Fausto Hoover

This article shows the position of the JW Corporation that "lobbying" within JW congregations is impermissible. And only that. Nothing says that such action is forbidden in relation to the "outside world".
This is the same as the method used in "theocratic warfare". Every JW is obliged to tell the complete truth and not withhold anything when talking to the elders. But he is permitted to speak untruths or half-truths or withholding the truth from those "who are not authorized to hear it."
That's why you have JW elders and JW lawyers who appear before the Courts and actually manipulate the information given, that is, they lie.

I would just like to say, almost as an aside, that as a minor point that you can take to heart …. the screenshots I posted,  I posted without any commentary whatsoever, and it was screenshots of the Watchtower Bible and Track Society’s own publications.
What could be more straightfoward and honest?
I ASKED YOU TO EXPLAIN WHY IT WAS NOT POLITICAL LOBBYING … and you choked and replied with the usual foggy bottom agenda driven drivel.
Heck, I did not even supply HALF the hard unimpeachable direct exact unmodified quotes available.
….. let me make my position clear ….. it is my personal opinion that all interaction with human beings is political, and nobody can avoid being in politics.
When the Society uses lawyers, they are lobbyists for the Society. 
That is why they are also called “Counselors”, or “Advocates”.
I have no problem with that.
 I do not think that the Society has done anything wrong by negotiating for a better deal, and is and has been trying to make the best way they can under difficult circumstances.
What I object to, and the ONLY thing I object to, is deliberately lying that IT DID NOT HAPPEN.
Hard evidence says it did!
It’s a short road, and a slippery slope to drowning in manufactured fantasy.



 

Unfortunately for many JWs who deeply believe in WTJWorg doctrines and instructions, we have to ask, is the WT Society really a Logical Society? With the passage of time, the GB leaders deny with their own statements the possibility that such an assessment is correct. I'm sorry.
 

Lobbying, Advocacy, Open Communication
First source:
https://research2policy.org/advocacyvlobbying/
LOBBYING RULES FOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
Many researchers’ workplaces and affiliations are likely nonprofits and, more specifically, nonprofits categorized as 501(c)(3)s (e.g., public colleges or universities, research institutes). As such, it is important that researchers are aware of the lobbying rules for nonprofit organizations. Nonprofits classified as 501(c)(3)s public charities must not use “substantial” resources for lobbying, though it is not prohibited outright. These organizations have the right to lobby for issues they believe in or against issues they do not. It is only when this advocacy deals with specific legislation that calculated cost limits apply. If the rule that “no substantial part” of activities be dedicated to lobbying seems too vague, consider an “h election” to allow your organization to precisely report the amount of money spent on direct or grassroots lobbying. Researchers should consult with their organizational leadership about lobbying definitions, allowable activities, and how their paid time may be used when communicating recommendations to legislators.
Next source:
https://www.churchlawcenter.com/political/what-is-the-difference-between-lobbying-campaigning-and-advocacy-why-does-it-matter-for-charities/
Nonprofit organizations with 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) are subject to specific restrictions on their political activities. Violating these rules can lead to loss of tax-exempt status, so all nonprofits need to be aware of these restrictions to avoid any potential problems.
Lobbying Restrictions
IRS regulations generally prohibit charities with tax-exempt status from engaging in lobbying except to an “insubstantial degree.” Historically, if a charity spends more than about five percent of its budget, time, and effort on lobbying, it may be considered “substantial” and thus violate IRS regulations, although there is no regulation that defines “substantial” with precision.
The other alternative for charities under IRS statutes is to use the 501(h) expenditure test under Section 501(h) of the IRC. Under the formula defined in 501(h), a charity’s lobbying activities are subject to specific dollar limits with an overall cap of $1 million. However, any lobbying activities by volunteers on behalf of the charity do not count toward those limits.
 
WTJWorg is full of volunteers, isn't it? They are actually all volunteers.
 
https://www.runn.io/blog/open-communication
 
What is open communication?
Open communication is the ability to express your thoughts freely while interacting with other people. In a workplace, it refers to the ability of employees to share and receive feedback, provide ideas and suggestions, and raise concerns, which makes them active participants in the work process. 
Open communication is about honesty, availability, and transparency. It means that you have to tell the truth as it is and be willing to hear it in return. It also means you have access to the information you need, and you have to provide the information to those who need it, too. Finally, it means nothing can be kept secret – so there is no chance for politicking or intrigues.   
Open communication is based on the following principles:
Trust. When you know you will hear an honest opinion, you do not expect a get knife in your back. You can rely on your colleagues. You can ask for help. This highly reduces the risk of workplace conflict, and lays the foundations for healthy work relationships.    Psychological safety. It is the ability to express your thoughts without fear of judgment or rejection. A workplace is psychologically safe when employees can openly raise up sensitive issues and be sure that they will not be scolded or fired for challenging someone else’s authority.  Consistency. For communication to be truly open, it has to be open on a regular basis. This is why it’s important to establish specific open communication policies that would normalize this phenomenon in the workplace. The role of the leader is crucial here – leaders set an example for the whole team and motivate people to act in the same way.   
When WTJWorg destroys important documents and refuses to hand over documents to the courts that request it, can we talk about open communication?
Or when GB publishes manuals for elders that no other member of JW society is allowed to see?

.., significance of the organization lies in its dedication to spreading the message of God's love and promoting religious freedom to governments..,
Maybe my memory is not serving me well, but I can't remember any Bible text that writes about how Jesus, as the Pillar and Model of the Perfect Preacher and Proclaimer of the Gospel, promoted religious freedom to the political elites in the 1st century?

Try not to foam at the mouth for being proven WRONG once again ….

From the above quote, if you were not intrinsically dishonest, you would have read:
”Jehovah has the Sovereign right to kill any of us at any time for any reason, or no reason at all, even babies, as he did in Egypt so long ago.
That does NOT MAKE babies natural enemies of God.”

Once again, your doppelgänger shill sock puppet, which you control, has betrayed you.

As I have proved by my own words, I never made that assertion.
Your agenda driven mind twisted what I actually said.
Let me give you a hint of how to win a debate when you can’t hypnotize your victims with many words.
1.)  Make sure before you say something that you can prove every word, premise and assertion BEFORE you make it.
2.) Expect as a given that EVERY WORD, premise and assertion will be thoroughly challenged.
3.) Make as your “Holy Grail” the real Truth, no matter where it comes from or who says it, and defend that, and that alone.

A person that expresses sympathy for a dead small dog hundreds or thousands of miles away, but who absolutely thinks all babies are enemies of God, has some screws loose.

… and, as shown above, you deliberately TWIST what I write. 
I accurately quote what you write.

… DUH !

I have been disfellowshipped twice in my life, the latest I initiated, and it was quite the experience to see family and friends cut “love” off,  and back on, and back off again, like a light switch.
I have come to believe, by actual real life test, not some theory, is that “love” that can do that …. isn’t.
Of course, such fantasies are sometimes useful, so we don’t drown our ugly children at birth.
 

I don't know enough about the human psyche to be qualified to explain human actions. But I dare to say that sometimes we are "strange" in our reactions.
On the one hand, it's nice to see that someone has empathy for another when that person is going through a difficult period. Even if it referred to animals which, according to the Bible, are goods that man can manage as he pleases. Even though people/slaves and servants were goods, they had a bad status and some treated them in the past and today even worse than animals.
When someone who declares himself a JW shows humanity towards a person he considers and labels as an enemy, an apostate and other bad attributes, then one has to think a little. What is it that moves a JW to compassion because someone like Pudgy lost a dog, while on the other hand dismissing the suffering of the many human victims of CSA by members of his religion and dismissing the responsibility of the WTJWorg institution for covering up that evil and suffering, not only from their own brothers and sisters but also from the authorities who "were tasked by God to carry the sword" and punish the perpetrators of crimes. The task of punishing not only the "godless" but also the "true servants of God" who are lawless.
I think that the GB leadership (together with the congregational elders, most of them) has long since become too immersed in the imaginary role of "kings and judges", so they forget that they have unjustifiably gone beyond the scope of mortals, which they actually are, and placed themselves above other mortals.
They (GB) instill this sense of too much importance in JW followers as well, so most of them lose their natural sense of "love" and "human affection" that should be beyond the control of GB.
 

Someone who tends to clutter a conversation with self-evident facts and unnecessary verbosity might be described using words like:
1. Pedantic
2. Verbose
3. Redundant
4. Long-winded
5. Circumlocutory
6. Prolix
7. Wordy
8. Repetitive
9. Rambling
10. Tautological
These words emphasize various aspects of someone's communication style that involves excessive or unnecessary elaboration on self-evident points.
Too much of that makes you want to scream and run down the hallway with your hair on fire, just to ease the pain.
 

It’s a sad day of tears in our house tonite, Barkey our 16 year old little chihuahua, who had cataracts and eye ulcers, and only three teeth, and has been really sick for two months, has died.
I know there is no scriptural basis for it, but I pray to Jehovah to remember him, and show mercy for this little dog, when our loved ones are resurrected.
He was a very mild tempered and affectionate member of our family
Tomorrow I will build a wooden funeral pyre in the front yard for him.
The Universe is big enough for many “Rainbow Bridges”.
I hope and pray that Jehovah will entertain the idea.
 

Always…. when you are beaten … you revert to ad hominem attacks. 
… but even those fail. 

.

Simple biology, Sherlock Holmes.
A perfect man who does not have the ability to father children is BY DEFINITION, defective …. therefore cannot be perfect.

…. and with THAT, you and Freddie's entire chains of logic and liberal tree hugger theological arguments of the last three days and several pages here collapses.

Since when do the terms "perfect" and "imperfect" date? Who was the first to use them to denote things, persons, phenomena as one or the other? According to the first words of the book of Genesis, God marked things as "good".
When he warned Adam about the tree, he didn't frighten him with punishment and told him; "if you eat from the tree you will become imperfect". They were warned that they would die. He did not tell them that they would grow old and get sick. Just that they will die. There is no indication that the people in Eden knew of the existence of (the difference between) perfection and imperfection. They were the way they were and it was "good" for them. And everything around them was "good" for them.
Who is responsible for "creating the imperfection"? When a bad event or even a crime happens between people, then we talk about the perpetrator and the victim. The law says that the perpetrator is responsible for the damage. Who is the victim and who is the perpetrator in Eden?
The Bible describes the Serpent, Adam and Eve as perpetrators who were punished. No victim appears to have been harmed. The children born of Adam and Eve seem to be treated not as victims, but as children of criminals and suffer all the troubles from the beginning like their parents.
The same God who punished the first people and all their children to this day, apparently did not hate them, but "only" punished them for disobedience. And he also showed no hatred towards their offspring because he sent his Son to redeem them. So God does not consider people and their babies as his enemies, big and small, but as his lost sons and daughters whom he calls to himself. Apparently Stephen Lett doesn't know that or has forgotten it in the meantime.

This whole discussion reminds me of a satire on the Golden Age of Comics, which was during the 1930’s and 1940’s.

Perhaps this could be looked at with the following idea. Angels materialized after their perfection was taken away. Similar to Adam and Eve, who bore children after their perfection was taken away, so their children were imperfect, too.
The Logos did not materialize like the aforementioned angels, but was born as the man Jesus. His perfect DNA could prevail in the genetics of his children, so the children would perhaps be less imperfect and thus less hostile to God?

This whole discussion was caused by one frivolous statement of a GB member. Now we see how much damage the leading people at WTJWorg are causing by generating botched discussions due to GB botched instructions. And so for 140 years.

…. and Eric, you are confusing two entirely separate things. 
By not being perfect, Adam and Eve lost any advantages of the natural consequences that being perfect brings.
Eternal life
Superior genetics
The ability to have two way conversations with the Creator
… and many others.
It’s like when an employee is just “not working out” and is belligerent, disobedient, insubordinate, lazy, or just refuses to “get with the program”.
I have had to fire, or recommend that they be fired, and they had to pack up their stuff in cardboard boxes, and be escorted off the property.
Not having employment, many lives fell apart, and were ruined.
But as “unsuitable” as they were, and denied the “blessings” of a good job, THEY WERE NOT MY ENEMIES.
An ENEMY is someone marked for death and YOU ARE the one that actively seeks to KILL THEM.
If the fired employee takes his cardboard box home, and dies of a a stroke or heart attack, “Stuff Happens”. 
But, he is NOT THE ENEMY.
An ENEMY is someone you seek out and cut their throat with a sharp knife when they are sleeping, because they are a real, clear, and present danger.
Babies are not a real, clear and present danger.
Jehovah has the Sovereign right to kill any of us at any time for any reason, or no reason at all, even babies, as he did in Egypt so long ago.
That does NOT MAKE babies natural enemies of God.
 

My antics are meaningless?
HAHAAHAhahahaa.!!

Did David and Bathsheba give birth to the enemy of God? Did their son die because he was an enemy or did God punish David and Bathsheba by killing their baby? Adulterers were spared life, and the price for keeping them alive was the death of a newborn child? That child must have been a real danger to David's Kingdom. A dangerous little enemy. Perhaps the fate of that child would have been better if it had been a female child.