Srecko Sostar

(Hebrews 3:7) Therefore, just as the holy spirit says, "Today, if you listen to his voice . . . "
I was using this point about equating the term "the holy spirit says" with the direct use of Heberw Scriptures because it appears that although they used the "holy spirit" quotation as a basis for interpretation, Paul seemed to think they had interpreted it incorrectly. Paul directly opposed the idea that gentiles could be put under any kind of law, except the "law of undeserved kindness" i.e., grace and love. Paul even went so far as to say he learned nothing from this so-called "governing body" in which he included Peter, James, and John. He didn't care who they were, even if they had been angels from heaven. In fact, Paul directly opposes some of the exact wording that came from that meeting in Jerusalem when he uses an exact Greek term from that list in 1 Cor 8 and referred to the topic again in chapter 10:
1
Play (1 Cor 8:1) Now concerning food offered to idols: We know we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.   1 Cor 10:23-27 All things are lawful, but not all things are advantageous.e All things are lawful, but not all things build up.f 24  Let each one keep seeking, not his own advantage, but that of the other person.g25  Eat whatever is sold in a meat market, making no inquiry because of your conscience, 26  for “to Jehovah belong the earth and everything in it.”h 27  If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you, making no inquiry on account of your conscience.  

"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark;
                       the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."
- Plato

"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark;
                       the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."
- Plato

Anyone who's ever seen some of the society's early minutes from its board of directors could see this right away. Look up the name Rose Ball. I'd have to look up the date in my library, but at one time SHE was the vice president. I know Russell was letting her make decisions. Right? Look her up.
... I bothered to go look it up. In 1893 Charles Russell was president, Rose Ball was vice president, Maria Russell was sec treas. My guess is you won't find that piece of history just laying around.

Srecko,
That last video has a lot of the same points made by Fred Franz when he gave his infamous Sept 1975 speech at the 59th Gilead Graduation and railed and ranted against the idea of a governing body. Of course, he was preparing to take over as a governing individual, and thus opposed a governing body for the wrong reasons, it seems. But at least Brother Franz' points were all scriptural when he showed why a governing body was not scriptural.

I've never had the chance to pitch a tent, but I don't think that skill should be underestimated.
ARC said that WTJWorg had not reported a single case. What came to the police was because of individuals who reported the crime.
I will answer that in a "stupid" way: "The whole world is under the power of Satan. And people are imperfect. What to expect?". 
.....WTJWorg operate under same conditions.
Good answer?  
 

I came across some more interesting information that I would like to share with you.
You remember that we saw how God arranged the issue of dead animals for human consumption. He told the Israelis that they were not allowed to eat such animals, but that they could freely sell them to non-Israelis, thus commercializing the prohibition to their advantage.
However, I came across an article from the WT, October 15, 1981, which puts a negative light on that decree of God if it were to be applied today. 
Quotes (not in same order as in article):
...Finally, questions have arisen about disposing of animal carcasses that have blood in them. In Israel a person who found a carcass of an animal that died of itself could sell it to a foreigner who was not interested in keeping God’s law. (Deut. 14:21) It is noteworthy, however, that this provision was not made so that an Israelite might make a regular business of trafficking in blood or unbled meat. .........
....Accordingly, a farmer today might have to get rid of an unbled carcass, such as a cow that he found dead so that it was no longer possible to drain the blood. Or a hunter might find a dead animal in a trap. What could he do with such an unbled animal? Sell the carcass to a rendering plant? Sell the dead animal to a non-Christian who had some personal or commercial use for the flesh? The individual Christian would have to decide for himself after considering what the law of the land requires and factors such as those discussed above, including the value of having a good conscience before God and men.—Acts 24:16 -
.....Yet Christians know from the Bible that blood is not simply another biological product to be used in any way possible or profitable.
.....Do you see the point? Though they could eat neither blood nor fat, Jehovah said that they could put fat to uses other than in sacrifice. But God did not say that about blood. If blood was not put on the altar, it was to be poured out on the ground, thus returning the animal’s life to the Life-Giver.—Lev. 7:22-27.
Christians are not under the Mosaic law. (Rom. 7:6; Col. 2:13-16) We are, though, specifically commanded to “abstain . . . from blood.” And we surely ought to respect the sacredness of blood, realizing that our salvation has been made possible through the blood of Christ. (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:13, 14, 20) A Christian who deeply appreciates this does not need endless rules about what he should do with regard to commercial uses of blood.
Consider, for instance, the use of blood as fertilizer. When an Israelite hunter poured an animal’s blood out on the ground it was not in order to fertilize the soil. He was pouring it on the earth out of respect for blood’s sacredness. So, would a Christian with a similar appreciation of the significance of blood deliberately collect it from slaughtered animals so that he could use it as fertilizer? Hardly, for such commercialization of blood would not be in accord with deep respect for the life-representing value of blood.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1981770
 
We must be clear about one fact. WTJWorg equates animal blood with human blood. This is something that deserves further discussion. Because every blood prohibition mentioned in the Bible is related to animal blood and flesh.
In the past, the commercialization of blood was not prohibited. Today GB considers it something bad and non-Christian behavior. They go so far as to admonish JWs that it would be improper to feed our pets with the blood of other animals.
The GB literally interprets the commandment "to abstain from the blood" of the flesh of animals to mean that the animal must be slaughtered and that the blood must be bled, poured on the ground.
Now the problem begins when this teaching (Bible command) should be applied to human blood. Obviously, GB believes that other rules apply here. But they didn't explain why.
If all blood is to be "poured on earth", how is it possible that GB has no objection to human blood being collected and commercialized?
How is it possible that GB thinks that JWs are allowed to use blood, even some parts of blood, when that blood has come out of the body and therefore cannot be used for any purpose other than the one that God intended for it? God intended the use of blood only as a sacrifice.
Is the blood that people donate (or charge for it, anyway) a kind of act that implies some kind of sacrifice (for humanitarian reasons) for another human being?
 

I came across some more interesting information that I would like to share with you.
You remember that we saw how God arranged the issue of dead animals for human consumption. He told the Israelis that they were not allowed to eat such animals, but that they could freely sell them to non-Israelis, thus commercializing the prohibition to their advantage.
However, I came across an article from the WT, October 15, 1981, which puts a negative light on that decree of God if it were to be applied today. 
Quotes (not in same order as in article):
...Finally, questions have arisen about disposing of animal carcasses that have blood in them. In Israel a person who found a carcass of an animal that died of itself could sell it to a foreigner who was not interested in keeping God’s law. (Deut. 14:21) It is noteworthy, however, that this provision was not made so that an Israelite might make a regular business of trafficking in blood or unbled meat. .........
....Accordingly, a farmer today might have to get rid of an unbled carcass, such as a cow that he found dead so that it was no longer possible to drain the blood. Or a hunter might find a dead animal in a trap. What could he do with such an unbled animal? Sell the carcass to a rendering plant? Sell the dead animal to a non-Christian who had some personal or commercial use for the flesh? The individual Christian would have to decide for himself after considering what the law of the land requires and factors such as those discussed above, including the value of having a good conscience before God and men.—Acts 24:16 -
.....Yet Christians know from the Bible that blood is not simply another biological product to be used in any way possible or profitable.
.....Do you see the point? Though they could eat neither blood nor fat, Jehovah said that they could put fat to uses other than in sacrifice. But God did not say that about blood. If blood was not put on the altar, it was to be poured out on the ground, thus returning the animal’s life to the Life-Giver.—Lev. 7:22-27.
Christians are not under the Mosaic law. (Rom. 7:6; Col. 2:13-16) We are, though, specifically commanded to “abstain . . . from blood.” And we surely ought to respect the sacredness of blood, realizing that our salvation has been made possible through the blood of Christ. (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:13, 14, 20) A Christian who deeply appreciates this does not need endless rules about what he should do with regard to commercial uses of blood.
Consider, for instance, the use of blood as fertilizer. When an Israelite hunter poured an animal’s blood out on the ground it was not in order to fertilize the soil. He was pouring it on the earth out of respect for blood’s sacredness. So, would a Christian with a similar appreciation of the significance of blood deliberately collect it from slaughtered animals so that he could use it as fertilizer? Hardly, for such commercialization of blood would not be in accord with deep respect for the life-representing value of blood.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1981770
 
We must be clear about one fact. WTJWorg equates animal blood with human blood. This is something that deserves further discussion. Because every blood prohibition mentioned in the Bible is related to animal blood and flesh.
In the past, the commercialization of blood was not prohibited. Today GB considers it something bad and non-Christian behavior. They go so far as to admonish JWs that it would be improper to feed our pets with the blood of other animals.
The GB literally interprets the commandment "to abstain from the blood" of the flesh of animals to mean that the animal must be slaughtered and that the blood must be bled, poured on the ground.
Now the problem begins when this teaching (Bible command) should be applied to human blood. Obviously, GB believes that other rules apply here. But they didn't explain why.
If all blood is to be "poured on earth", how is it possible that GB has no objection to human blood being collected and commercialized?
How is it possible that GB thinks that JWs are allowed to use blood, even some parts of blood, when that blood has come out of the body and therefore cannot be used for any purpose other than the one that God intended for it? God intended the use of blood only as a sacrifice.
Is the blood that people donate (or charge for it, anyway) a kind of act that implies some kind of sacrifice (for humanitarian reasons) for another human being?
 

Hadn’t thought of that. Even if Aaron had caught Moses’ flash of temper, he might have thought, ‘I owe him one.’

“Brazen Conduct” is one of those nebulous indefinite and non-defined terms that can in the hands of the inexperienced inflict TREMENDOUS damage to people with strong personalities.
Often with BRAZEN disregard for reality, or consequences.
 

Actually, I found the book “Shepherding The Flock Of God“ to be quite valuable.
I found absolutely nothing wrong with it, having read every word from cover to cover, although the part dealing about brazen conduct was creepy and a catchall for anything the Elders didn’t like, like when you confronted them with overreach.
”Brazen Conduct”. (?)
What I did not like is that it was top-secret. What I did not like is that sisters were not supposed to know of it’s existence, or touch it..
How would you feel if you were dragged into court for some traffic offense or some criminal offense and you wanted to know what you were charged with, and the court or the police said I’m sorry I’m not allowed to tell you what law you broke or to know in advance what they are, and you’re not allowed to know how the proceeding is going to go against you.
SURPRISE!!
And if you’re convicted it’s roughly the equivalent of being executed, Because you’ll be evicted from the Congregation from which is the source of life.
Secrecy ALWAYS begets tyranny! 

To simplify. Joshua David was not at the Court, but spoke in front of the camera answering questions from journalist. He was speaking to listeners, many of whom were ordinary, averagely educated people. But regardless of their education, they would understand if JD explained to them that "freedom of conscience among JWs" is not unlimited, and that they must obey GBs orders or they will be excommunicated.

This publication is confidential. If an elder is deleted  he should turn over this publication  to be destroyed, and any electronic copies in his possession should be deleted.
The book deals with "legal" matters within the religious community. If a citizen of a country wants to know what the "legal" system/procedure of the country in which he lives looks like, he can easily get information.
What reason is there that JWs cannot get information on what the "legal" system/procedure of spiritual Paradise looks like?

Your previous comment, which prompted my reaction at the time, reminded me of GB member GJ when he stated before the ARC that JWs are so capable of reading the Bible and seeing the difference whether GB is teaching them correctly or not.
It means that ordinary JW people are so spiritually mature and intellectually capable of distinguishing "truth from lies" that they don't really need GB as "channel and source of interpretations" . If the student is able to reason better than the teacher then why all this "theocratic hierarchy" where only a few (elders) are "trained to use the Word correctly"? If, according to GJ, JW members are able to discern some teaching, based on reading the Bible, then that's it.
Oh, it's terrible what JW clergy do with followers.

To simplify. Joshua David was not at the Court, but spoke in front of the camera answering questions from journalist. He was speaking to listeners, many of whom were ordinary, averagely educated people. But regardless of their education, they would understand if JD explained to them that "freedom of conscience among JWs" is not unlimited, and that they must obey GBs orders or they will be excommunicated.

…

Hmmmm … Cornelius was accepted by God although he was not a Christian OR Jew?
Hmmmm…. considering he was a Roman Soldier, that kinda gives “new legs” to “… render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s ”  … doesn’t it?

Today, for the first time, I saw the true meaning of this passage from Acts. All the time I was a JW I thought that line, probably due to the influence of WTJWorg, meant that God is impartial in the context of accepting people to Christianity regardless of background. However, there was something hidden here that you have brilliantly revealed. Cornelius or any other individual outside of Judaism could have been accepted by God outside of the religio-legal system given through Moses.
However, we have one problem regarding Cornelius. WTJWorg refers to him as a "Jewish Proselyte" in its publications. Some other sources say that he was not a proselyte. That detail would be important to more easily determine its/his position with regard to the diet we are talking about.

Cornelius was new to Christianity. But Cornelius was not a new worshiper of God.
There is an untenable misconception that once Judaism came to exist there were no worshipers of God otherwise, until Christianity came along. That was never the case. This was a revelation for Peter too. "At this Peter began to speak, and he said: 'Now I truly understand that God is not partial, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.'". (Ref Acts 10)
A person that was not a Jew did not have to convert to Judaism in order to worship God, unless they opted to do so.
Cornelius was not an adherent to Judaism (he was a true Gentile) yet he was a worshiper of God, and God recognized his worship aside from Judaism. God also recognized Cornelius' worship aside from Christianity. God acknowledged the acceptability of his worship even prior to baptism. (Acts 19)
All worshipers of God since the flood (which would include men like Cornelius) would have been obligated to keep the decree issued to Noah regarding blood. Yet, other than Jews, God did not require anyone to abstain from eating the unbled dead carcass of an animal found dead, such as is depicted at Deut 14:21. Non-Jewish worshipers could have literally purchased such meat from Jews, and specifically to eat it. Cornelius likely used such flesh as food at one point or another during his life. Whether he did or didn't does not even matter. What matters is that he could have if he wanted to because he was never prohibited from it. Such flesh is as edible as any other flesh or vegetation, so long as it's not become too contaminated with dangerous pathogens.

Glossary
Misrepresentation
An untrue statement of fact or law made by Party A (or its agent) to Party B, which induces Party B to enter a contract with Party A thereby causing Party B loss. An action for misrepresentation can be brought in respect of a misrepresentation of fact or law.
There are three types of misrepresentation:
Fraudulent misrepresentation: where a false representation has been made knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly as to its truth.
Negligent misrepresentation: a representation made carelessly and in breach of duty owed by Party A to Party B to take reasonable care that the representation is accurate. If no "special relationship" exists, there may be a misrepresentation under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 where a statement is made carelessly or without reasonable grounds for believing its truth.
Innocent misrepresentation: a representation that is neither fraudulent nor negligent.
The remedies for misrepresentation are rescission and/or damages. For fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, the claimant may claim rescission and damages. For innocent misrepresentation, the court has a discretion to award damages in lieu of rescission; the court cannot award both (see section 2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967). For more information, see Practice note, Misrepresentation and Practice note, Damages for misrepresentation: an overview.
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-107-6848?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true
 
Public materials that are readily available and visible to any JW or non-JW (WTJWorg's official digital content website) when viewed with prior knowledge of the Organization, exhibit all of these elements listed in the definition of "misrepresentation."
Once again briefly. JW brother Joshua clearly used the term "blood transfusion". He should know about all those blood finesse. So, in my opinion, he deliberately omitted to explain in detail what WTJWorg means by the term "blood transfusion", what is blood and what is not blood according to the GB interpretation.
He had all the time in the world to explain it to reporters and listeners. Since he did not do it in the clear and only correct way (the bare truth), it means that he DECEIVED (intentionally) the public when he spoke about the freedom of decision of JW members about "blood issue". 
JW lawyers and JW members do a similar thing in many courts when they give written or oral testimony in which they use "theoretical warfare" methods. 
About "Shepherd" book. If that book is so "public", conduct a member survey and ask how many have read the book (JW men, women and children).
 

The use of the "theocratic war" method falls under the INSTRUCTION that comes from the GB. The decision as to whether to use it is not a suggestion left to so called individual "conscience". 

…. um …. the phrase is “theocratic warfare”, where you are allowed to lie if you believe the “enemy” does not need to be told the truth.…. and apparently that includes the Brotherhood when it is deemed we are not entitled to the truth …. the “Shepherding the Flock of God” Elders Handbook being the classic example.

GB says to people; read the Bible with the help of our publications and you will see  how Jesus trust us.
 
 

Glossary
Misrepresentation
An untrue statement of fact or law made by Party A (or its agent) to Party B, which induces Party B to enter a contract with Party A thereby causing Party B loss. An action for misrepresentation can be brought in respect of a misrepresentation of fact or law.
There are three types of misrepresentation:
Fraudulent misrepresentation: where a false representation has been made knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly as to its truth.
Negligent misrepresentation: a representation made carelessly and in breach of duty owed by Party A to Party B to take reasonable care that the representation is accurate. If no "special relationship" exists, there may be a misrepresentation under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 where a statement is made carelessly or without reasonable grounds for believing its truth.
Innocent misrepresentation: a representation that is neither fraudulent nor negligent.
The remedies for misrepresentation are rescission and/or damages. For fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, the claimant may claim rescission and damages. For innocent misrepresentation, the court has a discretion to award damages in lieu of rescission; the court cannot award both (see section 2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967). For more information, see Practice note, Misrepresentation and Practice note, Damages for misrepresentation: an overview.
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-107-6848?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true
 
Public materials that are readily available and visible to any JW or non-JW (WTJWorg's official digital content website) when viewed with prior knowledge of the Organization, exhibit all of these elements listed in the definition of "misrepresentation."
Once again briefly. JW brother Joshua clearly used the term "blood transfusion". He should know about all those blood finesse. So, in my opinion, he deliberately omitted to explain in detail what WTJWorg means by the term "blood transfusion", what is blood and what is not blood according to the GB interpretation.
He had all the time in the world to explain it to reporters and listeners. Since he did not do it in the clear and only correct way (the bare truth), it means that he DECEIVED (intentionally) the public when he spoke about the freedom of decision of JW members about "blood issue". 
JW lawyers and JW members do a similar thing in many courts when they give written or oral testimony in which they use "theoretical warfare" methods. 
About "Shepherd" book. If that book is so "public", conduct a member survey and ask how many have read the book (JW men, women and children).