James Thomas Rook Jr.

I was baptized in 1964 .. LONG before they changed the rules, and the words, of the Baptismal Corporation Contract ... which evolved over the years as stated above to its current form. which was substantially finished its evolution in 1985.
I have no need to reject the current Corporate fealty oath .... as I was baptized in the name of Jehovah, Christ Jesus, and presumably in the Holy Spirit, which I felt very strongly when I was baptized. in 1964 .
... before politics and lawyer driven agenda driven controls screwed the lid down.
Those of you who were baptized AFTER 1985 ... I feel very strongly sorry for you. as you have in actual fact dedicated your lives to the current version of "The Organization", and are in actual fact legally liable without recourse.
They "got" you. 
You are morally obligated to keep your oath, as stated at the time you made it.
Many people are very happy and content with the new arrangement, and its ramifications.
I sincerely hope you are one of them.
 
 
 
 

Well, JWI.
Billy himself thought it was funny, and he has no sense of humor whatsoever.

I rest my case, then.

You crack me up Billy. The level in which you interact with others is very telling. 
 
Also, it doesn't hurt my feelings if you down vote my posts. It actually makes me smile..........because you read it. 

Spoken like a true arrogant WT lawyer .... or Gerritt Losch.
The bottom line is, you said NO, to my challenge.
 

If you actually do decide to laugh you head off, please have someone video it and put it on YouTube.
 

In God I trust.
All others pay cash!

BillyTheKid46:
I have somewhere in my 12TB array of 4TB USB hard drives documents from the WT that prove all the assertions you deny here and now. In about two days time I could find, correlate and present them to you .... but in the meantime my recollections only will have to give testimony that you are suffering from a major case of agenda driven WDS .
Since you are a Jehovah's Witness in good standing, I will give you a 20% discount to search for them, print them out for you and mail them to you .... after your check clears the bank.
My usual rate is $105 an hour, and I would need a two day's retainer to get started.  I would refund any funds not used.
Care to put your money where your mouth is?
 
 

I had a Brother call me up at 7:30 in the morning, many years ago, asking in desperate need if I had any money I could lend him.  I checked my resources, and told him I had $4.00, which I was planning to use for lunch money that day, but he was welcome to that.
...... and he hung up on me.
That hamburger at lunch was especially delicious !

In God I trust.
All others pay cash!

BillyTheKid46:
I have somewhere in my 12TB array of 4TB USB hard drives documents from the WT that prove all the assertions you deny here and now. In about two days time I could find, correlate and present them to you .... but in the meantime my recollections only will have to give testimony that you are suffering from a major case of agenda driven WDS .
Since you are a Jehovah's Witness in good standing, I will give you a 20% discount to search for them, print them out for you and mail them to you .... after your check clears the bank.
My usual rate is $105 an hour, and I would need a two day's retainer to get started.  I would refund any funds not used.
Care to put your money where your mouth is?
 
 

I had a Brother call me up at 7:30 in the morning, many years ago, asking in desperate need if I had any money I could lend him.  I checked my resources, and told him I had $4.00, which I was planning to use for lunch money that day, but he was welcome to that.
...... and he hung up on me.
That hamburger at lunch was especially delicious !

Spoken like a true arrogant WT lawyer .... or Gerritt Losch.
The bottom line is, you said NO, to my challenge.
 

Don't make a practice of granting credit to fellow Witnesses!!!

Oh @JW Insider it's probably not worth the effort to answer you but I have a bit of time before my darling wife puts my dinner on the table for me.
Let's start with a Quote "You probably know that there were infamous cases of immorality that Paul referred to in his letters even to the very Corinthian congregations that Paul himself had "planted." 
Are look Paul made the immorality known. Whereas, the Elders of the JW congregations hid it all in leters to their HQ and in filing cabinets. Why did the elders hide it ? Because on instructions from the GB. That's why it is all coming into the open now. It follows scripture about 'nothing being hidden that will not be revealed' ...
Quote " But when the Org sees it as a problem, .. "  The Org didn't see it as a problem. It was put 'in their face' by victims of abuse. The problem the GB saw was the cost of the court cases and compensations. 
Why do you use examples of people 'of the world' such as Isaac Newton etc ? They were not 'supposed to be guided by God's Holy Spirit' were they ? 
Your GB pretend to be the 'Faithful and discreet slave' providing the PROPER FOOD at the RIGHT TIME'.  BUT they have to keep changing the food as they give poison instead. So how can they be guided by God to do that ? Do you really think God deliberately misguides His people ? 
Quote "I can't see how it "suits themselves."  The Armageddon threats are obviously to frighten people to get baptised and serve the JW Org. I'm sure we've had quotes on here where the Watchtowers would say the only way to 'get saved' through Armageddon was to be in the Org. More members = more donations.  But then, as with the 7,000 year creative days, it all falls apart and can be seen as lies.  
Quote "the inability to question 1914" ? Are you suggesting more lies ? 
Quote "It's now just a matter of fully implementing the processes that have been put in place." And the two witness rule, what of that ? I'm sure in my own mind that the scripture was not for that use. 
Quote " I  think we agree completely on shunning. I have no doubt at all that we have been implementing the shunning practice in an unchristian, unscriptural, and unloving manner. "
So are we looking at a 100% turnaround on it then ? I very much doubt that.  Remember ,'By their works you will know them'.
Quote " I would never claim we are more moral than any other group of people.".  That's one thing we can agree on then.  
But that being the case, thousands of JW's are hypocrites. So it's an unclean Org. 
Quote "If enough Witnesses perform their Christian duty, however, even a mass of disfellowshippings will automatically produce changes. "
I was hoping for a mass 'leaving the JW Org when I left, but it didn't happen. I was hoping that would have produced change.
Enough for now , my wife is calling me to dinner. 

But hey.... THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!!

But hey.... THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!!

That's a very revealing statement about where you would love to live, but it would certainly explain a Lot (and Lot's wife, even more so).

You probably know that there were infamous cases of immorality that Paul referred to in his letters even to the very Corinthian congregations that Paul himself had "planted." So it doesn't seem reasonable that if the GB had acted as Paul was saying that Child Abuse / Pedophilia would somehow no longer be a problem.
No, I don't see it as just collateral damage. But when the Org sees it as a problem, I do think it's necessary for its leaders to do all they can to remove it, and "progress" in processes and procedures that can be seen to help eliminate it.
I had said that "the core of the religion itself is one that does perhaps the best job of all religions in fighting the machinations of the Devil" to which you replied:
You are asking how it can be logical I guess that someone can be right on some things and not on others. I think you probably already know of many examples. Isaac Newton was right on a surprising number of things, but was wrong on some things, too, and only partially right on many things that he could not have been fully aware of at the time, so that he is still considered right for all practical purposes on many of those things. Aristotle, Pythagoras, St. Augustine, Jerome, Attilla the Hun, Martin Luther, Charles Taze Russell, probably even Hitler were both right on things and wrong on things. We remember them for their overall value or detriment to people or societies.
Misinformation reaches us from liars, but usually from people who truly believe the misinformation, even if it does NOT suit their own purposes. Can you imagine that Rutherford really thought he was lying when he predicted that the "Old Testament" princes like Abraham and David would come back in 1925? If so, he was preparing to be made fun of, to be seen as a fool. He evidently even admitted that he had made an a** of himself, according to the Watchtower. That doesn't strike me as trying to suit his own purposes.
Just as with Rutherford, I can't see how it "suits themselves." It's because of misinformation that they have believed for the same reason that we have believed it. GB are chosen not because of their ability to question, but because of their "loyalty." In other words, they are chosen for their reputation of not questioning. But when they get into that position, they realize that questions do come at them that are difficult to answer. Except for the "generation" fiasco, I think most changes since around 2000 or so have been for the better. And the only reason for the "generation" fiasco is the inability to question 1914. It seems like just too much of a coincidence.
It took a while, but I think they've almost gone as far as they can as of the most recent Watchtower article that covers this topic. It's now just a matter of fully implementing the processes that have been put in place. There is still a matter of compensating for the past, and this is a difficult issue to be discussed elsewhere, I hope.
I think we agree completely on shunning. I have no doubt at all that we have been implementing the shunning practice in an unchristian, unscriptural, and unloving manner. I can see our practice as OK from an "OT" perspective, but not at all from a "NT" perspective. If I get in complete trouble with the Org, it will be because I refuse to shun beyond what is written in the scriptures. I am more concerned about being in trouble with Jehovah than with humans in an organization. And even then, if I am shunned, it does not mean that I will shun in return. As far as it depends upon us, we should work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith.
No. Very serious. I think that moral cleanliness is preached correctly, even though we see that there are exceptions to how it is practiced. Many Witnesses lead double lives. Many are involved in adultery, fornication, child sexual abuse, spousal abuse, violence against children, cheating, lying, drugs, etc. But most aren't, and most appreciate the value and reminders we get from the platform. Most of us appreciate the association of like-minded persons who also wish to remain clean. I have heard persons say that they wish they could only hire Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses, one time from a person who didn't know I was a Witness. I know of worldly persons who have come into the congregation to try to find a wife from among JWs, based on admiration of their morals. I would never claim we are more moral than any other group of people. But I think we have the best advantage in terms of an overall call to morality that includes not only personal morality, but a realization that we should not even be tainted by immorality of commercial greed, nationalistic murderous wars, etc.
Sure. It might turn out to be a temporary sacrifice for some of us. Some of us might have found ways to question and avoid any consequences. If enough Witnesses perform their Christian duty, however, even a mass of disfellowshippings will automatically produce changes. Open questioning of doctrines at Bethel became common as early as 1974 when it was obvious that 1975 would not likely turn out as Fred Franz had been repeatedly hinting at, even though he didn't predict "1975." (He only predicted what must happen before the 1970's were complete, because of 1975.) Questions became open at Bethel tables, and around Bethel "water coolers" until a crackdown began happening in mid-1978 through 1979. People got dismissed and disfellowshipped in large numbers, but this also resulted in a backlash and exposure of the witch hunting and star-chamber methods. I think the Internet itself is already resulting in a flood of questions all over again that are proving very valuable. It is these that have been been driving many of the new (and better) doctrinal changes since 2000.  

I saw an example of that after Outta Here made a complaint about a post with profanity and I saw a lesser example of his (Ryan's) profanity in the past. I hate to see profanity here too, especially because it pushes people away who might otherwise add something more valuable here.
But there is a big difference between profanity against an ideology and directing profanity at a specific person. For example, you are well aware, I'm sure, that that "Allen Smith" was banned after repeated warnings not about profanities but about wild, raging rants that were directed at specific people. Allen acted the part of a cyber-bully. He was not just judgmental but was threatening. Personally I felt badly for persons who might have felt bullied and threatened, but I also considered that all the persons who participated here had already seen many examples from him, that ranged from pathetic to deranged. Therefore, it was likely understood that his threats were not actually meaningful and they therefore carried more "entertainment" value than anything else.
This is why I was against banning Allen, because I thought it more likely that his readers here were mature enough to see through him. For those who didn't want to be entertained in such a way, they could personally block him. I also thought that some of his ad hominem attacks (against the person instead of attempting to respond to an argument) actually strengthened the other person's argument with Allen inadvertently admitting that he could think of no actual response to the evidence itself.
It was only after the warnings that he would be banned that Allen started using profanities. Allen's surprising profanities may have helped some other people think they understand why he was banned, but they were not the real reason. The real reason was always the bullying, in my opinion. 

But hey.... THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!!

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "UNDERWEAR" AND "UNDERGARMENTS"?
Was it customary for Jews in Jesus'  time to wear underwear AND undergarments>
Were there different styles of robes worn as "outer garments".
I used to go to the Mercer Road Congregation near Stone Mountain, Georgia, near Atlanta Georgia, which at that time was the world headquarters of the Klu Klux Klan, and they wore white sheets, and their governing body, The Grand Dragon, and his helpers, the Lounge Lizards, wore white fitted sheets.

WDS ... the gift that keeps on giving.

But hey.... THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!!

regurgitation from mother wt.  no real thoughts of your own I see.