Srecko Sostar

My thoughts exactly @The Librarian
So many concerning takeaways from this article.
1. It's a-okay for the org to completely restrict an entire area of preaching (social media). Social media is a huge part of human interaction nowadays, but they're telling people they can't share JW.org content on their pages or in a discussion? Huh?
2. The emphasis on copyright. Since JWs feel that their "spiritual food" comes exclusively from JW.org and the approved apps, the org has essentially claimed legal ownership of all Biblical discussion. Think about that. They're restricting JWs on where they can speak about the good news! And to suggest that JW literature based on God's word and given freely by God can be claimed by the org. 
3. Many JWs sell JW.org buttons or post covers of Kingdom melodies on the Internet. The JW buttons have been used as a method of preaching, because they invite a discussion (another method of preaching that will be negatively affected). This article states that using trademark materials is flat-out wrong and their will certainly be an army of JWs who attack these ones (even though their intentions were pure).
4. They clearly state that they are fighting "opposers" who reference JW content on their sites. That's the main point of this article. They are trying to use copyright laws as a way to suppress free discussion of the org. If the truth is truth, shouldn't it be able to stand up to criticism? Fighting criticism with threats of lawsuits is a cheap attempt to roll back the tide.

Thanks for all your comments.  
Yes, I doctored the image. It was partly fun, partly to make a point.
However, you all immediately noticed something was 'off' and you could compare with the original on the jw. org site. And yet, there is no guarantee that the spiritual food on the jw. org website hasn't been altered either. 
Consider this:
A critic of JWs may allege that there was an Awake! article on the topic of Creation and Evolution that misused a respected scientist's quote. 
A JW may retort that the magazines NEVER misuse quotations because the writers research very carefully and honestly - there was even a recent Broadcast showing us this was so. The critic must be LYING!
So the critic produces this scan with the relevant part marked in red:
:
But there is no sign of this particular quote on jw. org nor in the downloadable digital versions. Other than the red marking, has the image otherwise been doctored? Is this critic trying to pull a fast one?
It turns out that the scientist complained to the Org about the magazine's use of his quote and the Org removed the quote from the website's article and the digital download editions. The quote will still be found in the original hard copies and downloaded editions saved to people's computers.
The critic was telling the truth and, apart from the red marking, the scan was a true representation of the original page.
You see, just because the publications are reproduced on other sites, it doesn't mean that the content has been tampered with. Equally, just because a publication appears on the jw. org website, there is no guarantee that the content has not been tampered with - whether it is due to a scientist's complaint about how his work was used, or due to new understandings in doctrine. Website content is so easy to edit now.
@Anna  made the point about it not violating copyright to post links to the jw. org site. True. The article says:
But the receiver of the email-attached copy isn't getting it direct from the official website. S/he's getting it from a secondary source and we're back to this.
Which raises a question: If one plays safe and emails a link to the Org's publications page instead, would the 'link share' count as a placement on the report slip?
@Witness said about there still being Facebook pages for Lett and Morris. I guess we are to understand these are fraudulent.
And finally, the reasons for the thread title:
This is the GB's 'loving counsel' folks. Discussion of JW publications on these forums is dangerous, inappropriate, and some JW 'brothers' who have participated have made Jehovah the Org look bad. 
So, time to pack up, shut up shop and go home .... *sniff*
?
.... Bwahahaha! 
Are you kidding? It's much too late to stuff the genie of free online discussion back into its bottle! 
To quote Leah Remini:
 

I won't speak for the @admin since he is probably not even aware of this "controversy" right now....
BUT....
I just can't imagine Jesus Christ creating JesusChrist.org to publish his words... and then tell everyone that nobody has the legal right to copy his words.
If anything EVERY KING of Israel was to MAKE A COPY of the scrolls.... to what purpose? TO SHARE THEM.
The Watchtower Lawyers are thinking of JW.org as a money making for profit corporation instead of the charity and group of like minded bible students that it should be and was at one time..
 
When the apostles were angered that others were preaching the gospel of Jesus what did he tell them? 
"Round up the Christian Lawyers" ... NO!!! 
 
Advertise, Advertise , Advertise the King and His Kingdom......hmmm...... 
 

From the April 2018 Watchtower, p. 30-31. This is a bona fide, unadulterated copy (honest). 

What are your thoughts on this article?
Btw, I hope the irony of posting this here is not lost on you guys, lol.

It's interesting that the org uses man-made laws when it supports their control, but when those same laws hurt them it's either Satanic or the work of opposers.

The only problem with "new light", is climbing over a pile of corroded dead batteries you have accumulated.

Jay ................you have got to be the most insensitive, un-Christian excuse for a JW I have encountered - Who the hell gave you the right to be Judge ! How UNSCRIPTURAL !
James 4:11-12 Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. 12 There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbour? (ESV)
“Do to others what you would have them do to you” (Matthew 7:12).
“For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors” (Isaiah 53:12)
“‘Then neither do I condemn you,’ Jesus declared. ‘Go now and leave your life of sin’” (John 8:11).
Jesus was accused for His insistence on connecting with sinners, tax collectors, and Gentiles. He remained focused on God’s will for His earthly ministry without missing opportunities to show love and kindness to those on the outside. We are His disciples when we interact with loving kindness and gentleness minus a judgmental attitude.
Oh....................I forgot .......Jay ................you are a disciple of the JW. ORG ...............Sorry ! My mistake !




 

Dear Fisher, 
Bible report give no evidence that Father have doubt in his motives or sincerity. And report said that Father response to son's words was this:
22“But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.   
No congregation declaration of dfd or announcement of his came back to congregation. No calling for elders to establish judicial committee to prove his changed behaviour and regrets. Nothing more than he solely said, claim on the road far from home. And no witnesses of their conversation. Just between him and Father.
Father in fact not give any attention to past life of his son. No interest to hear and know - What he was done or why or how while out of home. Nothing, like it never happened. But in JW congregation dfd person must show so much proves that he "deserve" to come back. Bureaucracy!   
Father run to him!! Father run to him as soon he saw him, not waiting for him to come in shame and sorrow. 
Yes Fisher, we are from different planet for sure :)))))

There was a JWTV broadcast last year (can't remember the month) that interviewed a lawyer who had been funded by the Org. to get his law degree. Anthony Morris (?) said Bethel wouldn't be sending Bethelites to College anymore because of the dangers.
Also last year (1/13/15), a letter was sent out to the Bodies of Elders calling for legal experts within the congregation who might be able to volunteer their services to HQ and to quietly make enquiries. The letter said:
"We trust that you will use discretion in approaching publishers regarding volunteering to
assist the organization in the above way. Please note that we are not encouraging individuals to
pursue higher education or university degrees to obtain skills related to legal matters. (w13 10/15
pp. 15-16 pars. 13-14) Thank you for your assistance."
3/6/12 BOE letter.
"Appointed men must be exemplary in heeding the warnings given by the faithful slave and
its Governing Body when it comes to education. (Matt. 24:45-47) Would an elder, a ministerial
servant, or a pioneer continue to qualify to serve as such if he, his wife, or his children pursue higher
education? Much depends on the circumstances and how he is viewed. When such a situation
arises, the body of elders should consider the following questions and scriptures:

• Does he show that he puts Kingdom interests first? (Matt. 6:33)
• Does he teach his family to put Kingdom interests first?
• Does he respect what has been published by the faithful slave on the dangers of higher
education? (3 John 9)
• Do his speech and conduct reveal that he is a spiritual person? (Ps. 1:2, 3; 1 Cor. 2:13-16)
• How is he viewed by the congregation?
• Why is he or his family pursuing higher education?
• Does the family have theocratic goals? (Phil. 3:8)
• Does the pursuit of higher education interfere with regular meeting attendance, meaningful
participation in field service, or other theocratic activities?

As the body of elders prayerfully and carefully considers the matter, it may be readily apparent
that the brother has a positive attitude about what the organization has published regarding
higher education and still retains the respect of others in the congregation. They may also observe
that he and his family are keeping Kingdom interests first if the education does not interfere with
meetings and the ministry. In such a case, the elders may determine that he could continue serving.—
1 Tim. 3:2, 4-6; Heb. 13:7.
On the other hand, if an elder or a ministerial servant is promoting higher education to others for the material advantages or the status it may bring, he is calling into question his qualifications to serve the congregation because of the effect on his and his fellow appointed brothers' freeness of speech. (1 Tim 3:13; Titus 1:9) The body of elders may therefore determine that the brother no longer qualifies to serve. In most cases, however, such a determination should be made in conjunction with the visit of the circuit overseer." 
 

Legal Seminar: South African Bethel
 

 
The Legal Seminar
The seminar was a full day event held at the “residence hall.” I had come with my wheelchair bound friend, from the same congregation. We were a few minutes late, so as we rolled in into the foyer, we got handed our seminar pack, our bottled water, and lapel badges by two pretty ladies (hell yeah, I still remember that). This was the same residence hall that I had shook Anthony Morris’[3] hand a few weeks ago prior to his official Branch Visit talk in South Africa on Sunday, January 11, 2015, with his “sidekick” Anthony Griffin.
The seminar was split between matters that were strictly legal, and those that were more tax related; of course, there was an obvious overlap between the two as can be expected. The key speakers were select members of the Branch Committee, in-house legal counsel, and those from the accounts department. A lot was said about Europe, Africa, the U.S., Hayden Covington,[4] child custody, divorces, Advance Medical Directives (“blood cards”), alternative service, Road Accident Fund, legal battles here, legal battles there, tax etc. The bottom-line was this: There’s a lot going down, and we’d appreciate your assistance in these affairs.
It should be noted, however, that “these affairs” require tertiary qualifications… higher education.

South Africa Bethel - Tax and Legal Seminar Group Photo (Feb 28, 2015)
South Africa Bethel – Legal and Tax Seminar Group Photo (Feb 28, 2015). I’m on the bottom left, sporting a pair of shades on my head.
the Australian branch sent out a letter, dated November 18, 2015, to all Service Committees throughout the congregations of Australian. The letter was “confidentially” seeking for baptised members of the congregation who were “qualified as solicitors, barristers, certified practising accountants or chartered accountants.” But all of this exploration was to be done discreetly “without consulting the publisher” (I suppose this is how they canvass for potential seminar candidates). Now, let’s juxtapose these two events, the South African seminar and the Australian request letter, and contextualise them.

The Point
The organisation tells folks not to pursue higher education, in fact, if you are an appointed person – Elder, Ministerial Servant, pioneer – and you attend university, your (spiritual) qualifications automatically come under review. What does that tell you? That the organisation has a default disdain for higher education. But now, at the same time, they secretly sponsor select bethelites to obtain these very “worldly” qualifications, using funds donated by some of the simplest Witnesses, many of who have complied with this “mandamus” from the “Faithful and Discreet Slave.” But, then, per chance that you didn’t comply with this mandamus, and remain a Witness, they implore you to use your “worldly gifts” in service to God, namely, in furtherance of the organisation – to a large extent, free of charge.
What’s wrong with this picture?
And if you take the global downsizing that the organisation has been conducting lately, where veteran bethelites are sent home and special pioneers being sent up the creek without a paddle. Why? Because it’s now becoming too expensive to accommodate them. A burden. And, yet, many of these bethelites forfeited higher education in order to at the full time service, now you’re telling them to hamba kahle (“go well”)? C’mon, man, c’mon.
What is wrong with this picture, people
If the organisation was cool and was like, you know, “Go to university, don’t go to university, that your decision to make, as long as you are aware of the challenges.” That would be one thing. But what we’re seeing here is the constant badgering badgering badgering. There has to be some kind of accountability here. You can’t enjoy the assets of other people’s labour without taking ownership of the liabilities peculiar with that asset, as well. It’s immoral. This whole thing is just patently duplicitous. Scandalous. Why all these backdoor “transactions?” You say one thing on stage, but, then, em’va kwethu you do something else. Hai wethu.
Conclusion
Brimstone and humour aside, I personally don’t have a problem with the organisation seeking professional assistance from willing qualified Witnesses per se. It is the duplicity that irks me. It is the selfishness of their approach that vexes me. It is the ruination of people’s lives that ticks me off. It is the unconscionableness of their methods that pisses me off, treating genuine people as expendables and collateral damage for their own selfish gains, gains which they clothe as “divine service,” service to Jehovah.
If it were up to me, I’d have Governing Body pipe down on their take of higher education and to resist this laughable attempt at gaining some kind of moral high ground in this matter.
#LegalSeminarBethel
#ThinkingWitnesses
http://thinkingwitnesses.org/legal-seminar-south-africa-bethel/

Dr. Michael Langone, has done considerable research in the field of mind-manipulating movements. He's identified some key traits that cultish movements reveal themselves. Steve Hassan, a former cult member and one of the leading experts of cults has also contributed a lot to the field. Both of these men have helped in identifying the tell-tale signs of cult mentality.

     What they say:
"Cult members are “focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment.” The leader is a strong-willed, domineering character who rules the group with tight control. He lets it be known in subtle ways that he is in charge of the movement. He makes the plans, he orchestrates the movements of the group or groups (sometimes he exercises his sway over several groups). He dispatches the workers, assigns their chores, etc." "“Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged,” and there can be pressure or social punishment when there is disagreement with the “boss.” Those who disagree are made to feel as though they are stupid or inept. They are brainwashed with the notion that they do not have the knowledge or experience to question the leader. Younger people are particularly vulnerable to the leader’s gift of gab, and his feigned expertise. No matter how radical the leader becomes in his decisions or actions, the cult members will not criticize him. Even if there should be mild disagreement, no specific expressions are voiced. The members reason that though he may be mistaken in some of his judgments, yet the overall good he accomplishes outweighs any minor flaws.
Members are taught to “rationalize” the conduct of the leader in matters they have always “considered unethical before,” under the guise that the “end justifies the means.”" "The leader “is preoccupied with [raising] money.” There is always a need for increasing finances. New projects are ever in the planning. Members are strongly encouraged to greatly sacrifice for the leader’s current pet enterprise. There is little pressure let-up; members of the group must be kept revved up on a continual basis.
The cult leader always takes the major credit for the movement’s accomplishments. Members become psychologically dependent upon him. “What would we ever do without our leader?,” is the cult mentality." "The cult leader generates within his members “a polarized” mentality. His people evolve an us-versus-them outlook. Little by little, he criticizes other groups with which his members might tend to associate, undermining confidence in them, attempting to discredit anyone who could have influence over his flock." "The cult leader has a clearly defined anti-authoritarian disposition. Within the context of the church, for instance, he would have an “anti-elder” attitude. Elders would be recipients of constant critical remarks. No cult leader would affiliate himself with a congregation having elders to whom he must be in submission. Control could not be maintained in such an environment.
The cult leader will constantly criticize preachers, particularly those whose knowledge of the Scriptures eclipse his own. Members must be made to feel that he is the chief authority in spiritual matters." "Cult members are seen occasionally to take on a new personality. They begin to act differently. They become increasingly antagonistic to family members and long-time friends. They may even boast, “I am not the old [name] that you used to know; I am a new person now.” And indeed they are. They have become strangers to those who knew them well. They have been transformed into the image of their leader."         From the "Psychology of Cults"  
Rev 13:1,5-18
 
 

No "new light" in Bible                 Very good! 10/10. You have made a good start. Now repeat after me,  A....B....C....D.......

Nor did he say "Why didn't you phone first and let me know you were coming back? Now I have to take a day off to get some food in. Hopefully the supermarkets will have enough stock, else I can order on line for nextday delivery. And I don't know if the neighbours can come round. I'll just email them all anyway. Hop in, I'll give you a lift to the house!"

It would not bother me any, but putting a prisoner into solitary confinement ( shunning) is considered to be an extreme punishment  for the sake of punishment ... not a "loving provision" of ANYTHING.
But then again ... the Catholics used to burn people alive at the stake as a "loving provision", as the fire was supposed to clean their "souls" so that with their death, the unrepentent guilty  could be more acceptable to their god.
It is not extremism to do these things if it is labeled correctly ... it is common and normal .... but it is extremism if you destroy whole families "because you love them", and call that a "good thing".

Me think we not on same planet???***!!!
Luke 15:21
Then the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy of being called your son.’
 
 

This interesting comment indicates that the person who is doing the shunning also feels uncomfortable doing it. Many of us know how psychologically damaging it is for the 'shunnee,' but I think we forget how damaging it also is for the 'shunner.'
"If you think giving someone the cold shoulder inflicts pain only on them, beware. A new study shows that individuals who deliberately shun another person are equally distressed by the experience." - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130305080452.htm
This presupposes that the elders who chose to disfellowship saw into the sinner's heart perfectly and made a perfect decision. It also presupposes that a disfellowshipped person can never be redeemed. Somehow I don't think you really believe that. 

Fact is active jehovahs witnesses love seeing disfellowshipped ones. They love looking down on them from a high seat of judgement and prejudice. Regarding another human as "lesser than" is how afraid people feel empowered. All prejudice based groups embrace similar practices.

Good assessment.  Interestingly, the Bible takes a different view: 
"To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted."  Titus 1:15
Those with a "seared"/corrupted conscience dictate the conscience of another.
"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.  Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron." 1 Tim 4:1,2

Watchtower criticises other religious groups for colluding with Hitler, whilst Jehovah's Witnesses were imprisoned for their refusal to compromise their standards. What is not admitted is that Rutherford initially praised Hitler for his stance against Jews and the Anglo/American empire.
One of the groups that Hitler sent to concentration camps were Jehovah's Witnesses. They were forced to endure unspeakable atrocities and many lost their lives. The individual actions of many Witnesses are commendable and the Watchtower holds up this part of their history in great esteem. What is not discussed is the hypocritical actions of Rutherford in the lead up to these events.
Early in 1933, the Watchtower office in Berlin was closed and Jehovah's Witnesses were banned in many German states. This was due to the refusal of Jehovah's Witnesses to swear loyalty to the government or to serve in its armed forces.
In an attempt to appease Hitler into lifting the ban, Rutherford instigated a Declaration of Facts and sent a Letter to Hitler discussing the Watchtower's support of the Nazi regime.
Current Watchtower references provide a deceptive portrayal of these documents, through selective quoting. The Proclaimer's book mentions that Rutherford wrote a letter to Hitler under the context of "facing Nazi oppression", in which the Watchtower Society is made to sound as if they were firmly against the Nazi regime.
It is quite surprising to find the opposite is true, which can be identified when reading the content of Rutherford's 1933 letter to Hitler and the Declaration of Facts.
Letter to Hitler
Russell, founder of the Watchtower, was a Zionist and sympathetic to Jews as part of modern day fulfilment of Bible prophecy. Rutherford initially continued such support, but changed by the 1930's to a bigoted, anti-Semitic stance.
During the time of Rutherford, Witnesses became known as a religion of hate, due to the Watchtower's tirade of insults against other Churches and governments. The Catholic Church come under the greatest condemnation and bought this to the attention of the Nazi government, petitioning against the Watchtower Society. In 1933, the Nazi government banned the Watchtower's German operations.
In an effort to overturn the ban, Rutherford sent a Letter and a Declaration to Hitler, in which he praises Hitler for his anti-Anglo/American campaign and his stance against the Jews.

 
A copy of the letter in German.
Following is part of an English translation of the Letter to Hitler.
The letter mentions Hitler's "just principles," quoting from section 24 of Das Program der NSDAP (The Nazi's Platform of the National Socialist German Workers Party).
Rutherford further compromised Watchtower principles but offering that, "We want to continue to live up to the prohibition imposed upon us," that is, they would stop preaching in Germany, provided the ban was lifted that would allow them to "meet for prayer and church service".
Click Letter to Hitler  for a translation of the full letter in PDF format.
The Yearbook 1974 briefly refers to this letter, along with the Declaration of Facts.
In light of the contents of the official letter and Declaration sent to Hitler, the Watchtower's 2011 comment mocking other Churches is nothing short of hypocritical.
Declaration of Facts
Rutherford and Knorr organized a public convention in Berlin on 25th June, 1933 to release a "Declaration of Facts," being pronouncing at the German convention, and distributed in letter format. This outlined Watchtower's support of the German governments stance against Jews.
The convention hall was decked with swastikas and the program was opened with Song 64, a song from the Bible Student's songbook that had the some melody by Hayden as the German national anthem. Konrad Franke, Germany's Bethel branch overseer later stated his disturbance at seeing the scene for the convention and Rutherford's declaration.
The Declaration of Facts was reprinted in the Yearbook 1934. It went on in part to state:
Click here  for an English translation of the full Declaration of Facts in PDF format.
Rutherford's Letter and Declaration were an effort to appease Hitler, but to no avail - too little, too late.
With Rutherford's efforts at appeasing Hitler into lifting the Watchtower ban not achieving its aims, Rutherford instead started to antagonise Hitler through his publications.
These cablegrams read:
Rutherford send another letter to Hitler, this time threatening Hitler with the punishment of God if the ban on Jehovah's Witnesses was not lifted.

Shiwiii, You have 181 views until now. That is good. People pay little attention... in some way.  

That is wonderful! Maybe the jw.borg hasnt to sell so many kingdumb halls, because the support money from you can now be used to pay pedophile elders, great job. When Büchenbach has become sold, this was from one day to the other, nobody knew why and what has happened. Today is in the former congress hall a buddhist church, so we can say, the jehovahs shitnesses sold their congress hall directly to "babylon the great".

Shiwiii, You have 181 views until now. That is good. People pay little attention... in some way.  

Many of JW members who read the topics in this forum can not accept the fact that the main church body aka Gb violates both laws - divine and human.
GB asks of every member to report any fact and person that violates the JW Code in the assembly. But the GB does not want to report and give facts, evidence, documents, statements that would allow a justice, even "imperfect, worldly" justice. hehe

It is best to leave MANY things in Jehovah's "hands" ... some things we have to do with our own hands, or "chance and circumstance will without a second thought kill us, and not even notice.
I pray for wisdom and patience, because if I prayed for strength ... I may need a shovel and a bail bondsman.