Srecko Sostar

I hope they don't start supplying Caleb and Sophia dolls to the bethelites.

Who needs a good reminder?

Fabulous. Nice to see some humour in the ranks. 
 

Would you give your life for your errant brother?
 
What ... like in a hostage situation where "they" are going to shoot one, and I volunteer to take someones' place, so he might be spared?
I had a Brother in good standing ask me this, circa 1980.
Jeff Murphy, who we called "Murph the Surf", as we were driving to a large monthly Witness Yard  Party Gathering in Escondido, California many years ago asked me this.
  As we were driving from Hollywood to Escondido, his exact question was "Would you take a bullet for me Tom?"  He was surprised when I answered ... no.
I further explained that I would risk my life to save his, if there was a reasonable chance of success, but I would not deliberately step into a bullet to save his life.
He asked "Why not?"
I replied that I was reasonably assured what I was going to do with my life, and if I "took a bullet" for him, and he WASTED his life, then I would also have wasted mine.
I will defend any innocent person with my life, but I hope not to throw it away.
"Stuff Happens", like when the back-yard party gathering bar closed at 10PM, while I was making my acquaintance with a Sister on the other side of the back yard, and when I got back they had packed away my large bottle of Southern Comfort I had brought to the party.
I havn't seen Jeff in about 40 or more years, but I never saw my bottle of Southern Comfort again.
 
 

I can accept how faithful JW member "understood"  WT Policy in this issue.
But if dfd or dsd person are still in the "WT frames/chains of such understanding" then her/his mind are far from normal and healthy mental state. Because he/she dance on same music together with JW member who dictate his/your behavior in relation to him. And that is not good.
  

I had already knows this application with/to  Samaritan. My questions was  for those who forget what is answer :))
Thanks to you they hear now. It is better that this is heard from someone else here, not from me.   

General idea of going throughout personal inside trouble of mind and soul as cure is acceptable. General idea how society, people around such person, family or some group have role in this is also acceptable. General idea how some methods in this process are necessary, identical in approach, painful for all involved are also acceptable. 
But because every person is unique, and how similar stuff they going through is not the same stuff in everyone life, has specific details for every one in particular, people who "helping" need to adapt their approach and methods to each case in a special way.
WT scenario in video made "special effects", because The Company determined for each actor what to play and why he/she would have such words, feelings and thoughts and such reaction/interaction. In video case daughter, allegedly, need family surroundings and/or just parents voice "and this small dose will satisfy her"!!
What if she had been in need for more then a "small dose"?!. Some persons fall in desperation, is suicidal emotions. What if daughter made suicide after unanswered call?? Because this can be very real Life scenario that WT want to escape for manipulative reasons on convention's public. What would parents, and mother especially, who not want to respond on phone,  think of WT helping methods "for the greater and long term benefit of a person" after funeral of their daughter?? 

Here is the answer:
A real world conversation with a JW....

"As long as you're not disfellowshipped..."
This is a perfect demonstration of conditional love.

As Jesus said we should treat disfellowshipped ones as "man of the nations and as a tax collector", then I'l leave you to work out the conscientious application of the principles of his Good Samaritan parable in such a case.

AllenSmith34 said:
Are we overextending ourselves in this scenario? Are we talking about Someone's duty as a paid individual to help others? or is it FAITH based?
There are certain aspects of your post, that is expected for those that get paid to help.
If my memory served me, Jesus told how he lay life for his FRIENDS, the 12 (even Judas is in it).12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.14 You are my friends if you do what I command. ("if you do what I command" ... sort of conditioned love?)
 
And now we shall go to Romans chapter 5;
6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die.8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. ("while we still sinners" .....sort of not conditioned love!)
To continue; Did Jesus here "OVEREXTENDING" his scenario? He was not gave life ONLY for his 12 friends or some imagine future "Christian brothers". He gave life for all people. And inside all people exists all sorts of people - good, bad, sinners, righteous and unrighteous, JW, Catholic, Republicans, Democrats.... and whoever else.
Who have duty???.... Who have faith???....................NO, question is  Who have love? ------ FOR LAY DOWN OWN LIFE FOR YOUR?    
Please, what you have to correct in this??!!
Who is unfit in good deed for save your life from fire? Fireman?
:)) Allen, Allen

@Srecko Sostar I agree. Period.
I'd also add this situation mention in an old Awake magazine:
*** g81 10/22 p. 6 “I Survived the Sinking of the Titanic” *** “The last lifeboat was being loaded. A middle-aged gentleman was with his very young, pregnant wife. He helped her into the lifeboat, then looked back to the deck and saw others wanting to get aboard. He kissed his wife good-bye, and, returning to the deck, grabbed the first person in his path. Fortunately, I was there in the right place at the right time and he put me into the lifeboat. I screamed for my sister who had frozen from fright. With the help of others, she also was pushed into the lifeboat. Who was the gallant man who performed this kind act? We were told he was John Jacob Astor IV. At that time he was 45 years old and his wife, Madeleine, was 19. They were traveling to the United States because they wanted their child to be born there. Many newspaper stories were written that told how John Jacob Astor gave up his life for a young immigrant. 
  I personally consider this gentleman a lot better than me,  I'm quite sure I'd find some reasons to stay at the boat. And yes, this fine man wasn't a JW.
Regarding the video about the mother refusing answer her daugther call, what can I say? It's a shame. I also suppose that faithful servants of all times weren't always happy with the behavior of co-worshipers, not even the prominent ones.

You are a thinking person. I'm sure that spending time in prison for reasons of conscience or religion will do that to you. I don't believe that Jehovah will forget the good works of all persons and religious persuasions. And I'm not one who believes we as Witnesses are handling every possible Christian ministry in the world that helps attract persons to Christianity. We are Christians, and we try to be the best we know how to be. We handle a particular ministry of evangelizing and teaching spreading knowledge and appreciation of the Bible, and of doing good for one another, especially those related to us in the faith, and we look for others who will share our particular faith and hope (paradise earth, etc.). Others may handle some of the charitable ministries in a better way, we constantly try to improve our teaching ministry. This takes nothing away from Albert Barnes or Matthew Henry or Tyndale or Wycliffe etc, who were key players in the past, and I would not doubt that there are many  individuals who excel at Christian teaching today, too. As you know the Watchtower often quotes from scholars and experts in many fields, including history, theology and Biblical studies, manuscripts, ancient languages, etc. 
 

This brings up the VERY real question ... and very IMPORTANT question ...
Is it REALLY "love", when you can turn it completely on and off like a light switch?
My answer is NO!
You cannot as a human being do that, and be sane.

... at least with "worldly people", we don't cut our love on and off ... on and off ... on and off ... like a light switch  as we do with our own spiritual family as they get df'd and reinstated.
The "worldly people" seem to have the advantage!

This is "The Truth" too :))

I can agree with general idea you present. 
For sure, we can find the truth on various places, among all sort of group of people. We can find the truth  even on the African plains, where the lion must eat the zebra to remain alive. And a zebra must exist so that a lion may have something to eat. And this "evidence" is a "proof" how The Truth looks like on this level. From this example, i am sure, you can understand where my thinking goes sometimes.
So, we on Earth have many Truths, with many Shapes and many Sorts. 2+2=4 is also The Truth. Hurricane Florence is also The Truth and affect people's life. Bad inclination of human heart is The Truth as also it is compassion from the same hearth. Catholic also have some Truths. What shall we do with so many Truths?? And what shall we do with something that looks like Truth? What we shall do with something that stopped to be Truth? What we shall do with Half Truths, what with Lies? 
I can believe how JW, but also other smaller denominations, religions, groups of all kind can build connections in a way you described. Even worldly school children can make positive connections with children in came class or in another town or country. There is a mutual visit of a student from one school to another. Some of them manage to create lasting links.  I believe that it is case with the people of other social groups, religious and non-religious, too.
I had the opportunity to travel and visit JW in other European countries. And some of JW from the other countries met me here in Croatia and invited me to visit. Some acquaintances lasted longer, some shorter. When I visited some assemblies in other countries, some JWs came to meet me, some did not care about having a guest who came for the first time in their congregation. Some people are getting in touch, and some do not. Certainly, human relationships are complex and something attracts us and something rejects us from others. That is life. And our fantasy and imagination and expectations are something else, even in a "worldwide brotherhood". 
I think the Bible has several various paragraphs on this subject, about giving oneself to others, even to the point of giving life. At this level, there may be a problem because it is spoken, taught, by almost all people, and also by other religions, not just JW; "God loves all people to such a degree that He gives his Son to die for Human, Jesus loves all people to such a degree that he has given life to the righteous and the unrighteous." 
This could mean that JW should give life not only for his brother in faith but also for a brother who is not in faith.                                                     What we shall do with this "Truth"?

This is "The Truth" too :))

Even if everything we taught doctrinally was incomplete or tainted with some error, I could still find truth in this statement just quoted. You can find waters of truth at your local Kingdom Hall, because there are people of varying backgrounds and age and former beliefs who have come together to learn and be motivated by Christian activity and a Christian lifestyle. It's the "heart" (desires/motivation) of the individuals that makes it pure. Morally, we are a very clean people, and we give morality a very high priority.
There is a kind of joy in the oneness of purpose of the worldwide association of brothers and sisters. Racism and ageism is reduced to a minimum. Anyone would be willing to help out any other one. We are built up and encouraged by the experiences of others. In dire circumstances, we know we will be offering extra support to our brothers, and we can expect support from our brothers. We have come very close to recreating the first-century Christianity (even with its expectation flaws) in the twenty-first century.
Of course, I know there are specific exceptions here and there to all the good things we could say about Witnesses in general. And if we have been in other churches, religions or ideological associations, then we probably know that many of the things we cherish about the worldwide brotherhood are available even in a secular social club or band of brothers in an army platoon. But I think ours can go a little wider and deeper, meaning that we have support in a wider array of life situations and circumstances. And as to "depth," ideally, we should be willing to protect one another, or even give our life for one another as if we were all members of the same literal family.
As to doctrines, 85% or more appear absolutely correct to me. We still thirst for Bible knowledge from trusted sources. We assemble not just for the association, but because we hope to learn something new or be fortified anew by something we have nearly forgotten. But it's true we are often ready to believe all things to the point of excessive gullibility. Yet, if it were really true that the negative/positive ratio were 85%-15% then we'd be 'of all men most to be pitied.' But even on a day when I'm most ready to "make sure of all things," I can still run through one of the most recent Watchtowers and find very little that moves the needle on my "Beroean" sensors. I think it's our duty to point out where something seems unreasonable to us (or if the "food" might be spoiled now and then) but this should have almost no effect on our relationship with our brothers and sisters.
I'd love to see us remove what appears to be some of the more obvious errors from our doctrine, and that's my focus on this forum of course. We don't have that ability to discuss on jw.org or in the congregation.

Thanks for asking ....
Here, near Charlotte, it was overcast today with no rain, and a 15 mph breeze.  Now, at approx. 12:30 AM Saturday, it's about the same, with no discernible wind noise.  Tomorrow it is an 85% chance of rain, with maximum 30 mph winds forecast. Sunday forecast is 30 mph and 100% chance of rain.
I bought 26 candles in  glass tubes, 5 square yellow flashlights,  24 cans of beans and 60, 2.5 gal. freezer bags to fill with water.and 45 cans of dog food ( for relatives if they have to come over ... so they will leave ASAP).
We live on a heavily wooded lot with very large trees, which I suppose will be the greatest danger, falling into the house, but we shall see.
In 1954 I was 6 years old when Hurricane Hazel tore through Richmond Virginia,  and I went out and tied myself to a tree with a garden hose, and watched roofs peel off and flop down the street.
It was fun!
.... my Mom was not pleased .
 
 
 

In my opinion it smacks of the kind of legalism that Paul railed against. I have even heard it explained as a perceived need to treat fellow workers as children who are expected to go wildly crazy or just lazy if they aren't given a set of legalistic rules to follow.
Here is how Franz/Knorr put it in the July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205), just months after Rutherford died:
Now, the apostle says, Jehovah speaks to us through his
Son. (Heb. 1: 1, 2) The Son has returned as King; he
has come to his temple. He has appointed his "faithful
and wise servant", who is his visible mouthpiece, and says
to those who are privileged to represent him upon the
earth, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in
all the world for a witness unto all nations" ...
These expressions of God's will by his King and through
his established agency constitute his law or rule of action
for the "faithful and wise servant" and for their goodwill
companions today... The Lord breaks down our
organization instructions further . . . . He says, 'Let us assign the field,
the world, to special pioneers, regular pioneers and companies
of Jehovah's witnesses. . . . He [the Lord]
says the requirements for special pioneers shall be 175
hours and 50 back-calls per month, which should develop
into a reasonable number of studies; and for regular
pioneers 150 hours and as many back-calls and studies as
can be properly developed during that time. And for
company publishers he says, 'Let us make a quota of 60
hours and 12 back-calls and at least one study a week
for each publisher.' These directions come to us from
the Lord through his established agency directing what
is required of us; . . . This expression of the Lord's will should be
the end of all controversy. It is for your good that these
requirements are made; for thereby you are enabled to
prove your integrity and magnify the Lord's name.
These directions from the Lord come to us as individuals
and as collective units called "companies". ...
They are to carry on all the forms of magazine work in
that assignment. ...
... The Lord through his "faithful and wise servant" now
states to us, "Let us cover our territory four times in six
months." That becomes our organization instructions and
has the same binding force on us that his statement to
the Logos had when he said, ''Let us make man in our
image." It is our duty to accept this additional instruction
and obey it. 

In my last post I wanted to make it clear that there is more than one way to set up a kind of equivalence so that one might be seen as the near or practical equivalent of the Lord himself. I ended up mixing up all these methods into the examples I used in the last post, rather then itemize them clearly.
One way is to just claim that you represent the Lord, and make it clear that "evil" will be called down upon those who disagree. Another way is to allow others to say outright that if anyone goes against yourself (Rutherford, Russell, Governing Body, Pope, etc) that they have gone against the Lord. Another is to take the specific things that have been attributed to yourself and repeating the point that it was actually the Lord who did these things. (Rutherford made getting rid of the elder arrangement a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. He made the false doctrine of the higher authorities a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. He and later writers both claimed that it was Jehovah who "caused" the Millions/1925 campaign. et cetera.) Also, I didn't put specific quotes (evidence) of the cases where very specific rules put into place by Rutherford and later by F.Franz (N.Knorr) were attributed to the Lord. In the past I already shared some of the ones about Rutherford arguing that they should still keep selling the remaining stocks of obsolete books from Russell with "campaigns" even up to about 1933. I'll point back to that post if anyone cares to see it again.
For some reason, more recent versions of WTS history have tried to place this time back in 1927:
*** ka chap. 17 p. 347 par. 33 The “Slave” Who Lived to See the “Sign” ***
Later in the year 1927 any remaining stocks of the six volumes of Studies in the Scriptures by Russell and of The Finished Mystery were disposed of among the public. In the next post I'll include at least one of the quotes about just how strictly we were to hold to the idea that the Society speaks for the Lord.

Yes. Not worth an argument. I would gladly admit that I [evidently] use the terms a bit differently than you, and that there can be a close relationship between the two terms. I skipped the synonyms since those are not intended to be equivalent definitions. I can also see that those two definitions you provided might not be saying anything different from the point I was making. I take that above definition of "proof" to mean that proof is not the same as evidence, but it is only the evidence that establishes a fact or the truth of a statement.
I went to OED and must admit that there was nothing at all wrong about the way you used the word, and therefore I'm sorry I overreacted on that point. Although I never found the word "proof" in any of the current definitions of evidence, until I got to a special definition #5, I did see that the word "proof" can sometimes be synonomous with evidence. (Also, even the 5th definition of "evidence" is the idea of facts tending to prove.)
EVIDENCE
I. 1.I.1 The quality or condition of being evident; clearness, evidentness.
b.I.1.b in evidence [after F. en évidence]: actually present; prominent, conspicuous. †2.I.2 Manifestation; display. Obs.
II.II That which manifests or makes evident. 3.II.3 An appearance from which inferences may be drawn; an indication, mark, sign, token, trace. Also †to take evidence: to prognosticate. to bear, give evidence: to afford indications.
b.II.3.b In religious language: Signs or tokens of personal salvation. †4.II.4 Example, instance (frequent in Gower). Also, to take (an) evidence. Obs.
5.II.5 Ground for belief; testimony or facts tending to prove or disprove any conclusion.
But the definition of "proof" in the OED was more generous to your view, allowing even contributing evidence to be called proof:
PROOF
Signification. I.B.I From prove v. in the sense of making good, or showing to be true.
1. a.B.I.1.a That which makes good or proves a statement; evidence sufficient (or contributing) to establish a fact or produce belief in the certainty of something. †to make proof: to have weight as evidence (obs.).
2.B.I.2 The action, process, or fact of proving, or establishing the truth of, a statement; the action of evidence in convincing the mind; demonstration.
4. a.B.II.4.a The action or an act of testing or making trial of anything, or the condition of being tried; test, trial, experiment; examination, probation; assay. Often in phrases to bring, put, set, etc. (something) in, on, to (the, †a) proof.
-------------------
Also, I mentioned that Rutherford sometimes wrote of the idea in the way I was using it: that it should take multiple instances of good, solid evidence before we can truly say we have proof. But Rutherford didn't always use it this way either. But I still think it's clear that Rutherford reserved the word "proof" for his own idea of "definiteness" and strength of the evidence. For example, Rutherford made several statements to the same effect as this one about the year 1799 in the book: "The Harp of God" (1921)
"Twelve-hundred sixty years from A.D. 539 brings us to 1799--another proof that 1799 definitely marks the beginning of 'the time of the end." (p.230)

I think you might be confusing "evidence" and "proof." Rutherford, in more than one article, showed he knew the difference. He knew that evidence was not proof. But he was anxious to use this idea of the ability to draw stronger and stronger conclusions if a "second witness" and "third witness" to his idea were available. The Biblical idea of requiring a second witness, and the idea that a three-fold cord cannot be broken were utilized to make evidence seem like the equivalent of proof. Of course, most of these multiple evidences had actually been bent a bit to support each other. Today, it's easy to go back and see "confirmation bias" in his sloppy reasoning.
But he had another means of covering over the weaknesses of his evidence which had probably helped him to convince himself that he was right. And it would definitely draw over many of the persons who had remained hold-outs on the basis of unconvincing evidence. This was the fact that his "cause" (conclusion) was considered righteous and he had therefore associated his conclusion with faith. He was able to use "faith" in God's promises as the final glue to hold his weak "cord(s)" together, and hide its flaws, even from himself. This worked for Bible Students who followed him after Russell because they were anxious to believe that these men and their "Society" represented "the Lord."
Rutherford had already been accepting of the idea that he had been made the equivalent of the "Lord." This is the easiest explanation to me as to why so many people would merely accept the flimsy evidence without questioning. You don't question the Lord!
Some later examples might show you what I mean.
*** w74 11/1 p. 651 How Would You Treat an Ambassador? ***
The question is, How does the individual treat a visible representative of Christ who has clearly shown that he truly represents Christ? *** w55 6/1 p. 333 Part 11—Restoration of Theocratic Organization *** [quoting from 1938]
. . . the following was the resolution suggested to and adopted by all congregations who desired to be welded together under the Society’s theocratic leadership: “We, the company of God’s people taken out for his name, and now at ___________, recognize that God’s government is a pure theocracy and that Christ Jesus is at the temple and in full charge and control of the visible organization of Jehovah, as well as the invisible, and that ‘THE SOCIETY’ is the visible representative of the Lord on earth, and we therefore request ‘The Society’ to organize this company for service and to appoint the various servants thereof, so that all of us may work together in peace, righteousness, harmony and complete unity. We attach hereto a list of names of persons in this company that to us appear more fully mature and who therefore appear to be best suited to fill the respective positions designated for service.” Hints of the impact of this idea are found in the kind of reasoning we still use today, even when something turns out to be wrong. For example. The idea was that the Lord [Jehovah] came to his temple in 33 CE, through Jesus and his message. Then the Lord came to his temple again in 1918.
*** w55 11/15 pp. 692-693 par. 15 “Jehovah Is in His Holy Temple” ***
Since the preparatory messenger had come, it was therefore in Jesus’ day that the Lord Jehovah was to come suddenly to the temple . . .  He [Jesus] came as the visible representative of the Lord Jehovah, and by putting his spirit on Jesus Jehovah was with him in coming to that temple at Jerusalem in 33 (A.D.). . . . Has the Lord Jehovah now come to his spiritual temple with his Angel of the covenant? Christendom says No! . . . Down here Jesus came and began the cleansing in the spring of 1918 three and a half years after the birth of God’s kingdom in 1914 and the heavenly enthronement of Jesus Christ as reigning King then. Let Christendom deny that 1918 is the date of the Lord Jehovah’s sudden coming to his spiritual temple as the God of judgment, accompanied by his Angel of the covenant Jesus Christ. . . . Jehovah caused to be preached from 1918 onward the startling public message “Millions Now Living Will Never Die,” and in 1923 he provided the interpretation of “the parable of the sheep and the goats.” The foundation of this idea is good: that Jesus would inspect his congregation and act according to good judgment, and that his true followers would be tested and disciplined in order to meet the challenges of the last days. But notice how the idea that the Society is the representative of the Lord becomes a reason not to question even the specific dates assigned to such a doctrine, which would otherwise be a healthful teaching. Wicked, unfaithful Christendom denies the 1918 date and therefore they come under the judgment of Jehovah. It was Jehovah who caused the preaching of what we now know to be a false prophecy. So how could anyone have questioned a false prophecy or false doctrine under this kind of bullying pressure and name-calling?
As it turns out, of course, just a couple of years ago the Society finally dropped the idea that Jesus had come to his temple for a specific judgment in 1918. For that matter, the interpretation that Jehovah provided for the "the sheep and the goats" has also changed. There seems to have been an abuse of authority here that could be tied to the idea of "beating one's fellow slaves" as @Anna mentioned recently.
I think we have become much more sophisticated in our wording and presentation of this same idea, but the same idea has not changed much. Here are just a few small examples of how much "less sophisticated" it was in Rutherford's time.
Those Bible Students who publicly disagreed with Rutherford were branded "the evil slave" class. Yet, we today also find ourselves disagreeing with Rutherford on the pages of the same Watchtower. In Rutherford's day they published a book in 1917 that claimed that Russell was "Christ's representative in the world, the sole steward of the 'meat in due season.'" They kept selling that book until the early 1930's until "remaining stocks" were depleted. When Bible Students and even the newly named, "Jehovah's witnesses" asked if they should really be spreading false information among the unsuspecting public, Rutherford got angry, and the Bulletin (later, Our Kingdom Ministry) threatened the publishers by saying that if they went against Rutherford they were going against the Lord. But even less controversial issues were common. When the goals and quotas of special pioneers, regular pioneers and publishers were set, it was stated that these quotas were 'what the Lord wants.' Basically, if the Lord says pioneers need to get 100 hours a month, then, Who are we to go against the Lord? Even if we have become more sophisticated in our methods of producing this kind of theocratic world view, I see a danger in this. I think you can see it too.

All of the above.
....and MORE.
Without irrefutable hard evidence ... NEVER assume a person's motive for ANYTHING.
If all else fails, and as a very last resort ... ask them.
 

.... and there never has been any way to fire these charlatans, and there isn't any way to fire them today.
What is the answer for a person of normal intelligence and conscience ?