Pudgy

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

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

…

You are living in a total fantasy construct Georgie, of ignoring actual historical developments and events that really happened, for irrelevant and immaterial theoretical concerns of things that might have been, and should have been, but didn’t.
Because your entire frame of reference is driven by agenda, and not reality … your entire perspective has little or no relationship with what is real.

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

Yeah, yeah, whatever. You’re just using one of those crummy Android jobs and driving a Yugo.

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

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

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

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

The first resort of an incompetent is an ad-hominem attack based only on their disregardable opinion.
Every reply you give further destroys your credibility. 
 

And this is why we have the closed club, so we don't have to put up with many Allen Smiths with many problems, and his buddy George. Oh why, oh why, did I even start commenting here I ask myself.

… Being right covers a multitude of sins, a concept totally foreign to you.
An argument based only on bluster and bluff, as yours was, can be safely disregarded.
PLUS, If you read in Latin, everything sounds much more profound …..

The first resort of an incompetent is an ad-hominem attack based only on their disregardable opinion.
Every reply you give further destroys your credibility. 
 

What? It was a red herring? They got me all going over a red herring? I sure won’t make that mistake again!
Hmm…..if the ball cost x, and the bat cost x + 1, then the price of the ball . . . 
…okay, take a break, Tommy. Good thread, and all, but doesn’t your wife have some chores lined up for you? Better get to them.

I completely understand what you write here, and don't necessarily disagree. The sole reason I brought up the questions you responded to was only to show there is a limit to any obedience or loyalty we may owe any human or group of humans, regardless of whatever authority they might hold.

I had no idea this topic ran on for so long when I replied above. I am reminded of the popular psych line, ‘woulda shoulda coulda,.’ What one can discern in later years, with the benefit on unhurried time for meditation, one does not discern spur of the moment. Besides, 
Not to mention how it shows he caves under pressure. He’s not going to stand up to Moses spur of the moment. Maybe in his later years, the years most of us are in, but not at the time.

Do you mean to say that every candidate should read, among other things, a secret book for elders eyes only? And read the "small print" at the bottom of the "contract"?

That’s why each one must make sure before baptism..and yes..that was double speak…

Please, it's nonsense. GB says they proves own teachings, supposedly, on the basis of the Bible and verse/s in the Bible or so called "biblical context".
After some time, thye refutes these teachings on the basis of the same or some other biblical passages. What is the statement even supposed to mean - that someone is against what is "biblical"?
GB lives in contradictions. 
Joshua David, JW PR in India, stated that JWs are guided by their conscience whether or not they want to accept a blood transfusion, but the Shepard book outlines the procedure that JW elders should take if someone has received a blood transfusion.
Deceiving the public. There is no freedom of choice because members are sanctioned if they take blood.
"Biblical"? haha

Well I dont know ..I read those articles and I don’t see a problem….I think I’ve got the grasp of them but I’m asking others here to comment as you seem so strong in this..understanding you have….so your going to have to spell it out for me
Also you seem to have a few irons in the fire and I get a bit confused ..so I’m just speaking on the blood issue here .
The me…thinks one shouldn’t be disfellowshipped for taking blood but going by all those scriptures in the articles…it would amount to a death sentence by Jehovah himself…before and after Noah’s time and it was of such importance out of three things from the Law …blood was one of them for the new Christian’s.
We are talking about blood here..Frank blood.
Im guessing someone like you wrote in and explained how fractions of blood were in vaccines and certain injections…( which was good )..so then the fractions had to be explained.
As to some of the treatments you have explained and as to why one would get disfellowshipped and not for the other…I wouldn’t have a clue.
I read in one of our articles some one felt okay to transfuse cows blood…..( I remember thinking,,,,what the heck,,,and why would they even publish that)
I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree …..for me..it’s like taking the fruit…..but I would never look down on or judge anyone if they took it or disagreed with me,
You go back a long time and it’s a shame in those days there seemed to be blind obedience with children and youths of your time…no internet…some had not even a library to compare things. In a way you could say you were a victim of your era
I on the other hand come from the 70s and questioned everything….I could see a number of worrying things….wrong things…but I was like one of those no good Egyptians grabbing hold of the hem of that Jew…. .not sure where he was taking me nor not really wanting to go…but I knew he was heading in the right direction.
You’re expecting too much Miles….lives have been lost because of wrongful beliefs pushed on us ( organ transplants)…just as King David lost tens of thousand of lives …for his error…so it happens today as then….and will until Michael comes and finishes it.
Your an interesting man with a lot of fascinating experiences…I hope we hear more of them…you sure write really well….now I wonder where you learnt to do that hey 😉

Your entire arguments are made attacking premises that I never made, and have wandered afar.
 

…

Yeah. I hear what you're saying about the 66-year differential. Problem is, though they don't put it out there in plain language like they did before, they still expect to have their "voice" obeyed just the same as it was expected 66-years-ago. It's just woven into the cloth in different terms today. Even 66-years-ago they were saying they weren't inspired. But they still said what they said, and sometimes they said it exactly how they wanted it understood. That's what struck me the first time I read that remark from 57.
That said, I agree every little change of improvement is improvement.
And, since you mentioned the haircut thing, I was cut whisker close for years and years. As a teenager I remember letting my hair grow out just a smidge. Our congregation servant (dates me I know) told me he was ashamed to be seen with me because my hair touched my ears. Just touched  my ears! Still laugh about that one. Know what my dad said right then and there to me? "Son, don't get a haircut for a month!" I grinned from ear to ear! The congregation servant (former missionary and close personal friend of Knorr) clinched his jaw like there was no tomorrow. Hadn't thought of that incident in decades. Thanks for jarring my memory!