James Thomas Rook Jr.

A relatively young elder gave a funeral talk for the "unbelieving" son of an elderly sister. It was very well attended and I was glad that I witnessed for the first time a talk being given about a person, what he did for other persons, what he did for the community at large, how he treated his mother, etc, etc.  And he got in many scriptures too.   It was different from the usual talk which is somewhat disassociated from the person, and dwelling only on the hope for the future and the resurrection.
Love it that people are willing to remember the person who died.  Most people come because of the person.  And there are so many things we don't know about people, peculiarities and good qualities. That is why it is emotionally fulfilling to go there and be different, and it leads to some kind of closure for the family and all who loved the person.
So, Tom, you saw what you did for the policeman relative.  That is needed, too.

I served 20 years in a city congregation that was two thirds black. There were several sisters with unbelieving mates, and some of those mates had issues. One would spend weeks at home where life would be 24/7 bliss. Then he would disappear into the streets for more weeks. Nobody knew if he would return or not. When he did, his wife always took him back.

His wife asked me to give his funeral talk. Though most avoided assignments like this, I relished them for the challenge of offering comfort amidst horrendous circumstances. I mean, when a guy gets knifed to death on a strange doorstep while seeking drugs, how do you put a smilely face on that?

“Jimmy had some hang-ups,” I said, “and it is likely those hang-ups had something to do with his death,” I told mourners at the Metropolitan Funeral Home. “We all know it. We might as well say it. Only then can we begin to offer comfort. Like all of us, Jimmy was a combination of strengths and weaknesses. You never know for sure which will win out and sometimes you say ‘there but for the grace of God go I.’

Look, this system is rough and it destroys people. When that happens, you don’t go moralizing over it. These were Bible type people, most of them not ours, so I read a lot of scriptures. But I also went heavy on his good traits, for he did have some. Few in the audience knew that he had graduated at SUNY Brockport and that he was a skilled pianist. I told of the happy times he would play piano at home.

I didn’t know how to conduct myself at the Metropolitan Funeral home. It was not my culture. I gathered that much was expected from the preacher (me) who conducted the funeral. I told the funeral director that I didn’t want to do it, for it would be phony. I would give my talk, sit down, and they could take over and I would do whatever they said. He told me that after his remarks I should lead everybody out the front door.

After his remarks, I led everyone out the front door. When I was almost there, I turned around to find they were way behind me all moving like snails. Of course they were way behind me all moving like snails – they had a casket to carry. I hadn’t thought of that. I doubled back and led them out at a snail’s pace, and felt a little uncomfortable doing so.

My most emotionally rewarding moment? When a Rochester police officer, approached me with tears in his eyes to thank me for speaking well of his brother. Emotional reward is all that counts. Though I have given many funeral talks, I have never charged a dime, as is the way with Jehovah’s Witnesses. I relate the event not to draw attention to myself. It was emotionally fulfilling giving the talk. It is emotionally fulfilling again telling of it.

A childhood friend of my son died the other day and he is not the first one. This system has not been easy on the younger generation, though it is easier on them than it is on the younger generation still, some of whom have hung themselves and streamed it live on Facebook. It’s a little hard for adults to reassure their children that all is right with the world when they see their classmate on the internet doing that, even though some apostates who have gone atheist try to let on that the world is just getting better and better.

Anyhow, he had strayed far from his Bible roots, though I did remark that I hope when I die I have as many people saying what a good guy I was as he did, and I worried somewhat how the speaker would handle it since it is a bit dicey and I found myself wishing I could give the talk myself, for I am good at that sort of thing, if not much else. What you must do is carry on not too much about his ‘bad decisions,’ (which the speaker did not, though it depends upon whose eyes you view it through) but you must keep an eye upon his non-Witness buddies and his daughter particularly and say: ‘this talk is for them.’ Of course, you cannot be untrue to the Scriptures, but the Scriptures are like a multi-faceted gem – you must search for the proper facet with which to let the light shine through. And you don’t have to avoid ‘bad decisions’ entirely – after all, no one can say that crashing your snowmobile through the ice when it had been warm lately was a good decision.

When you break into the Bible, 1 Thessalonians 4:13 is a fine place to start. ‘For we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, about those who are sleeping in death, that you may not sorrow just as those do who have no hope.’ Who can argue with that - Witness or non-Witness?

Everyone hung about at the lodge afterwards, and I approached members of the lad’s biker gang, who were visibly taking his death hard. “My son played with him as a kid,” I said, ‘but you would know him better than me – what was he like?’ ‘Better grab yourself some pizza,’ I said later on. Commish said no, for they had to ride and if they ate they might fall asleep. I said don’t take it the wrong way, but that strikes me as humorous and it reminds me of how my ancient Dad now has a lot of Westerns playing in the background, some featuring Ronald Reagan! in which the good guys are always ready to ride at the end of the show.

I also told him about the days long ago when I was in the doghouse with my wife and I looked for some grandiose gesture to try to rectify matters so I visited the Dinosaur Restaurant where Hell’s Angels were reputed to hang out to see if I could recruit them to visit her on twenty choppers and the head guy get out and hand her a dozen long stem roses. The waitress thought it was a really cool idea, and she would tell the guys, but I never heard back. “You should have called us,” the biker at the funeral said, “we would have done it.” I walked away to chat with others and he approaches me to hand me his well-worn biker card – I mean, think of the places it must have been! Believe me when I tell you, I am sorely tempted to pick a fight with my wife deliberately so as to land in the doghouse again so as to hire these guys. Though it will probably happen anyway for I am not the easiest guy to be around long-term and my wife occasionally gets fed up. Others in the congregation say: “that Tom Harley is a great guy, but imagine if you had to be around him 24/7!”

Yes, customs are quite different in different countries.
In Ireland weddings and funerals are usually accompanied by 5 days of very heavy drinking Irish whiskey.
The difference between an Irish Wedding, and an Irish Funeral is ....
(wait for it ...)
.... one less drunk.

Yes, customs are quite different in different countries.
In Ireland weddings and funerals are usually accompanied by 5 days of very heavy drinking Irish whiskey.
The difference between an Irish Wedding, and an Irish Funeral is ....
(wait for it ...)
.... one less drunk.

Yes, customs are quite different in different countries.
In Ireland weddings and funerals are usually accompanied by 5 days of very heavy drinking Irish whiskey.
The difference between an Irish Wedding, and an Irish Funeral is ....
(wait for it ...)
.... one less drunk.

Actually, there are 15 archangels, according to how many chassis styles Ford Motor Company has.
Gimme a break .... equating how many archangels there are according to the 12 signs of the zodiac ... which are artificial constructs that vary from culture to culture?
Tradition says that no matter which way Mickey Mouse turns his head, the ears always face  the viewer.
If the Bible does not say... everything else is conjecture .....
... ONLY.

I take it from your "HaHa" and "Confused" icon responses @alvi languore insanabili to some of the posts in this thread that you don't think Gertoux's research is much worth considering. That's fine, of course. But I was hoping that we could avoid making claims about anyone's research in this particular thread without some form of reference or consensus based on some evidence. I don't know anything in particular about whether it conforms to peer review, but Gerard Gertoux (by email) had mentioned that a reading committee for University Press of America had already evaluated the full version of his book:  https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780761822042
As you know the Watchtower has often made claims that do not conform to critical peer review, and most often, we just give them the benefit of the doubt (myself included). The exceptions for me are usually only in the areas where the Watchtower itself has no longer agreed with the Watchtower, and has therefore made many updates and changes for those many times when things don't make as much sense for them any more.
True. From the beginning the NWT committee has consistently held that "Yahweh" is preferable from a scholarly standpoint, but "Jehovah" is preferable for a modern-language, recognizable equivalent. But there are a couple different lines of evidence that something like J Eh-'Ow-'Uah is another possibility. I think that Gertoux picks up on this possibility as a way to show that the WTS may have made an even BETTER choice than they may have understood at first. And I also think that there are several pieces of evidence that he picks up on that we can learn from.
For what it's worth. I'm very happy with the choice of Jehovah, and of course it doesn't bother me at all to see Yahweh or a near equivalent like Jahve (NJT) in a translation. None of them seem as natural in an English translation, but that's probably just what I'm used to.
Also, not that it matters what I think, but I think the WTS and the NWT committee has done the right thing in adding a YHWH equivalent (Jehovah, for example) back into the Greek text where it was a quote from the OT, because this is obviously a place where even "Lord" had been used as an equivalent for "YHWH." I don't agree with some of the places where it was added, if those places were not quotations, although a footnote could explain some reasonable exceptions.

I am quoting here from that long sentence that begins the essay found here: http://areopage.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Gertoux_UseNameEarlyChristians.pdf (which contains copyrighted material).
Gertoux packs a lot into this sentence, and this is just the first part of it. To begin, Matthew 15:3 says:
In reply he said to them: “Why do you overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition? And then Jesus goes on to say in verses 9-11:
9 It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’” 10 With that he called the crowd near and said to them: “Listen and get the sense of it: 11 It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.” The natural instinct is to think that since Jesus had just given an example of what the hypocrites do to dishonor their mother and father, that this applies even more so when we think of ways in which we can honor our heavenly Father. And one of those ways would be to call him by his personal name in the way that the Hebrew nation had done for  1,000 years, since Moses around 1500 BCE, or even since Abraham, more than 500 years before that!
But, for the sake of argument, we might also want to put ourselves in the shoes of the Jewish nation and try to figure out why this idea of not pronouncing God's name ever caught on so widely in the first place. There is very good information in the Insight book on this topic under "Jehovah" but it admits that we don't know the reason for sure.
*** it-2 p. 5 Jehovah ***
When did the superstition take hold? Just as the reason or reasons originally advanced for discontinuing the use of the divine name are uncertain, so, too, there is much uncertainty as to when this superstitious view really took hold.

This shouldn’t be surprising since Gerald seems to expand his research that doesn’t necessarily agree with the Watchtower, nor does it conform to critical peer review.

The Name of God will have differences by language, but by in large, the general understanding stands as Yahweh under the old and new refined language and Jehovah with all the language adjustment made to appeal to modern language.

http://realnewsrightnow.com/2017/02/pope-francis-orders-vatican-archives-reveal-gods-name-ending-centuries-secrecy/

By this standard, Gerard Gertoux brings nothing new to the table, and he is certainly not a scholar to be admired for his work. The Watchtower is clear in its understanding, and it has for a long time. What interested me? How mindful it is not to have this scholars information violated when it is done with the Watchtower literature at every turn.

I have downloaded several that I never read. His papers on specific Bible-related chronology issues are interesting but I haven't completed them, and he keeps more papers coming.
A quick word on my own personal bias here. As I told the author: "I am very much aligned with your work on the topic. Naturally there are a few specific things I question, even if I end up with an overall conclusion that is generally like yours."
I think that when I bring up questions, just as I have on several issues coming from the WTS or GB, there are always a few persons who believe this is highly disrespectful, and they make it clear that to question the GB is tantamount to questioning God. Of course, I not only consider it our Christian obligation to question, it also serves the purpose of refining. Even the questioning by various sects helped refine Christian truth according to Paul.
(1 Corinthians 11:19) For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. This fits the idea in Greek that testing is the same as refining.
(1 Peter 1:7) 7 in order that the tested quality of your faith, of much greater value than gold that perishes despite its being tested by fire,. . . The NWT in the footnote here says that "tested" could be translated as "refined."
So I propose we should put any argument through the fire. It's not a sign of disrespect for the author. (Abraham didn't think it was such a bad thing to question God!) It can mean just the opposite, that we are treating someone's words the way we would treat nuggets of newly found gold . . . to refine them and make sure that what holds up is pure. Mostly, however, I think we should question and test and put all ideas through the fire so that we can have a better understanding ourselves, and thus be better prepared to defend what we believe. (1 Peter 3:15)

Just to get the discussion going, I'll quote only one sentences from the areopage.net site and the entire initial "abstract" paragraph from the academia.edu site. The first quote is a response a question about whether Jesus pronounced the divine name:
In the first place, as he strongly denounced human traditions which annulled divine dictates (Mt 15:3), it seems unlikely that he complied with this unbiblical custom of not pronouncing the Name, which appeared only around 130-160 CE, according to the Talmud (Sanhedrin 101a 10:1), with Rabbi Abba Saul who prohibited the pronunciation of the tetragram (YHWH in Hebrew יהוה ) according to its letters2, warning that those transgressing this command would forfeit their portion in the world to come.  
Abstract. The understanding of God's name YHWH is so controversial that it is eventually the controversy of controversies, or the ultimate controversy. Indeed, why most of competent Hebrew scholars propagate patently false explanations about God's name? Why do the Jews refuse to read God's name as it is written and read Adonay "my Lord" (a plural of majesty) instead of it? Why God's name is usually punctuated e, a (shewa, qamats) by the Masoretes what makes its reading impossible, because the 4 consonants of the name YHWH must have at least 3 vowels (long or short) to be read, like the words [Adonay and Elohim] "God" (a plural of majesty), which have 4 consonants and 3 vowels? At last,why the obvious reading "Yehowah", according to theophoric names, which all begin by Yeho-, without exception, is so despised, and why the simple biblical meaning, "He will be" from Exodus 3:14, is rejected.

I have recently, just today, communicated again with Gerard Gertoux requesting permission to quote extensive long passages from his book on this topic as a basis for a more in-depth forum discussion. The Amazon link to his book is here:
The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is pronounced as it is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah
A subset of that same material is also found here:
http://areopage.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Gertoux_UseNameEarlyChristians.pdf
Gerard Gertoux has responded that it would be better to use  https://www.academia.edu/14029315 as it is a free version that all of us can download, and it has no copyright.
Since this topic comes up now and then, under various topic headings, I hope that some might find it useful to understand the basics of his argument. He assumes a lot of background and expertise that many do not have, but the material is accessible enough so that we can all learn a lot about the topic and even about the related background material at the same time.
Out of respect for the author's wishes, let's not make extensive quotes from the book or the "areopage.net" link above except where fair use might allow. And even the "academia.edu" content should only be quoted in reasonable portions to the extent that it is needed for discussion. I have also mentioned to the author that I will do my best to keep the topic from devolving into a discussion of the Trinity. I will try to keep the discussion on topic, which also means that it should not become a free-for-all with critiques of the New World Translation or the persons who may have worked on it.
The topic will not revolve only around Gerard Gertoux's writing, but it's a good place to start. Feel free to bring in evidence from other authors and researchers if it is related to the questions. As a reminder the evidence we discuss should focus especially on the following questions:
Did Jesus and the apostles and disciples of the first century use the Divine Name? Did they read it aloud when they came to it in the OT Scriptures? Did they include it (and therefore expect it to be used aloud) in the writings of the NT? [And, of course, feel free to use the terms OT and NT as abbreviations for "Hebrew Scriptures" and "Christian Greek Scriptures" respectively.]

Actually, there are 15 archangels, according to how many chassis styles Ford Motor Company has.
Gimme a break .... equating how many archangels there are according to the 12 signs of the zodiac ... which are artificial constructs that vary from culture to culture?
Tradition says that no matter which way Mickey Mouse turns his head, the ears always face  the viewer.
If the Bible does not say... everything else is conjecture .....
... ONLY.

Actually, there are 15 archangels, according to how many chassis styles Ford Motor Company has.
Gimme a break .... equating how many archangels there are according to the 12 signs of the zodiac ... which are artificial constructs that vary from culture to culture?
Tradition says that no matter which way Mickey Mouse turns his head, the ears always face  the viewer.
If the Bible does not say... everything else is conjecture .....
... ONLY.

Angel of the Lord (or JHVH) 
Who is he? Angel of the Lord. 
If someone came to answer how he is Jesus or Michael or Word or Gabriel or .... i do not have nothing against.
I expressed my opinion about Michael and why i think how he can not be firstborn Word. Wrong or right my life not depend on what i thing about that issue. If God want to "punish" me because i have wrong conclusion about it (you believe i am wrong) then i am not lonely. :)) Why you think how i must have answer on "Bible" questions while in same time all those clever people in WT Company changed many "Bible" teachings and expecting of flock to believe flip-flop doctrines. 
If you belong to JW then you are perhaps aware of Known Fact about WT teaching on same matter, for many years  for WT bible scholars -  Michael the Archangel was Roman Catholic Pope. On what Bible verses, reasoning, facts, spirit guided Company (organization) founded such explanation? Obviously on  same that later make new explanation :))))
 
 
  

Why do JWs have huge lunches / dinners after funerals?
...because they are really, really hungry?

Why do JWs have huge lunches / dinners after funerals?
...because they are really, really hungry?

Because it makes sense and is considerate. Some people have come from afar. Some are in no shape to cook. I don't think it is unique to Witnesses. I think it is more common than otherwise.
In cases of family, I remember in my youth people lamenting that the only time the whole family got together was for funerals., as though love itself would not suffice, but only an obligation. I finally decided to run with it. It is what it is. Death in this system of things is a natural course of life. Use it as a metronome, to reliably bring everyone together from time to time. 
Kill two birds with one stone. Bring everyone together and use the power of family to help the bereaved one heal. Stay the course, and the time will come when there is no death.
 
 

.... and my favorite, Mickey Spillane.
Agenda driven examples of ANYTHING are only generalizations, that may .. OR MAY NOT apply.
Infinite experiences....
.... Infinite results.
Often as we get older ... not having been able to make the cut as a helicopter or commercial airline pilot causes us to remember that our goal was always to be a shoe salesman.

That's why as I walk down the street, I constantly stop and look behind me, or dodge into a doorway, or hide behind a lamp post, looking back ....or dodging and weaving get off a few shots ... just in case.
.... better to be safe ... than sorry.
 
 

Any "Theology", or "theology" has to make common sense, and have the long term best interests of Civilization as it's goal ... which is what Jehovah has planned for mankind.
If you live in a fantasy world of playful animals romping across and open field, and cartoon characters giving morality lessons, in the fantasy world you will stay.
In the REAL world everything that lives has the natural right of self defense .... if they choose to exercise it ... and can competently manage it ... and have the added value sometimes of pure, dumb luck.
Mothers DO NOT have the right to abort their children ..... UNLESS ... their children are threatening to kill them, such as a ectopic pregnancies in the case of  ANY OTHER REAL THREATS TO THE MOTHER'S SAFETY OR LIFE.
You have the NATURAL RIGHT to defend your life and welfare, by killing those that if you don't stop them .... WILL KILL YOU.
If you choose to exercise that right ...you are allowed to kill your own children ... in self defense.
It is no more theologically complicated than that.
You know a scriptural interpretation is correct ... when it makes good common sense in the real world.
If the explanation sounds contrived ... it is.

If you are the smartest person in a room .... you are in the wrong room.

Dont answer a question with a question.
 
Did you read the post?

Many times Satan does not have to come after us at all .... we embark on courses of applied stupidity and self destruction all by ourselves.