Judith Sweeney

Hmmm... could it be that the Scripture should read Google of My Google?

.........

I replied her Mark zuckerburg might be listening us.

She laughed.

We laughed

Alexa laughed

Siri laughed.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that @JW Insider works for both sides in a different sense. I like the way Paul put it:
(1 Corinthians 9:19-23) . . .For though I am free from all people, I have made myself the slave to all, so that I may gain as many people as possible. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew in order to gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, in order to gain those under law. 21 To those without law I became as without law, although I am not without law toward God but under law toward Christ, in order to gain those without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, in order to gain the weak. I have become all things to people of all sorts, so that I might by all possible means save some. 23 But I do all things for the sake of the good news, in order to share it with others. Early Christianity started out in the context of Judaism, which had become steeped in end-of-the-world eschatology, and the legalism of the Pharisees. But end-of-the-world eschatology, although dangerous to Christianity on its own (per Jesus), still naturally drew out crowds of people who sighed and groaned over the injustices of their world. They wanted a new heavens and a new earth, and they wanted it as soon as possible.
So early Christians would be mistaken to focus on eschatology, but many good Christians, desirous of a new heavens and new earth, would naturally come to Christianity through this path.
Jesus gave several illustrations showing why focusing on eschatology was so dangerous to true Christianity, and we have the words of Peter to explain how Christians must transform into those who would be the very same type of person they ought to be, whether the parousia came in their own lifetime, or whether it came 1,000 years after their own lifetime.
Another major focus of Jesus' illustrations and teaching was about legalism. Early Christianity was still steeped in Judaism, and still attempted to put Christians under law, even after it was recognized that the Judaic system didn't apply to gentiles.
Jesus' illustration in Matthew 24:45 of the unfaithful servants --who would beat their fellow slaves and try to lord it over them when the master was gone-- is a good illustration reminding us of the dangers of both eschatology AND the dangers of legalism/Pharisaism.
Paul played both sides of Pharisaism/legalism because he was accused of being an apostate from Judaism. So they asked him to pay for some legalistic customary preparations for the persons going with him to the Temple.
(Acts 21:20-24) . . .but they said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the Law. 21 But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or to follow the customary practices. 22 What, then, is to be done about it? They are certainly going to hear that you have arrived. 23 So do what we tell you: We have four men who have put themselves under a vow. 24 Take these men with you and cleanse yourself ceremonially together with them and take care of their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is nothing to the rumors they were told about you, but that you are walking orderly and you are also keeping the Law. So rather than claiming that the GB have gone off track, I believe they are continually getting more and more ON track. I believe they naturally started partly off-track as would be expected with a very eschatological Russell and a very legalistic Rutherford. But all the while, it was the right kind of heart condition being attracted to and joining into the religion -- a religion with a greater focus on the type of person we ought to be for Jehovah, for ourselves and for one another. This was much like the form of Judaism that naturally made persons fit for transformation into Christianity. Legalistic Judaism was like a tutor leading to Christ. But we must still be transformed.
Paul played both sides in order to win more persons over to Christ. To Jews he became a Jew. To Greeks he became a Greek.
Still the core of the religion itself is one that does perhaps the best job of all religions in fighting the machinations of the Devil: avoiding taking one side over another in politics and war, pointing out the unchristian influences on supposedly Christian traditions, and pointing out the value of Christian morality, and unity of purpose in preaching, meeting together, etc. To me these are the most important things. Granted the Pharisaism still keeps us hanging on to rules (like turning in time so that our right hand and our left can distinguish different types of Christian service, and misuse of the two-witness rule so that mercy and protection of children has often been sacrificed, etc.). And eschatology will keep rearing its head now and then, too.
But these things are getting better over time, getting more on-track, not off-track. Pharisees don't want to be questioned, but we must all take our Christian duty and responsibility very seriously. We must question. We must make sure of all things. And we can only expect more questioning as more persons from all walks of life keep coming into the organization. I find that this forum is still a fair enough place to question and get feedback to help test whether those questions are on the right track.

I wonder why the Anointed of God, although self admittedly NOT inspired of God, the ones supplying "food at the proper time", etc., seem to be completely devoid of common sense of any kind, on any subject.
They have been struggling with the CSA problem for YEARS now, and are seemingly no closer to a solution than they were five years ago.
IT'S NOT THAT HARD !!!!!
This is NOT Quantum Chromodynamics!
 

I am adding more here to give the simplest view of what the "Governing Body" believes about those who claim to be anointed.
The most recent article that explains the scripture makes this point by asking a seemingly silly question.
*** ws16 January p. 21 “We Want to Go With You” ***
DO WE NEED TO KNOW THE NAMES OF ALL TODAY WHO ARE ANOINTED?
. . . . This means that the Jew is not just one person but represents the whole group of anointed ones. The other sheep know this, and they serve Jehovah along with that group. They do not need to know the names of every member of that group and follow each one of them.
No one thinks that the truly anointed are ONLY in the Governing Body. However, the only anointed that we are asked to follow cannot practically be ALL the anointed all around the world. In fact we are warned against giving too much attention to "just any" member of the anointed. And, by the same token, any member of the anointed would be out of place to ask for special attention. This might seem wrong, but that is clearly going to help avoid schisms, power struggles, and help drive peace and unity in the congregation.
The article goes on to point this out:
*** ws16 January p. 22 par. 6 “We Want to Go With You” ***
Jehovah’s holy spirit helps his servants to be humble, not proud. (Colossians 3:12) So anointed ones do not think that they are better than others. They know that Jehovah does not necessarily give anointed ones more holy spirit than he gives his other servants. And they do not feel that they can understand Bible truths more deeply than anyone else.
*** ws16 January p. 22 par. 7 “We Want to Go With You” ***
Although anointed ones feel that it is an honor to be invited to go to heaven, they do not expect others to treat them in a special way. .... So an anointed person is not surprised if some do not believe right away that he has been anointed. He realizes that the Bible tells us not to be quick to believe someone who says that God has given him a special responsibility.
*** ws16 January p. 22 par. 8 “We Want to Go With You” ***
Anointed Christians do not feel that they should spend time only with other anointed ones, as if they were members of a club. They do not try to find other anointed ones so that they can talk about being anointed or meet in groups to study the Bible. (Galatians 1:15-17) The congregation would not be united if anointed ones did this. They would be working against the holy spirit, which helps God’s people to have peace and unity.—Read Romans 16:17, 18.
The article actually offers some reasons why we would not immediately trust that someone who claims to be anointed truly is anointed. Ultimately, this all points to reasons to focus our attention on the Governing Body (faithful and discreet slave) as the identified representatives of the anointed.
*** ws16 January pp. 23-25 “We Want to Go With You” ***
DO WE NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THE NUMBER?
12 For many years, the number of those who ate the bread and drank the wine at the Memorial kept going down. But recently, that number has been going up every year. Do we need to worry about this? No. Let us see why not.
13 “Jehovah knows those who belong to him.” (2 Timothy 2:19) Unlike Jehovah, the brothers who count the number of people eating the bread and drinking the wine at the Memorial do not know who truly is anointed. So the number includes those who think that they are anointed but are not. For example, some who used to eat the bread and drink the wine later stopped. Others may have mental or emotional problems and believe that they will rule with Christ in heaven. Clearly, we do not know exactly how many anointed ones are left on earth.
. . .  During the last days, Jehovah has continued to choose people who will be part of the 144,000. (See endnote.) So if God decides to choose some of these just before the end, surely we would not doubt that he is doing the right thing. (Isaiah 45:9; Daniel 4:35; read Romans 9:11, 16.) (See endnote.) We must be careful not to react like the workers who complained about the way their master treated those who started working in the last hour.—Read Matthew 20:8-15.
16 Not all who have the hope of living in heaven are part of “the faithful and discreet slave.” (Matthew 24:45-47) Just as in the first century, Jehovah and Jesus today are using a few people to feed, or teach, many. Only a few anointed Christians in the first century were used to write the Christian Greek Scriptures. And today, only a few anointed Christians have the responsibility to give God’s people “food at the proper time.”
Clearly "some of these" claimants are considered truly anointed. But we have no way of knowing who is and who isn't. And even if we did, we would not give them special attention, nor would they give each other special attention, even if they have been known to serve faithfully for long periods of time.
One of the reasons for the emphasis on the Governing Body is so that we can say we have identified the truly anointed persons who can properly represent the other anointed persons, and therefore by following and hanging onto their "robe" we (the other sheep) are properly hanging onto the skirt of the Jew.
I know you, John, don't believe that the GB represent the "Jew" in the Zechariah prophecy, or that they represent "Christ's brothers" in Matthew. But I think you can see why it makes perfect sense to most Witnesses. It makes sense historically in a way that no other religion can point to in their recent past. And it makes sense practically if one accepts the belief that a Governing Body should represent all the rest of the anointed.
I am not claiming that this is the only way to look at it. (For reasons I can explain later.) But I do think we should acknowledge the reasons it makes so much sense to most Witnesses.
Your own arguments against it, I think, boil down to the fact you say that the GB have "allowed" child sexual abuse by not doing enough about it, and that the shunning doctrine is unchristian, and that some (much?) of the provided spiritual food has been not good spiritually. But since you have not been able to discover another anointed person or group that non-anointed should "take hold of," then Witnesses would simply respond with 'where else should they go?' Do you really know a group that represents something better? If it were just a matter of a few who feel this way leaving the JWs, what would that accomplish exactly? 

I think the Watchtower's interpretation is clear. In many ways it matches up with yours, John.
The WT interpretation is that the "Jew" is the truly anointed class of Christians, and the "ten men" are persons out of all the nations who are not of the anointed class but who look to them for guidance, a good example, etc. These non-anointed are shown joining with these anointed in some way.
Historically, if we were to accept that the truly anointed persons were represented by the 'governing leaders' of the Bible Students / Jehovah's Witnesses in the last century or so, then the very fact that they were joined (beginning especially around 1935) by a much larger group who then identified themselves as non-anointed seems like a perfect fulfillment.
It is easy to see why, in that 2012 life experience article, a person of the "great crowd" who was obviously very enamored with his periodic association with members of the anointed, felt that he was seeing this prophecy fulfilled in his own case. Several of those anointed with whom he had repeated contact served on the Governing Body, or would later serve on the Governing Body. This was clearly a sub-theme of the 2012 Watchtower article based on the following quotes/excerpts:
but also several anointed brothers, including Pryce Hughes, Edgar Clay, and Jack Barr, who became a member of the Governing Body. One of my fellow students, Lloyd Barry; one of the instructors, Albert Schroeder; and John Booth, overseer of Kingdom Farm (where Gilead School was located) later became members of the Governing Body. During that time, I got to know such pillars as Milton Henschel, Karl Klein, Nathan Knorr, T. J. (Bud) Sullivan, and Lyman Swingle, all of whom once served on the Governing Body. I have had the privilege of periodically returning to world headquarters in New York. During those visits, I received good advice from different members of the Governing Body. So, while the "Jew" represents the anointed class, we are subtly reminded that the anointed class is represented by the Governing Body, considered to be the core representatives of "Christ's brothers."
In the past, of course, when one said "Christ's brothers are the faithful slave" it meant all of the anointed.
*** w09 10/15 p. 16 par. 15 “You Are My Friends” ***
Therefore, the primary way that those with the earthly hope demonstrate their desire to be friends with Christ is by supporting the faithful slave class.
Technically, the "Jew" in Zechariah still does mean all of the anointed, not just the GB. But even before the doctrinal change making them the same entity, the Governing Body had already pointed to themselves as the ones  representing the faithful slave. 
*** ws11 7/15 p. 24 par. 9 Have You Entered Into God’s Rest? ***
They show us that Jehovah is using the faithful and discreet slave to teach us the truth. Sometimes the Governing Body, who represents the faithful and discreet slave, reviews how we understand certain truths.
So the "Jew" in Zechariah 8 is not just another representation of the Governing Body. But based on the above, it is still intended to be the practical conclusion, when it comes to defining who, we, the "other sheep" firmly hang onto for guidance and direction.

Regarding the Watchtower's interpretation, a simple and recent explanation is found in the introduction to a 'life experience' article from 2012. https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20120415/Seventy-Years-of-Holding-On-to-the-Skirt-of-a-Jew
When I was in my early teens, two Bible passages struck me. Today, over 70 years later, I can still remember the time when I grasped the meaning of Zechariah 8:23, which speaks of “ten men” taking hold of “the skirt of a man who is a Jew.” They tell the Jew: “We will go with you people, for we have heard that God is with you people.”
THE Jewish man symbolizes anointed Christians, and the “ten men” represent the “other sheep,” or “Jonadabs,” as they were known back then. * (John 10:16) When I understood that truth, I realized how much the fulfillment of my hope to live forever on earth depends upon my loyal support of the anointed class.
Jesus’ illustration of “the sheep” and “the goats,” found at Matthew 25:31-46, also deeply impressed me. “The sheep” picture those who receive a favorable judgment during the time of the end because they do good to Christ’s anointed brothers still on earth. As a young Jonadab, I said to myself, ‘Len, if you want to be viewed by Christ as a sheep, you’ve got to support his anointed brothers, accepting their leadership because God is with them.’ That understanding has guided me during more than seven decades.
I should note that a few people have come to think that the March 15, 2015 Watchtower indicated that there are no longer any specific classes of people that are identified by prophecies. So they might wonder why the Jew represents anointed Christians and the 'ten men' specifically represent the 'other sheep.' That 2015 article, and this new understanding, was really intended to help us avoid the problem of arbitrarily making up specific applications of interpretation for every Bible parable and historical occurrence, and saying it was the ONLY correct application. Prophecies (like Zechariah) are still considered fair game for interpreting specific applications to classes of people today.
(The Watchtower makes exceptions, and still uses the parable-as-prophecy motif for the "sheep and goats" parable, and, of course, the "faithful and discreet slave" parable. There is one other possible parable-as-prophecy exception, but this one is in a prophetic book, Daniel 4's tree dream parable/prophecy.)
The idea of only using a historical occurrence in the Bible to only say it "reminds" us of a certain thing, rather than "it must represent this particular thing" was used in the same life experience article mentioned above. For example:
. . . she gave me the parcel and left. It contained a warm overcoat. Her loving gesture reminded me of Hannah bringing her young son Samuel a coat while he was serving at the tabernacle.—1 Sam. 2:18, 19.
And again at the end of the article:
Just before his death, Jesus told his disciples: “You will not always have me” with you. (Matt. 26:11) We other sheep are also aware that we will not always have Christ’s anointed brothers among us on earth. I count it, therefore, an inestimable privilege to have been closely associated for over 70 years with many of the anointed—gratefully holding on to the skirt of a Jew.

These "Wolves in Sheeps Clothing" that abuse children came INTO the truth...as Wolves do...To..abuse children.  They just bided their time...waiting.   A "True" Christian of course, would never do such a thing.  Sign of the Times.   Jehovah IS "Cleaning Up"!   Trust in Jehovah with all your heart.   His "eyes" are everywhere.   He is not a God to be Mocked.

The Vatican 1933 Concordat, signed July 20, 1933 by Cardinal Pacelli, Vatican Secretary of State (Papel Nuncio), was a "Holy Covenant" between the Vatican and the Third Reich, stipulating that in Germany and German controlled lands, the Catholic Church would be the ONLY officially approved Church ... and the Nazi Party would be the ONLY official political party of German Catholics.
Before the Church could appoint any clergy, they had to be vetted and approved by the Nazi Party.
Later, during WWII, Cardinal Pacelli became Pope Pius XII and was referred to as "Hitler's Pope".
During the times of the Vietnam war, a NY play about this was produced called "The Deputy", which sparked rioting and protests.
In the mutual quest to control the world, The "Universal" wannabe Catholic Church "bet on the wrong horse"
 

Google "Vatican Rat Line".
The Vatican supplied the SS and other Nazi war criminals with Vatican Passports for the rough equivalent of $15,000  each.
 

It is no big deal.  At least he knows the best Scotches....:)    Nothing wrong with having a couple of drinks.   I imagine that he could use some relaxation from all of the pressure.     Geesh, people need to Get Busy....yeah, the new "GB"  get busy!  Clean the yard...mop the floor...better yet...LOOK IN THE MIRROR!
 

Before they stopped making those car seats, they started coming out with a warning sticker "Do not fold up car seat, with baby inside."

Well he is not shoplifting - just selecting carefully what somebody might drink.

"What an astonishing bit of footage"  Really? The man going out to the liquor store to buy some whiskey? 
"This is not how Tony Morris would like to be seen by Jehovah's Witnesses" Why on earth not? It's more like Lloyd Evans doesn't want to see Anthony Morris like this, because Lloyd Evans has some weird ideas about Br. Morris, and now his weird ideas have been shattered. Now he knows Anthony Morris is just like anyone else. Surprise!
Grow up Lloyd!
P.S.
There are Sunday afternoon meetings too.
 
 

Learn kitchen science.    Add organic coconut oil to eggs and have the pain well oiled with said substance.   Geesh!   How old are you?

“Tom, you’re on here quite often justifying or defending some pretty horrible doctrine. I get it, it’s your faith and you’re probably a decent guy IRL so I hope one day you’ll find a religion that won’t require you to perform logical contortions to rationalize your adherence to it.”
Actually, you don’t get it. Of course I see the point your community makes. But you make it so persistently and to the exclusion of all else that I say “Okay, those bases are covered” and I focus on the all else. You are a community that plays and perseverates over the JW movie bloopers and in time imagines that the bloopers were the movie itself. I am struck by the exuberance your pals display in re-embracing the life they once left. Most long-standing residents of that life will not share that exuberance, I think. It is as though they sing the Vioxx ‘It’s a Beautiful Morning!’ song, forgetting that the FDA ultimately pulled that product because it kills people.
I have no problem with saying the Jehovah’s Witnesses governing arrangement makes mistakes. But (we have many trees on our property) it’s like when we contracted the tree trimmer and my wife kept pointing out more and more flaws. “Don’t look so hard,” the fellow told her. “You’ll cut them all down.” It is like that with people anywhere. Taken to extremes, one will dismantle any organization of any sort.
Look, everyone today describes the other side as delusional and even hate-filled. It’s just the way people are. I don’t take it personally. We are spiritual enemies not because of CSA. You have probably done us a favor in that by triggering such 5/19 Watchtower statements as “the reproach falls upon the abuser,” which effectively solves the problem. We are spiritual enemies because you have reversed course on the ‘everything else,’ trading in the diamonds for the turds. The CSA stuff was turds all along, but every group is pulling out its hair trying to cope with it, many less effectively than us, and at any rate, it is not the big picture. It is but a component of the big picture, overall a very small one. If you focus on any tree of the forest long enough, it becomes the forest. Your points I see all the time. Many of my points I have never seen anyone make but me. Even the Watchtower organization itself, which has a “penchant for privacy” as one reporter put it, does not make them. I take for granted going into your community that I will lose. I just want to get another view on the table. Any group with a narrow focus becomes myopic over time. I just seek to counter that.
 
***~~~***
The sh*t has really hit the fan with the publication of the Atlantic article and opposers are crowing as they seldom crow. Other sources have picked up on it, such as the New York Daily News. As for me, I would just as soon not see such articles. Given that they exist, however, this one I liked. It helped me with the listings. I have many times interacted with some of these characters, mostly through Twitter, without knowing exactly who they were, where they came from, and what were the relationships between them. Now I know.
I find myself, much to my surprise and even shock, trading tweets with some of the most celebrated ex-Witness opponents on the planet (and seriously getting under their skin, in some cases). I don’t hang out there. I don’t engage overmuch—though I guess I can hardly say that I don’t engage at all. After I learned that one reporter used an anti-Witness forum as his practically sole source, I went there to see if I could leave material that contrasts with what he otherwise finds monolithically. I post long articles there. Each one produces a flurry of protests and I briefly answer a few of them before disappearing. It is the same way on Twitter. Once in a while there is a sh*tstorm, but most of the time there is nothing at all and I am chatting about the local weather and relaying cat and dog gifs like everyone else.
Crossing swords with these folk is not exactly what a Witness is expected to do. I approach it, like Paul approached the Corinthians, with fear and trembling. One misstep and your head is handed to you on a platter. I wouldn’t dare do it if I didn’t have 15 years of communicating in writing under my belt, not specializing in, but also not avoiding controversial topics. Some of these characters goad and taunt, I think in hopes of provoking an intemperate response. You’d better not give them one or you and what you represent are toast. To be sure, I have blundered a few times, but not beyond recovery. You must not respond in anger even if your blood boils. Neither be too sympathetic, because that is inevitably thrown back in your face as hypocritical. It is the mark of zealotry that you cannot agree with part of a position. You must endorse all of it, otherwise you are said to hate that position and even whoever makes it. The trick is for your blood not to boil—to regard these ones as opponents, but not enemies—even as some of them express the most virulent hostility to you. You answer them evenly and dispassionately.
“Yeah, well if you could see things though their eyes, you would be hostile, too, you delusional fool!” someone will retort. Who can say? Never expound on what you do not know. Refrain from assigning motives even if they seem to you crystal clear. You may be wrong. Indeed, some of them describe themselves as whistleblowers. Why deny them the status? Having blown the whistle and effecting some change with it, they could return to the fold if they wanted to, even if disfellowshipped. What! Even some of pedophiles disfellowshipped have been allowed to return and the elders forever more have to watch them, for one cannot read hearts, so these “whistleblowers” could not? All one must to is “repent” and “turn around” and “produce fruits that befit repentance”—manifested by doing and saying the right thing, giving no further evidence of causing trouble, and enduring months or even years of sitting through meetings and afterwards in silence. The “whistleblowers” are not going to “make trouble,” because they already made it and it turned out to be just the ticket for solving a vexing problem. It could happen.
Of course, why it may not happen is that they might insist upon a heroes’ welcome. They might insist upon thereafter being a “power broker” in the congregation. What they also would “repent” over would be “pushing ahead,” and speaking injuriously of congregation governance. But they could say that there were driven to distraction by what they had heard or experienced and will from this point on “behave” and it would all be smoothed over in time. Time heals most everything that wants to be healed.
The reasons they become “enemies” is not simply due to any whistleblowing, but because they quickly progress to the following, as illustrated by a remark of Lloyd’s:
“And there’s Tom’s approach in a nutshell: join a religion, even if it doesn’t make sense, and just hope eventually your questions will be answered & everything will fall neatly into place. Never mind that people of other religions do the same, wasting their lives on nonsense.”
There it is. He threw out the baby with the bathwater. In fact, it does make sense and is not nonsense. He once thought so, too. It is one of the few things in the world today that does make sense—that is the reason that Witnesses were attracted to Bible teachings in the first place. It is the reason that they stick to it despite trials and even blunders. Current blunders, if they be that, and some courts have said they are, present the framework that Jehovah’s Witnesses often call ‘the Truth’ through its least flattering light. But it is still the same framework. Lloyd illustrates what
Professor David Bromley, author of The Politics of Religious Apostasy, wrote—that “individuals who elect to leave a chosen faith must then become critical of their religion in order to justify their departure…Others may ask, if the group is as transparently evil as he now contends, why did he espouse its cause in the first place? In the process of trying to explain his own seduction and to confirm the worst fears about the group, the apostate is likely to paint a caricature of the group that is shaped more by his current role as apostate than by his actual experience in the group.”
If a court case goes against you, you are duly chastened. But that does not mean that the entire picture has been seen, nor that another court might see things another way. It frequently happens—so many times that one could even stretch matters a little and say that it tacks in the light of ever-brightening approximations of truth, using verbiage that the Watchtower itself is fond of. What about the classic Supreme Court case that went against us in the 1940s, after which Jehovah’s Witnesses were accosted and beaten up so that even Eleanor Roosevelt had to speak up in their behalf, and then three years later, that same Court, with a few new members and a few others chastened at the brutality they had unleashed, reversed itself in the Gobitis decision regarding flag salute? Courts are the best humans can do, but they are not impartial. Everyone knows it. If they were impartial, confirming a new Supreme Court Justice could be done in an afternoon. Justices are swayed by interpretation of the law which is, in turn, swayed by pre-existing ideology. And no ideology is so white-hot as that which accompanies the subject of child sexual abuse, the plague of the planet.
The civil court is not so much a forum to establish truth but one to assign blame. The two goals overlap, but they are not the same. A conciliatory tone, for example, would seem to be a prerequisite in a forum seeking truth, but in an adversarial court forum, one must eschew it, for it will only result in getting beaten over the head with it by the other party. It is the nature of an adversarial legal system.
Yes, one is chastened upon losing a court case. On the other hand, Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia did not need the Supreme Court declaring it extremist and the equivalent of ISIS (the only other officially designated extremist group) to know whether they were extremist or not. They did not need the Russian cops being told: ‘There are bad people inside. Do with them what you like,’ to determine whether they were bad people or not. It is the same when a Western civil court rules against them in a child abuse matter. They know the original intent of whatever record-keeping exists—to monitor some abhorrent conduct, in accord with Romans 2:21: “You, the one saying ‘do not steal,’ do you steal? You, the one saying ‘do not commit adultery,’ do you commit adultery?” They know, too, the intention was to protect their general community, so that molesters could not slip quietly out of one congregation and into another (as they could anywhere else). They know these things—even if they are misrepresented, sometimes deliberately, as attempts to protect pedophiles.
 
As Jehovah’s Witnesses experienced Bible teachings come together to convincingly answer deep questions of life—questions answered nowhere else—to them it was like a jigsaw puzzle assembled. They thereafter look at the mountain vista from the box cover replicated before them and are not quickly swayed by opponents saying they put it together wrong—even if there are some frayed pieces. This is especially true if that opponent’s own puzzle lies unassembled in the box on the upper shelf of his closet.
That consideration will be the predominant factor for most Jehovah’s Witnesses as they respond to what is here undeniably sordid. Child sexual abuse is the growth industry of the planet. Nearly all groups of size have suffered ship damage attempting to navigate those shoals. The common view now for any organization in which it has not been revealed is that it is only a matter of time. See how the United Nations, for example, is a pedophile haven—wear a blue helmet and nobody questions your authority or intention.
 
Lloyd will not return, not because he has spotlighted something unsavory, but because he has responded to the JW ship running into the shoals by burning every part of it. Is it really so that the Witness world is the one that “makes no sense?” One glance at the news will reveal that it is his world that makes no sense. Is it really so that religion is a crutch of which we have no need? The premise of the question is wrong. It is indeed a crutch. The flawed premise is that we have no need of one. In his day, Ronald Reagan was arguably the most influential person on earth. Ten years later, in the throes of Alzheimer’s, he didn’t know who he was. Will anyone maintain that they need no crutch in the face of a pathetic reality as that?
I approach online “in fear and trembling,” not just because these characters will rip you to shreds if you say something dumb, or because you are invariably battling a dozen of them at once, or because everything you say they think is dumb, but also because I do not know the reaction of my own people. Many of them, if not most, will think a Witness should not be doing what I am doing, and they will give me the fisheye.
Will I one day hear from the Witness organization: “What are you doing, TrueTom?! You’re screwing everything up!?” If so, I will recalibrate, for I do not think that I am above them. It is no more than acceding to the authority of the coach, the teacher, the boss, the mentor, the union steward—something that used to be the most unremarkable thing in the world and is now portrayed as domination by those who would abuse. You can over-play the victimization card.
I am very glad—and did not plan it this way at all—that I wrote two timely books (four altogether) and put portions online so that, should I choose to respond to a tweet, I can also link to something relevant, effectively answering someone’s 50 words with my 1000. Let me tell you that gets rid of trolls in a hurry.
It started out as such a small project. As our people experienced problems in Russia, I wrote a few posts about it in my blog. In time, it occurred to me to assemble them for the record. Emily Baran, a non-Witness, wrote the history of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia from their beginning up till 2007. Nobody has written an account of the present happenings, so I figured that I would do it.
All I had in minds was something on the order of a brochure. However, as opposition in Russia intensified, the precise reasons for opposition were never stated, leaving reporters to venture educated guesses as to just what Russia has against them. Putin himself doesn’t seem to understand it, stating that he doesn’t know why Jehovah’s Witnesses are persecuted since “they are Christians, too.” So I decided to state them myself, along with how each might be defended in Parts 2 and 3 of what became a book—with references endnoted because that is what one does with history.
Thus the book is not only a chronicle of history (Part 1). It is also a witness to persons who might not know much about us. It is what I would say were I on a return visit there. It is literally what I would say, in many cases. One personal friend said about my first ebook, Tom Irregardless and Me that he was having a hard time following along until a light went off in his head: “Oh. Tom writes like he speaks,” after which he had no trouble.
The defense portion of Dear Mr. Putin – Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia grew and grew and is as large as the history portion. Moreover, everything is interwoven. When I put it out there, I thought my book-writing days were done. However, opposition that had taken a pause in the West kicked up again—I found myself responding to that in other posts—and presently I thought to package them into another book: TrueTom vs the Apostates!
The two were always meant to stand separately. I didn’t think of Dear Mr. Putin while I was writing TrueTom. However, they will end up sharing a few common chapters, even though both have already been released—you can do that with ebooks—they will share common material because, in a spiritual sense, the situation in Russia and the situation in the West are the same. It is a good cop/ bad cop situation. The good cop may really not want you to fall into the hands of the bad cop, because he knows how bad that bad cop can be. But both cops have the same goal—that Jehovah’s Witnesses cease being Jehovah’s Witnesses and that kingdom message that they alone preach should stop.
Will my own people upbraid me? Their preference, sometimes stated strongly, is for Witnesses to not go cavorting about online, even if as self-proclaimed sheriffs determined to drain the internet swamp—perhaps especially so, because they always look foolish in so doing. The internet is not the congregation and cannot be made to behave like one. But for me, it will be sort of like what Brother Sivulsky in Russia, from a far more secure perch organizationally, but from a far more dangerous one physically, said. Just after the Russian ban went into effect, he was interviewed from afar by American media: “Are you putting yourself in danger just by speaking with me?” the reporter asked. His answer:
“I don’t know—to be frank, I have no fear. if something will happen—okay it will happen—what I can do? What I am telling only the truth—then why I should fear? If something happens, okay, we will face this problem. For me it is easier because my family was exiled to Siberia. My father spent seven years in prison. My mother spent four years in prison. And I also myself spent one and a half years in prison for military service objection. That’s why I know what does it mean to be persecuted and I have no fear.”
I should be at least as courageous (even though my father did not spend seven years in prison), because my brothers in Russia are showing that quality in spades, and everyone else wonders if, when it comes to them, they will handle it as well. “You can’t do it on your own strength,” comes the scriptural answer. “Nor could they. They lean upon God for strength.”
Upbraiding from my own folks may not happen. When a widow asked me to give the funeral talk of a close friend at the Kingdom Hall, I said that I would if it were allowed—there would be no problem at a funeral home but, neither being a current elder or servant, it might not be allowed at the Kingdom Hall. It was. I’ve been around for a while and people like me. The day I arrived to give it, however, one elder known for crossing ‘t’s and dotting ‘i’s asked me if I was speaking from the supplied funeral talk outline that most speak from. I said I was not. He was not real pleased about that, but after the talk he reversed his position. Another elder present, a former Bethel member, told me afterwards that Bethel has no problem departing from customary practice whenever it can be improved upon. An older man can chance it more readily than a young man, for whom it would likely come off as immodest. You don’t have to speak the healthful words verbatim. You have to speak the pattern of the healthful words, as Paul told Timothy.
See: Tweetstorm Over the Atlantic    and/or
Lessons to be Learned
Soon to be included in the eBook; TrueTom vs the Apostates!

Maybe there were shades of dictatorship, maybe someone was frightened of something. But the reason I share all of this is because we need to know that people will have the same problems now as they had for thousands of years.
Think about what you might have done if you lived in the reign of King Manasseh or had knowledge of David's immorality before it was put in CONTEXT by the rest of the Bible. Of what about being stumbled by the way men from James, and also John and Peter were acting with respect to the Judaizers mentioned in Galatians 1 and 2. Or if you knew that the "Governing Body" had given a decree including not eating meat sacrificed to idols and then you heard the apostle Paul preach that it was OK to eat meat sacrificed to idols? Or what if you had heard Jesus say you have to eat his body and drink his blood? Or what about all those superfine apostles that attracted followers of men in first-century congregations? What if you heard that Peter had killed 2 contributors to the early congregation for holding back some of their claimed contribution.
These might have seemed causes for stumbling, and we could easily conceive of many brothers backing away from their congregations in doubt or even defiance of false understandings. But what was the correct response? If some might have known better, or saw that something was not really handled Biblically, would merely running from it have been the loving thing to do?
I think some have too high an opinion of what the GB represent, even higher than what the GB are claiming themselves. For those persons, it's good to review the record. For others, too, it's good not to place too high of expectations on humans, but appreciate the truths themselves. The message outweighs the messenger.

Now now, at John 10:5 Jesus wasn't talking about his voice being "strange". He was talking about those such as yourself who concoct all sorts of strange notions with scriptures thrown in for good measure. Your interpretations voice very strangely alongside the words of the "Fine Shepherd". But not to fear, his sheep listen to his voice, and because they know his voice, they follow him, certainly not you.
Indeed, "because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; Matt 7:13.
 

Exactly!

One effect of a disenfranchised anointed-in-the-wilderness model is that unity of Christians diminishes and ultimately dissolves. Christianity becomes little more than a personal code, molded differently in each individual by the greater forces of national, social, wealth, racial, educational divisions. Inevitably, Christians are at each other’s throats, each happy to do “what is right in his own eyes,” modified by a smileyGod face.
Sometimes I think it is chosen for just that reason. It is the disunited world that Christians came out of. Why on earth would anyone want to go back into it?
The point is, Witness, I haven’t seen any evidence that you actually DO anything, beyond crashing posts and reading half the Bible to those within.

Well you are having a good go at ithe hoodwinking, but actually you aren't having much success. Just lengthy diatribes of multicoloured text. There are some scriptures there, the only relevant sections actually, but what lies in between is just a set of bitter sounding words without meaning or substance.
Jesus said "his sheep will by no means follow a stranger but will flee from him because they do not know the voice of strangers" John 10:5. I'm sorry to say, yours is a very strange voice.

@The Witness / Pearl Doxsey - Why don't you just create your own club on here and preach your own version of Christianity?
I get that you are relating many items back to JW's but you could do better in your own club rather than challenging every JW on here.
'You get more flies with honey" sort of thing....?

It is not possible to mishandle what you never attempted to handle in the first place.
The clear implication of rulings such as this is that religious organizations ought not to look into the conduct of its members, for it is only by doing so that they can step into messes like this.
“Be like the mainline churches,” the ruling says in effect. “Preach to them on Sunday and be done with it. It’s none of your business whether they apply it or not.”
However, the verse says that it is their business. “You, the one preaching, “Do not steal,” do you steal?  You, the one saying, “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery?” If you claim that your teachings improve the moral fiber, you must have mechanisms in place to ensure that that is indeed the case, especially if your view of God is that he insists on a “clean” people.
Framed that way, the ruling is a state attempt to regulate religion and could be argued on that basis.
Plus, such thinking completely ignores the far superior role of prevention of CSA, in order to zero in exclusively on meting out punishment when it occurs, as though THAT is the means for the problem to be solved. How’s that project going, anyhow? Thirty years into the all-out CSA war, is it just about snuffed out? Or is it only the tip of the iceberg that has been revealed?
I’ll take the kids you have criticized, Caleb and Sophia, any day, for teaching parents how to protect their children.
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/children/become-jehovahs-friend/videos/protect-your-children/
 I’ll take the 2017 Regional Conventions any day, in which every Witness in the world was assembled to hear detailed scenarios in which child sexual abuse might take place, so that parents, the obvious first line of defense, can be vigilant.

Just a note to say I am taking at least a  one year vacation from the JW-Archive and its successors starting this Sunday night, December 30, 2018.
I have been gathering data to write a series of Science Fiction Novels for over 30 years, and my wife will need the money after I go up the chimney.
Besides, I have been on for something like seven years, and it has evolved GREATLY from the silly pablum it started out as, so my irritant is no longer needed.
I will still get emails of course, when somebody posts something. 
If Robert A. Heinlein can turn out his masterpiece "Starship Troopers" in one week, on a typewriter ... and he did  ... while infuriated by Nikita Khrushchev banging his shoe on the table at the United Nations, I, with a word processor and Dragon Naturally Speaking voice to text software ought to, with practice, emulate that.
I intend to "write by the pound", six hours a day, five days a week.
I may even get up every morning, , and put on a suit and tie before sitting down at my workstations.
Hahahahahaa!
  Just kidding.