and overseas aid”.
“As a donor, I would be very troubled by this,” Mr Spencer said. “And as a regulator, their hands are tied due to the differential treatment bestowed on basic ­religious charities.
“The ACNC could deregister a charity but the decision and why that occurs is not disclosed,” he said. “It allows them to operate in a cloud of secrecy.”
Watchtower argues that the decision contains multiple errors of law, including that the legislation confers “no function with respect to child protection” on the ACNC.
The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse warned that there were systemic problems within the ­Jehovah’s Witness religion in dealing with abuse, including a failure to report credible alle­gations to the police.
The commission heard Jehovah’s Witnesses had documen­tation of abuse allegations by 1800 children involving more than 1000 perpetrators since 1950.
Former church member and child abuse survivor Lara Kaput said revocation of Watchtower’s charity status would be a “watershed moment” if it were upheld by the Federal Court.
“They were reticent to revoke their charity status because the charity commission knew it would set a precedent, and they don’t want that to happen,” Ms Kaput said.
An ACNC spokeswoman said it was unable to comment on the “particular circumstances of a charity” and whether or not a charity was being investigated.

I got it. Randomly I’ll hear Bill Gates whisper sweet nothings in my ear telling me to buy more Microsoft products, it’s a weird side effect, but on the plus side I grew an extra set of limbs making me much more productive at work. I’m hoping I’ll be a candidate for employee of the month now.

I am amazed at the many fingers of delusion in the organization.  The belief system remains intact in the majority of JW minds, no matter what “delusion” is presented, temporarily established, and then later rejected.  The main delusion, the inner core of the organization’s existence as reality and approved by God, is…as 2 Thess 2:11 says, “powerful”.
“Delusion” - Delusions are characterized by an unshakable belief in things that are not true, and often, there is a continued belief in the delusion despite contrary evidence. Not all delusions are the same.
A few types:
Erotomanic
In this type of delusion, individuals believe that a person—usually with a higher social standing—is in love with them. 
“The GB loves you very much!”
Grandiose
In grandiose delusions, individuals believe they have extraordinary talent, fame, wealth, or power despite the lack of evidence. An instance of this type of delusion would be someone who believes God gave them the power to save the universe  organization, and every day they complete certain tasks that will help the planet  organization continue on.
Persecutory
Individuals with persecutory delusions believe they are being spied on, drugged, followed, slandered, cheated on, or somehow mistreated. 
“Despicable apostates" – “their finally gonna be gone, all these despicable enemies that have just reproached Jehovah’s name, destroyed; never ever to live again”.
“It’s important for anyone experiencing delusions to seek professional help. This can be especially challenging, however, since people experiencing delusions often don't think of their beliefs as a problem because, by definition, the person experiencing delusions believes their experience to be fact.  Consequently, it is often concerned loved ones who must bring the issue to the attention of a healthcare professional.” https://www.verywellmind.com/definition-of-delusion-4580458#:~:text=Delusions are characterized by an,theoretically occur in real life.
 
Jer 14:14 - Then the Lord said to me, “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds.”
“delusions”:  H457 - “a thing of nought” - good for nothing, by analogy vain or vanity; specifically an idol:—idol, no value, thing of nought.
The organization as an idol – “good for nothing”.  If it was good for something, the fingers of over 100 years of delusionary teachings, wouldn’t exist. 
I know, but what about the preaching work, spreading the "good news of the kingdom"?  It is never good news to lead people into an organization where it is historically proven, that delusions have existed and will continue to exist.  Truth can never be established on delusions!   
2 Thess 2:9-12 - "The coming of the lawless one…(that tramples down the anointed Temple of God – 2 Thess 2:3,4) will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth - the reality - and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth – the reality -  but have delighted in wickedness."
“delusion” – G4108 - objectively, fraudulence; subjectively, a straying from orthodoxy or piety:—deceit, to deceive, delusion, error.
Deception, delusion, error.  Which one does the GB admit to?  They admit to the one that people who refuse to look at reality, excuse them for.  
 
 
 

Hypothetical question: Do God’s people sin (make errors) more when they are disorganized or when they are organized?
The second hypothetical question: If all these various customs and dogmas and interpretations and religious traditions that had (was part of) various “assemblies of God” through the past, became questionable and rejected in WTJWorg today, what is the problem?
God, according to the idea presented by you and WTJWorg, has always had an "organization," but every real or imagined "organization" has never had a complete and accurate "truth." No “organization” has had “truth” in the past, and it does not exist today according to what is seen in any religion, including WTJWorg.
What can be concluded is that religious “truth” exists only for a while and that is while it is supported by religious leaders and believers. After a while these same or some other people change their “understanding of the truth” and (people) are always in a state of religious “error”.
It is fortunate for JW people that God repeatedly accepts every delusion that occurs in "his organization."
How long, how much longer, will it go like this?

I heard about that particular exchange. Or at least that such shenanigans had been reported on by Joe Rogan. (I don't really know much about the two being interviewed.) My older son is a lawyer who came by to help my wife and I do some gardening/planting today, and by coincidence he was quoting Joe Rogan today. I knew generally about some of the bogus academic papers, but had never listened closely enough to know exactly what these were about. It's a shame what kind of hypocrisy and shallow thinking can make up swaths of academia.
I couldn't care much less about modern gender issues, but the shallowness and hypocrisy of publishing what people want to hear has infected many other ideologies -- and has manipulated attitudes toward ideologies and their supposed "opposites." And of course, this can be taken advantage of by those who know what's going on, sometimes to promote something true, but usually with only enough truth to help leverage a more sinister agenda. Discovering "truth" becomes a bit more complex when we realize that even the studies and statistics it's supposedly based on can easily be misused -- or just made up out of thin air.  Starting with the conclusion and working backwards (or "creating" evidence) to make it believable has become such a common practice in support of ideology. 

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/14/987383916/u-s-health-officials-continue-pause-of-johnson-johnson-vaccine

I thought I'd just repeat this for anyone that thinks they are 'showing love' to others be taking that drug. 
The vaccine does not protect anyone, does not stop a person catching, carrying, passing on, the virus, so it proves to be just an experiment on people .  
Many older folk here in England are dying even after having the vaccine. 
 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/InH89amCpy7S/

Um..... this is all so confusing .....
It seems EVERYBODY except Senor Chavez is ignorant, scum, uneducated, clueless, stupid and animals.
........ What are the odds of THAT?

Further Example for illustration and argumentation:
Does the Bible support or condemn slavery? Does it approve of it somewhere in the text or is it neutral on that issue?
The OT text regulates slavery, meaning, it supports it as part of the social circumstances of the time. In the NT the matter of slavery is still relevant and nowhere is it described to be unacceptable to Christians. In fact, Paul also advises slaves to return to their master and be obedient (Ephesians 6). Isn't Paul "Christianly enlightened" so that he comes to understand that it is wrong to support slavery? Or did he obey the social injustices normal for the society of that time?
When did slavery begin to be abolished and why? Was it because of a sense of injustice and that it was contrary to the freedom God had given to man or because of the social changes in the political consciousness of those who participated in power? Or was it all mixed together?
So, Paul under “inspiration”, seems, supports slavery in the 1st century. What is inspired here? Paul's advice for slaves? Or is it inspired that the record became part of the Bible and shows how Paul gave counsel that was contrary to God’s love, but was already in accordance with the rights of slaveholders?
Well it looks like, whether something is right or wrong becomes a process that goes beyond the framework of "level of accurate knowledge", and biblical understanding and interpretation in the past and today. 
True Christian people in the past was good Christian despise their slaveholder position. Today JW Christian would be considered as bad Christian if would had slaves. What has changed? Bible text in Ephesians 6? Interpretation of same text? Or Human Society today?
 

Further Example for illustration and argumentation:
Does the Bible support or condemn slavery? Does it approve of it somewhere in the text or is it neutral on that issue?
The OT text regulates slavery, meaning, it supports it as part of the social circumstances of the time. In the NT the matter of slavery is still relevant and nowhere is it described to be unacceptable to Christians. In fact, Paul also advises slaves to return to their master and be obedient (Ephesians 6). Isn't Paul "Christianly enlightened" so that he comes to understand that it is wrong to support slavery? Or did he obey the social injustices normal for the society of that time?
When did slavery begin to be abolished and why? Was it because of a sense of injustice and that it was contrary to the freedom God had given to man or because of the social changes in the political consciousness of those who participated in power? Or was it all mixed together?
So, Paul under “inspiration”, seems, supports slavery in the 1st century. What is inspired here? Paul's advice for slaves? Or is it inspired that the record became part of the Bible and shows how Paul gave counsel that was contrary to God’s love, but was already in accordance with the rights of slaveholders?
Well it looks like, whether something is right or wrong becomes a process that goes beyond the framework of "level of accurate knowledge", and biblical understanding and interpretation in the past and today. 
True Christian people in the past was good Christian despise their slaveholder position. Today JW Christian would be considered as bad Christian if would had slaves. What has changed? Bible text in Ephesians 6? Interpretation of same text? Or Human Society today?
 

“Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”
28 And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, 29 for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." Matt 7:24-29
This is why people leave the organization.  They see the leadership floundering at keeping their "house" built on shady, weak "foolish" teachings, stable.  But it will fall, as Jesus promises in his words here.  Why do people want to go down with it?  Why are they so foolish?

I think you should say "It depends on level of obedience to" the GB and the Org.  Because that is the truth of it. 

Bible not condemns birthdays as it is clearly visible by few records in Bible text. Also, what is "birthday"? Start of new period of life, for kid and for family. And people wish/want to be reminded of that happy day. What is wrong with that?
Celebrating a wedding day is allowed in JW religion, but celebrating a child’s birthday is not allowed. A complete absurdity!

Bible not condemns birthdays as it is clearly visible by few records in Bible text. Also, what is "birthday"? Start of new period of life, for kid and for family. And people wish/want to be reminded of that happy day. What is wrong with that?
Celebrating a wedding day is allowed in JW religion, but celebrating a child’s birthday is not allowed. A complete absurdity!

... each member agrees to "disagree without being disagreeable." :)))

Thanks for respond and opinion.
If you pay attention to this down, it is clear that this JW Open Club  and Forum as such, not advocating WTJWorg as "only true religion". Even G. Jackson said that in crystal clear way in ARC testimony (perhaps/for sure that was for public only). I underlined a few sentences in Guidelines. What the Forum stands for is completely contrary to the hopes that are ideologically promoted in WTJWorg. 
A) WTJWorg argues that there will be no coexistence of religions in the “New World,” for there will be only one religion known today as "Jehovah's Witnesses".
B) GB does not allow their views to be questioned and challenged.
C) GB does not allow as much freedom of speech as is allowed at the Open Club. I do not mean the freedom of insult that happens from time to time, but the freedom of speech that provides enough arguments to question the existing ideology of WTJWorg.
Guidelines
In addition to the terms and policies upon signup, each member agrees to "disagree without being disagreeable."
This is a place where news and ideas are expressed, debated and information shared and as such ad hominem (personal) attacks  or labels are not permitted.
Every race, religion, age, disability, gender must coexist on here the same way they would as in a public square in New York Times Square. Illegal, threatening behavior will have you taken out of this public square.
If you are of a certain religion and do not like what someone posts in a different religion's forum you may down vote the post. However expect your views of the world to be respectfully challenged.
Truth only exists if it can stand the "test of fire" so to speak.
We strongly believe in freedom of speech (within legal limits) and want to see even minority view still have a place. Anything "illegal" constitutes anything you might be carted off of New York Times square for.
We hope this is clear enough and we will revisit this as needed. 

What do you think about the “group dynamics” on this Forum? :))

Bible not condemns birthdays as it is clearly visible by few records in Bible text. Also, what is "birthday"? Start of new period of life, for kid and for family. And people wish/want to be reminded of that happy day. What is wrong with that?
Celebrating a wedding day is allowed in JW religion, but celebrating a child’s birthday is not allowed. A complete absurdity!

Bible not condemns birthdays as it is clearly visible by few records in Bible text. Also, what is "birthday"? Start of new period of life, for kid and for family. And people wish/want to be reminded of that happy day. What is wrong with that?
Celebrating a wedding day is allowed in JW religion, but celebrating a child’s birthday is not allowed. A complete absurdity!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-9406081/Why-choose-family-Jehovahs-Witness.html
 Raised a Jehovah’s Witness, a prohibition on birthday parties was the tip of the iceberg when it came to the strict beliefs that governed every aspect of my life until I made the decision to step back from the religion a few years ago.   It’s one that has cost me dearly. Some members of my family no longer speak to me, and I’m now an outsider in the only community I’ve ever known. 
Behind closed doors, however, our family life was very different to most people’s. As Jehovah’s Witnesses, every moment of every day was governed by the rules of the faith. And they were endless. Witnesses are Christians who believe the Bible is historically accurate and interpret much of it literally as the basis for how they live their life. They believe the end of the world is coming and only they will survive Armageddon, passing into Paradise, while everyone else is killed.
Something I never enjoyed was ‘ministry’ – going with my parents every weekend from house to house, trying to convert others. Standing in the cold, while one door after another was closed in our faces, I just wanted to be at home.
As I became a teenager, my outlook began to change. I started to look at my life with more mature eyes and I saw so many paths closed to me. Friends from school were planning gap years abroad but I couldn’t do that because I’d miss weekly meetings and ministry. University was also discouraged because it’s seen as an improper use of time in the last days before Armageddon.
In 2015, the church was plunged into a child sex abuse scandal after an investigation in Australia revealed over 1,000 allegations had been reported to elders there since 1950 but not one passed on to the police. This didn’t surprise me, as Witnesses believe the authorities are controlled by Satan. But the idea that children had endured such horrors because members chose to protect one another made me feel sick.
I don’t wish I hadn’t been raised a Witness. Like every religion, there is good and bad in it, and I did have happy times among many good people. But it’s a religion that demands all of you, that generally favours obedience over truth, and I struggled with its lack of flexibility. Ironically, being taught I was different gave me the self-belief to take a step back and put myself and my family first.
I think this is a fabulous article and so true to life for many people. I don't care if she is trying to promote her book, some on this forum are doing likewise. 
The article is well worth a complete read. I've only quoted bits here. 
 
 

@xero Did you already put part one of the Abilene paradox up somewhere? If you did I missed it. Part 2 makes much more sense if we see that one first:
 

Good suggestions.
Of course, without getting into any of the specific details of those topics here, I think those suggestions can be properly discussed under this heading about individual and collective conscience.
Let's say that after consideration of the Bible principles involved along with prayer and meditation, a Witness conscientiously believes that he should speak up about a potentially wrong teaching.
Let's say, for example, it was anywhere from 1966 through 1973, and the Witness saw too much improper speculation about the end of 6000 years of human existence in 1975, or the length of a generation after 1914. Or let's say it was 1919 through 1925 and the Witness/BibleStudent saw too much improper speculation about 1925. Or anywhere from 1878 through 1914, when he or she saw too much improper speculation about what would happen in 1914. Or let's say it was 1929 through 1962 and the Witness saw that there was too much emphasis on the misapplication of Romans 13:1-7.
The conscience of an individual Witness might tell him he must speak up whenever he sees brothers going astray.
(Romans 15:14) . . .Now I myself am convinced about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are also full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and that you are able to admonish one another.
But there is also a "collective" conscience, or at least the "sense of what's right and what's wrong" held by the majority within a group. If we've been in business or corporate settings, we know that we are often just playing our parts as rank-and-file employees, not "partners." Therefore, our own sense of what's right and what's wrong is something we will often keep to ourselves. But the company might allow an anonymous "suggestion box" where comments and criticisms are supposedly welcomed. But there are still potential repercussions for speaking up even in a supposedly anonymous format. When the company CIO comes to you and says: "We know that had to be you who made that comment" we must always be prepared to give a reason for the hope within us, even in a secular setting.
Rather than speak up in a congregational setting, I prefer for now to just get my thoughts spelled out on a semi-anonymous forum. A forum where I can be dismissed easily as a crackpot by those who need that kind of protection for themselves. Being too clear can be seen as too pushy, too proud, too presumptuous. And accepting the inevitable wild chaos and mudslinging by those who are afraid of the criticism is another protection for those other readers who are not ready or willing to think about a doctrine.
But most Witnesses, I think, will be quick to think (or say) that anyone who thinks they can "admonish one another" when not bureaucratically assigned to make such admonishments is doing the wrong thing, not waiting on Jehovah, not being a good "corporate" citizen. He or she is being presumptuous even though every one of the wrong teachings I mentioned above was a case of the corporation speaking presumptuously. In retrospect, the corporation took passengers on an uncomfortable "trip to Abilene."
Immediately, many Witnesses will start making analogies to Uzzah, Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and compare to David's attitude about Saul.
But in the Christian setting we have a different analogy before us. There is no more organization in the seat of Moses where criticisms of that organization should remind us of Korah, for example. Effectively, all of us now make up the household of faith, as brothers. It's Jesus, not the organization, that is now in the place of Moses.
(Hebrews 3:5, 6) . . .Now Moses was faithful as an attendant in all the house of that One as a testimony of the things that were to be spoken afterward, 6 but Christ was faithful as a son over God’s house. We are His house if, indeed, we hold on firmly to our freeness of speech . . .
Effectively, we are all the corporation, the body. Even the least among us. As a body, or organization, we belong to one another.
(Romans 12:3-5)  so we, although many, are one body in union with Christ, but individually we are members belonging to one another.
(1 Corinthians 12:22-27) . . .On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are necessary, 23 and the parts of the body that we think to be less honorable we surround with greater honor, so our unseemly parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 . . . 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but its members should have mutual concern for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all the other members suffer with it; . . .
I think some will jump on the phrase "no division in the body" and think this means "groupthink" is OK. But it's obvious, in context, that it really means there should be no specific members of the body who divide themselves off to give the impression they are superior to the others. Practically this means that in some ways, Brother Lett should see "Brother Cesar Chavez" as superior to himself, and vice versa. Sister Anna should see you as superior, and you should see Anna as superior to you. It also means that you should be able to criticize Anna and Brother Lett and CC, just as they should be able to criticize you. Then we all accept each other's criticism and admonishment to the extent that it fits scripture and conscience.

I could be wrong, but I think what you're trying to say is that I should start a discussion about 1914, the Kingdom, and 607 BCE, and the parousia.