James Thomas Rook Jr.

I would imagine that these are young men (boys) in a military school ... and although these are in Russia, there are MANY military schools for young men (and young women) here in the United States. 
In times of insurrection and civil war, even the children fight.
I am from Virginia, and there are many military schools in Virginia, as I am sure there are in almost every State.
It all depends on what ideas you were exposed to as you were growing up, as to whether certain concepts are natural to you, or foreign to you. 
I spent many a summer swimming in muddy farm ponds ... but my wife  considers them to be a bacteria soup, and will not consider such a thing.  I think of them as "swimmin' holes", and at worst, free vaccinations.
When my oldest son was five years old, I taught him to shoot a .38 caliber pistol, and he could hit "center mass" at 15 yards.
When my youngest son was 19, I taught him how to take a handgun away from a person who had it aimed directly at a person's head, and he was horrified ... he thought having such a skill was a demonic art.
None of my children share my interests in such things, but none of them are scared of the IDEA of such things.
I have not seen the movie in somewhere around 40 years, but if memory serves, the movie "TAPS", will give you an overview of what it is like in the VERY common and international world of Military Schools.
In this world, the fact of the matter is ... sheep cannot survive without those who are sheep dogs, and are willing to put themselves in harms way and if necessary die ... to protect the sheep. 
It is what they do .. it is who they are.
You and I live and breathe, and avoid tyranny and slavery ... ONLY ... because there are kind and gentle men who are competent in defending you and I against all enemies.
... an incompetent defense ... IS NO DEFENSE AT ALL.
 
 
PS: I just checked ... the full movie TAPS is available free, on Youtube.
 
 
 

.... submitted for your thoughtful examination and consideration is the following article that has been floating around the Internet for at least a dozen years that I know about ....
 

Is it appropriate for a Christian to own a cat, in light of their past pagan religious affiliation and the medical information that is now coming to light? -J.R., U.S.A.  

It would be misleading to answer this question with either a simple ‘Yes’ or a ‘No.’ The Scriptural answer of necessity must be a ‘qualified’ one, and it is easy to see why. Many conscientious ones among Jehovah’s people today have wondered if Christians should own cats in view of their somewhat sordid symbolic history and the many health risks associated therewith. While we would not wish to state an opinion on what must remain a matter of personal preference, what is acceptable to one person may, although unintentionally, stumble another.
 

This can become a life-or-death issue since to move the steps of a brother away from the path of Christ’s ransom sacrifice is tantamount to ‘putting a millstone around the neck and being thrown into the sea.’ -Matt. 18:6. Clearly, in a matter where our eternal salvation is involved, the mature Christian will not pursue a purely selfish course based on his own personal choices, but will adopt a congregational viewpoint as scripturally prescribed.
 

First, let us consider what most scholars agree is the etymology (word derivation) for the English term ‘cat’. When analyzed with the Latin ‘felis cattus domesticus’, the original Koine Greek is ‘cur.io huma bes-tia’, means ‘a contemporary housecat with all of its beastly identifying characteristics and behavior.’ A faithful servant of Jehovah would quickly notice that the nature of a cat is so marked as being ‘beastly’.
 

The Bible makes clear reference to this condition when describing parts of Satan’s organizations, both past and present. For instance, consider the fearsome ‘beasts’ as described in the book of Daniel or the ‘scarlet colored wild beast’ in Rev. 17:3. The demons entered the swine when rebuked by Jesus showing the potential harm and malevolent spirit control to which a Christian may be potentially exposed. Lest we forget the story of Nebuchadnezzar and the condition of God’s enemy when being humbled by Jehovah, the student of God’s Holy word would ask – is it by accident that the Bible in the book of Daniel describes his experience as a ‘beast’ of the field? Hardly so!
 

Clearly, the Bible – by using this kind of terminology – shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the basic nature of cats, while created perfect by God, has become evil or ‘beastlike’ since the fall of Adam six thousand years ago, and more probably, since the Great Flood of Noah’s time (c2350 B.C.E.). This is a development of the condition borne by the ‘Original Serpent’, the ‘Great Dragon’ Lucifer himself.
 

(Gen. 3:1) Indeed, modern studies of classification of cats, while not necessarily being reliable as they may be based on the discredited ‘theory’ of evolution, strongly associate felines with serpents (despite some external differences in physiology and morphology, which confuse those who do not study these matters deeply).
 

There are numerous reasons why a loyal dedicated servant of God should use his Bible-trained conscience to arrive at a proper understanding of why cats are not advisable as pets or companions for Christians. Consider, then, the following facts:
 

It was a common practice in ancient Egypt to worship or idolize cats as ‘gods’. Indeed, after death many cats were mummified, venerated and sacrifices were made to them. As Christians we observe not only the Mosaic Law, but also the ‘necessary things,’ identified by the Apostles at Jerusalem, to include the following edict: ‘(1) Abstain from sacrifices to idols’. We are to ‘guard ourselves from idols’ and ‘worship no other gods’. Such feline influence could lead to idolatry and thereby ‘grieve Jehovah’s Spirit’ with tragic consequences. May we never take for granted Jehovah’s wise and generous counsel brought to you by your spiritual brothers in the pages of this magazine!
 

The Bible does not say that cats were not present at Herod’s birthday party when John the Baptist was beheaded. History shows that cats were most likely present at this tragic party that Jehovah did not approve of. Clearly then, as loyal Christians, why would we even want to associate with animals that are without a doubt of such bad influence, remembering how true are the Bible’s words: ‘Bad associations spoil useful habits’! -1 Cor. 15:33. Some have exposed themselves to possible spiritual contamination in this way.
 

To invite cats in our house is to toy with disaster. Can one deny that the chance exists that the same grave consequences could visit your home that fell upon John? Clearly, God disapproved of this ‘birthday’ party. Should we not then disapprove (without showing any malicious intent, only Godly hatred) of cats the way the scriptures recommend?
 

Throughout history, particularly in the middle ages and reaching its climax in the Salem Witch trials of the seventeenth century, cats were recognized by the forces of Christendom as familiars and carriers if not direct incarnates of demons. While, in common with most beliefs of the empire of false religion, no evidence has ever been found to support this, the symbolism of cats still remain within the public psyche, and involvement with them reflects poorly on God’s footstools and footstep followers. Many pagan faiths still conclude that black cats bring ill-luck and possess demonic forces, while we have shown that it is, instead, all cats that share these perceived characteristics.
 

 Since cats were associated with the devil, could we as faithful and dedicated servants of God therefore contaminate ourselves by exposure to a ‘living symbol’ of satanic incarnation? How would this reflect on God’s name and that of his visible, earthly organization? Would we want to be linked with a symbol of Satan, the ‘god of this beastly system of things’?
 

The careful student of the Bible will acknowledge that nowhere within it is any species (‘kind’) of cat referred to in favorable terms. In fact, was it not lions of the first century who the Devil used to devour faithful Christians? Jehovah Himself ‘stopped up the mouths of the lions’ (Dan. 6:22) in Daniel’s day. True, the small housecats of today are not quite lions, but being of the same accursed animal family used by God’s enemies on numerous occasions throughout history, would it be wise or prudent to own one? In addition, by owing any type of cat (feline), would we not give an appearance of condoning their evil deeds throughout recorded Bible and secular history? The Bible makes clear that God’s people are ‘no part of this world’ (John 15:19) and that we are ‘not to share in the sins of others’, consume lecithin within nutritive cereal or ‘candy’ bars, or do other things directly banned in Holy Scripture.
 

The demeanor of a cat is seen by many honest-hearted observers as reflecting some supernatural, unnatural proclivity towards malice or evil.
 

 And, it is a well-known fact that cats are impossible to tame, teach or raise in the truth. The cat has a rebellious, independent spirit. While the animal itself may be unaware of this tragic condition, it serves only its true master – Satan, the Devil.
 

The scriptures clearly indicate that neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, faithful Job, the Apostles, Jesus nor any other human bearing God’s favor himself owned a cat. Should we simply assume that this is a mere coincidence? Surely not! This was most likely because they didn’t want to be like the pagan contemporaries of their respective days who showed no regard for how God feels about owning a cat. In harmony with the pattern set by the faithful prophets and worthies of old, it would therefore not be fitting for the true Christian today to own a cat.
 

But, the most modern scientific evidence also supports the Biblical view. Contrary to popular beliefs among worldly people, cats are unhygienic animals. Recently the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced that ‘Cats .. can shed Salmonella in their feces, which can spread the bacterial infection to humans’. Salmonella (salmonella typhimurium) creates a condition of ‘week-long diarrhea, abdominal cramps and in some instances, hospitalization.’ Would we be showing the proper respect to our life, Creator and to our ‘neighbor’ by exposing ourselves and others to this potentially deadly disease? Would this be seen by your brothers, and by those showing an interest in God’s word, as giving a good witness?
 

Additionally, cats practice many unclean habits not befitting a Christian household: coughing up fur balls, licking inappropriate body areas on their own bodies (inappropriate handling) and even, in some cases, on the bodies of their human owners (wrongful motive?), urination on the floor, vocal and blatant promiscuity (unknown to any other species, all others being endowed with Godly chastity and decorum) and widespread sexual misconduct without the benefit or sanctity of holy matrimony, even orgiastic practices, substance abuse of catnip (an intoxicating herb) which produces conditions akin to drunkenness, stealing food from the table, producing ungodly sounds, excessive playfulness and the employment of devices not known to have been used by Jesus, the conducting of its unholy business under the cover of the darkness of night, and so on.
 

 What sort of example does this give our young ones endeavoring to faithfully serve Jehovah? The Bible clearly shows that ‘neither fornicators .. nor thieves .. nor drunkards .. nor revilers .. will inherit the Kingdom.’ (1 Cor. 6:9-11)
It must not be forgotten that the feline is a killer. It eats mice and their kind, which is forbidden to Christians and their pets (Lev. 11:29, Isa. 66:17). But, far more serious, is the matter of the wanton consumption of the undrained corpses of the victims of this nocturnal creature; eating bodies filled with God’s sacred blood is not a matter to be trifled with (Gen. 9:3,4; Lev. 3:17; Deut. 12:16,23,24; Acts 15:20,28,29).
 

 In an earlier article in The Watchtower, we have shown that it would be improper for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to his pet, for animal feed known to contain blood to be served to a pet or a farm animal under one’s jurisdiction, or to employ any fertilizer that is known to have blood in it (w64 2/15 127-8). By allowing one’s cat to roam uncontrolled, the Christian becomes a willing party to, even a conspirator within, this serious breach of God’s law of life.
In addition, the Apostle Paul admonishes us to ‘quit mixing in company .. not even eating with such an unclean [one].’ -1 Cor. 5:9-11; Mark 2:13-17. Although Paul was speaking primarily about Christians who fell into sin, there is no reason to conclude that this inspired Biblical principle cannot be applied to association with cats. Uncleanness in any form is condemned by Jehovah and the fact that the Apostle Paul made no distinction when it came to associating with housecats proves beyond a doubt to the right-thinking worshiper of Jehovah that loyal Christians must avoid all association with all sources of uncleanness. This would logically include animals that either harbor these tendencies or indulge in such practices.
 

Of course, while demonstrating one’s obedience to God’s lovingly-issued commandments, one must do so without any spirit of meanness or ill-will towards these Satanic creatures, though they represent God’s enemies. Instead, mature Christians ‘feel a loathing’ toward those, including cats, who have voluntarily or otherwise made themselves God’s enemies, and they leave it to Jehovah to execute vengeance. -Job 13:16; Romans 12:19; 2 John 9,10.
Are we not grateful for this insight on God’s viewpoint regarding such matters? True worshipers follow closely God’s mandates on cleanness to their eternal benefit! Sister N.K. from Virginia, U.S.A. tells us that since getting rid of her cat, she has not had to be preoccupied with cleaning the litter box or wasting valuable time better spent pursuing kingdom interests with the burden of purchasing cat food. This has allowed her to become a full-time pioneer; she finds that it is now easier to meet her allotted hours in field service. Godwin, a brother from Sierra Leone, puts it this way: ‘I’m so grateful that God’s organization is kept clean! It has freed me from the burden of owning a cat and all the spiritual pitfalls and financial commitments that go with it. I hope all the brothers will realize how the Devil subtly uses cats to corrupt and distract us from the disciple-making work.’ (Matt. 24:14). What fine examples of faithfulness!
 

The question of how to dispose of one’s unwanted cat is a serious matter. Would it be proper to hand over such a creature of Satan to a person of the world? We see no immediate problem with this, as such a person is already immersed in the wicked ways of this system of things, and so a beastly companion would be a fitting one indeed. They could accompany each other on the road to destruction, through ignoring God’s generous gift of life proffered via His spirit-begotten earthly organization.
 

 It is on this same sound principle that a Christian doctor would have no reason to deny blood transfusions to a worldly patient. If, on the other hand, one took the view stated on page 128 of the abovementioned Watchtower, and consider that the pet or any other animal is under the ultimate jurisdiction of a Christian, who therefore bears responsibilities (Eccl. 12:13,14; Jas. 4:17, 1 Pet. 3:21) that are essentially parental in nature. The cat is a dependant. In harmony with this, surely it is the parent’s obligation before God to ensure the feline pet is treated as one would an unruly child who repeatedly refused to obey its parents, or of one who committed apostasy.
Unfortunately in the case of human offspring, one is limited by the laws of the higher authorities of the land as to what scripturally-ordained punishment may be meted out, as compliance with both sets of laws is necessary in such areas. This may not always be the case in terms of felines, where the fact that we are not living in theocratic countries may not prove such an impediment to what God requires of us, as manmade law may not afford such unmerited protection to cats as it does to humans. God’s soldiers would be mindful to apply, where the case merited it and local custom did not prohibit it, the principle of Deut. 21:18-21 which states that: ‘In case a man happens to have a [dependant] who is stubborn and rebellious, he not listening to the voice of his [guardian], and they have corrected him but he will not listen to them, his [guardian] must also take hold of him and bring him out to the older men of his city and to the gate of his place, and they must say to the older men of his city, ‘This [dependant] of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he is not listening to our voice, being a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city must pelt him with stones, and he must die.’
 

The mature follower of Jehovah will do well to be reminded of God’s advice in page 503 of The Watchtower of November 15, 1952 where it was held that ‘In the case where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship? ..
 

We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. ‘Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, .. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.’ -Deut. 13:6-11, AS.’ Of course, we can take no legal responsibility for anything which results from your voluntary application of your interpretation of such Biblical principles as you may believe that we have brought to your attention.
 

As loyal followers of Jehovah’s thinking on this matter, we can rejoice in the fact that in the new system, the incoming theocracy and World Order, the ‘lion will lie down with the lamb’ -Isa. 11:6-7. Yes, when Satan is finally abyssed, the ‘beastly’ nature of felines will be forever abolished, and they will be fit companions for humans on Paradise Earth! But until that rapidly-approaching time, God will reward all of our efforts to maintain integrity by loyally submitting to the leading of his spirit expressed through the loving guidance of the ‘faithful and discreet slave’. -Matt. 24:45-47
 
 
 

This is the way to get real world experience .....
You get the test FIRST.
...and the lesson, afterwards.

But we wouldn't want all Witness weddings to be from the same congregation! Circuit Assemblies and Summer Conventions provide for a wider selection.

Yes, I am referring to priority and emphasis. Of course Biblical and prophetic understanding serves an important need. It was especially important for the apostles to come to recognize how all the Hebrew Scriptures had, in their own way, pointed to Christ. Understanding this is just as important of a spiritual need today, assuming of course that the spiritual need is encouragement and motivation through a better understanding of God's love for us, and in order to emphasize what Jehovah has lovingly promised to those who love Him.
(As you know, I do NOT think that it serves any true spiritual need, when, for example, we claim that a supposed claim of understanding of prophecy should be used to motivate people to follow because we have special knowledge of the times and seasons, as if we were some kind of prophet. It may serve the opposite of a spiritual need, and in fact motivate people to follow just because of a certain time period, or even tied to a certain date or generation. In addition, such claims often lead to stumbling others, when it turns out that we were only guessing, while presumptuously implying that we had been spirit-directed in these guesses.)
I agree completely that Galatians 2:10 fits in this context. I had just barely stopped myself from mentioning it myself. On Mark 12:32, I heard no such comments, but I also don't know that I quite understand your point. It's easy to understand why there were constantly new widows and orphans to look after as times were harsh, and Judea and Galilee were basically in a constant state of revolt where Romans could impress any man into service for themselves, or execute them. Men risked their lives in rickety ships, among robbers, on dangerous construction sites, and of course pockets of armed fighters were regularly killing and dying until things boiled over in 66 - 74, with Jewish fighters holding out well into the second century. And, as Paul said, everyone failed to uphold the Law perfectly. James gives counsel in his letter that appears to fit the situation of Christians failing to uphold these precepts and the "kingly law" due to class issues, prejudice, etc. You almost seem to say that it was more important to think about the widows devotion than think about why she was not being helped out of her situation as a poor widow. This would be a bit like saying we should not wonder about why people were being beaten up and ignored in Israel when we can focus on the good deed of a Samaritan man who didn't avoid him like his fellow Jewish neighbors had done.
In the context of this topic, however, I am also toying with a much more controversial point. Who is to say that there is not a small group of people somewhere, perhaps a family living next door to us, or in a small village in China, with whom Jehovah is even more well-pleased than he is with persons in our own congregations? If they are loving their neighbors, feeding the hungry, clothing and housing the poor, and emphasizing justice and support for orphans and widows, who is to say that Jehovah does not impute righteousness and "Christianity" on them for purposes of judgment?
These persons may say in the judgment, "when did we do these things for Christ?" And he will say to them that because they did these good things for their neighbors, their fellow humans, that they did it to Christ.
 

Back in the days that I call when "each one did what was right in his own eyes," (late 70s or early 80s) there was an one-day special assembly in Niagara Falls, NY. Apparantly, local brothers, if they had the wherewithall, could put together whatever program they liked if they could assemble the speakers.
It is at that gathering that Victor Blackwell spoke and I picked up afterwards his excellent book "O'ar the Ramparts They Watched," which I frequently quote in my own writing.
David McClure also spoke, a circuit overseer, the son of Lucy McClure., who figured in the reversal of Gobitis. He told the story as it would have been seen through a child's eyes. He spoke of regularly getting beaten up walking to and from school. As only Dave McClure could do, he made getting beaten up sound almost like fun.
The third speaker was a brother who essentially spoke about health, the sort of thing that would never be done today. "If you feel good, stay away from them," he said about doctors. He also spoke a lot about nutrution. Dave McClure was sitting not too far from me. Following that 'health talk' he said loudly: "Well, I guess I'm going to go down and get myself a hot dog!"

Suck it up buttercup. This is the Internet... duh.
Protect yourself by never going online... using cash ... and don't go out to public events in case other people there might have a different viewpoint than yours. 

I usually just count the legs/feet, and divide by four .... assuming no "tripod" horses ... but I counted 17 legs, and that confused me.

From what I've seen in the WTS publications, it's fine as long as the hospital respects the medical beliefs of JWs.
And, really, until the WTS sponsors and owns its own hospital, what other choice do JWs have.

THE FOLLOWING IS A PARODY EVEN THOUGH, SORRY TO SAY, ONLY ABOUT 3,000 JW'S  HEARD THE ORIGINAL GILEAD GRADUATION TALK:
And when you come to think about it, dear friends, it's really remarkable. This year, 2018, do you know, is the 144th year since Eighteen Hundred and Seventy-Four? And do you know what that means according to this famous book, that just celebrated its 100th anniversary? From the Seventh Volume? That book gave pages and pages of proofs that 144 years ago was the date of Christ's Second Advent. It was the beginning of the SEVENTH MILLENNIUM of man's existence here on earth. Isn't that something? Isn't that something, friends? The book says the following, and I quote:
"A thousand years.—The Millennial Day, the Day of the Lord's rest, following the six thousand years of evil which ended in 1874."  That, exactly 144 years ago, the opening days of the seventh millennium of mankind's existence is now signalized, 144 years later, by the operation of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in full compliance with the terms of its charter, sending out the 144th class of the Gilead School for missionaries.  And furthermore, I'm told that, eh, by the arrangement of the New York Corporation, we already have some 44 brothers and sisters who made up this class number 144 in the Gilead School. That's only one digit, the hundreds digit, from 144. And the hundreds digit is only one order of magnitude from the thousands digit: the MILLENNIUM digit. And, very interesting that at the end of 144 years from what we once saw as the beginning of the MILLENNIUM, why class number ONE-HUNDRED-AND-FORTY-FOUR is ready to graduate. And what is 144 times ONE-THOUSAND? Why, it's 144,000! Why is that significant? Well, think about the great work you are participating in. The Seventh Volume says the following:
Of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues.—“As the number of the Bride of Christ is to be 144,000, it would be reasonable to think that each number of this class may have 144,000 to look after, as 144,000 x 144,000 equals 20,736,000,000 (twenty billions seven hundred and thirty-six millions), evidently just about the right number to be cared for—144,000 would be quite a host for each individual of the Bride class to look after. So we can see the necessity for the work of the Great Company.” These are, eh, surprising things, startling things, HAPPIFYING things over which we can rejoice.

The ORIGINAL, of course, was none other than Frederick W. Franz giving his infamous graduation speech to the 59th class of Gilead, which was just one number off from being the 60th class of Gilead, and 60 times 100 is SIX THOUSAND, which was a surprising and startling and happifying thing over which we can rejoice. These are his ACTUAL words:
And when you come to think about it, dear friends, it's really remarkable. Today, do you know, is the seventh day of September, Nineteen Hundred and Seventy-Five. [Loud audience stirring can be heard.] And do you know what that means according to this diary, Hebrew diary, from the land of Israel? Why this is the second day of the month Tishri of the lunar year Nineteen Hundred and Seventy-Six. And do you know what that means? That here on this day of your graduation, why, it is the second day of the SEVENTH MILLENNIUM of man's existence here on earth. Isn't that something? Isn't that something, friends? [Loud applause from the audience.] That the opening days of the seventh millennium of mankind's existence is signalized by the operation of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in full compliance with the terms of its charter, sending out the fifty-ninth class of the Gilead School for missionaries. And furthermore, I'm told that, eh, by the arrangement of the New York Corporation, we already have some twenty brothers and sisters who are going to form class number sixty in the Gilead School. And, very interesting that at the end of sixty centuries of human existence here on earth, why class number SIXTY is going to start its schooling at the opening of the seventh millennium of mankind's existence. These are, eh, surprising things, startling things, HAPPIFYING things over which we can rejoice.

I am so HAPPIFIED that I am more than happy ... which is one step short of an orgasm.
I am grinning so much the phrase "Wanna know how I got these SCARS?" is rattling around, and the top of my head is threatening to pop off.
Saliva and bubbles are leaking through my enormous grin, and I am worried .... not about me, but about the two guys with rifles on top of the bulldozer dug ditch I am following this column of sheep into.
... perhaps I should wipe this foam off of my mouth.
 
 

sigh .... this is true.
I was suspicious of about 65% of them ... knowing they were false personas ... but I did not have enough evidence to know WHO.
I remember when I was a small boy, and our family was on a long car trip, in the summer, with no car air conditioning ... going to visit relatives.
I told my Father "Daddy, I gotta PEE!"
He, not wanting to stop, said "Hang your butt out the window, and pee."
Horrified at the idea I voiced my objections, and he said "Oh, yeah, well ... hold one hand over your face so they cannot see whose butt they are looking at!  Everybody has a butt ... just don't let them know that one is YOURS!"
.... same thing.
 

I don't get the dates (or 4 digit numbers) that are written in small letters near the top of each label: 1935, 1331? (probably 1931), 1914, 1886.
 

Did you ask him?  Did you check it out, or are you too afraid to?  If so, how can you be so naive?  The posts are benign, with the comments made by JWs.  You can look them up and see. The same goes for his "friend", Anthony Morris III. There is not one sarcastic note about either page.   For both pages, the activity stopped around March/April., and I am guessing because of the statement made by the organization concerning the GB and social forums.

It is rather a sloppy article but the subject is so visceral that such things are overlooked.
All is told from the point of view of the wronged girl. I don't claim she speaks untruthfully. It is simply that, humans being what they are, we are inclined to remember things the way we remember them...embellish certain points and downplay or forget others. For example, when the judge recalled certain things in a matter-of-fact way, the victim says that's not how she recalled it, and the reporter at that point forgets all about the judge and runs with the victim. I suspect that the judge recollects it more accurately, because he has not carried the emotional baggage for two decades.
When Lett, many years later, speaks of 'apostate lies,' the reporter presents it as though he is calling his old friend a liar. Of course, he is not. No one says that what happened is a lie; it is the spin that enemies (which now seem to include the Inquirer) put on it that is the lie.
I answered at some length the Inquirer's first story and emailed it two two editors and the reporter. It was never acknowledged in any way. Instead, the reporter followed through on remarks he had made on the Reddit forum, that he had more material in the hopper that he considered damning to the Witnesses. Of course, this story that Witness is so thrilled about is what he had in mind.
I take it as evidence that the Philadelphia Inqurer wants this story told one and only one way. If there is anything to mitigate a damning verdict, they do not want to hear it. Of course, they have a story. No one would say that they do not. It is a variation of the "If it bleeds it leads" theme - familiar and not so terrible in itself, but the refusal to consider or even acknowledge a different lens through which the topic might be viewed, is to paint it, imo, as a not very good newspaper. Adding to this perception is that the paper does not seem to have a comment section for its online articles.
Comment sections are not necessarily great, as they attract many a moron, especially on 'hot' topics. But they have become ubiquitous and the fact that the Inquirer does not have one seems but another indicator that they will breach no dissent on what stories they report.
It is the religious version of the shabby journalism that has become the norm today. Reporters of the right or left hype up their view to the point of hysteria, and refuse to look at things that in any way confound their conclusions.
 

The thing people often fail to realize is that there are EXTREMELY righteous people out there, inside and outside of Jehovah's Witnesses, that are dullards.
They do not know they are dullards .... and it doesn't bother them a bit.  It's like being dead ... you don't know you are dead ... but it makes it HARD for those who love you, and everything about you.
My very best guess about Stephen Lett, who I call "Poppin Fresh" (The Pillsbury Dough Boy), is that he is a very fine Brother who is truly one of the Anointed, and God loves him dearly ... although the cynical side of me visualizes him  taking huge bags of money and a shovel out the main gate of Warwick, in the dead of night,  across the street, and into the woods , to the massive Real Estate acreage he has in his  name.
Sorry ... I just cannot "turn it off".
My best guess is that he DOES NOT KNOW THAT THE THINGS HE SAYS ARE NOT TRUE ... which would make him totally innocent of the charge that he is ANY kind of liar.
As John 9:41 says, paraphrased "...Justice must be tempered with mercy for Blind pawns.".
Even blind pawns that think of themselves as enlightened Power Players.
For a person to be ANY kind of liar .... he has to actually KNOW that what he is saying is not true.
 
 

They wanted to get their picture taken with this PARTICULAR cart, because it had a small human head with mouse ears !

A full-page Editorial comment from the Norwegian newspaper Stavanger Aftenblad featured on page 4. With a daily circulation of around 40,000 copies - Stavanger Aftenblad is Norway's fifth most circulated newspaper.

This must be stopped, Jehovah's Witnesses

Years ago, I went to the funeral of a much beloved elderly Brother,  with several friends.
Steve got the idea that just before the casket was closed, we each could "pay our last respects" (literally) by each of the four of us putting a hundred dollars into the coffin. 
I was embarrassed because I only had six dollars ... so I got in line last.
Steve goes up and puts a hundred dollars in the dead Brother's suit coat pocket.
Sydney goes up and puts a hundred dollars in his suit coat pocket.
Alan goes up and puts a hundred dollars in his suit coat pocket.
Now it was my turn.
Just before they closed the lid,
I went up and removed the three hundred dollars, and replaced it with my $400 personal check.
 

The thing people often fail to realize is that there are EXTREMELY righteous people out there, inside and outside of Jehovah's Witnesses, that are dullards.
They do not know they are dullards .... and it doesn't bother them a bit.  It's like being dead ... you don't know you are dead ... but it makes it HARD for those who love you, and everything about you.
My very best guess about Stephen Lett, who I call "Poppin Fresh" (The Pillsbury Dough Boy), is that he is a very fine Brother who is truly one of the Anointed, and God loves him dearly ... although the cynical side of me visualizes him  taking huge bags of money and a shovel out the main gate of Warwick, in the dead of night,  across the street, and into the woods , to the massive Real Estate acreage he has in his  name.
Sorry ... I just cannot "turn it off".
My best guess is that he DOES NOT KNOW THAT THE THINGS HE SAYS ARE NOT TRUE ... which would make him totally innocent of the charge that he is ANY kind of liar.
As John 9:41 says, paraphrased "...Justice must be tempered with mercy for Blind pawns.".
Even blind pawns that think of themselves as enlightened Power Players.
For a person to be ANY kind of liar .... he has to actually KNOW that what he is saying is not true.
 
 

I rest my case ......

Isn’t she communicating with him unnecessarily?   A bit much and unloving.

Assuming that it is true that Lett lies…and there are examples.
What bothers you more, that I stand up to your leaders, exposing them for who they are, or the child abuse coverup?  Do you love your leaders more than righteous acts, which Lett who had the power to perform more than just offering empty words, didn’t do; and followed up with a lie thirteen years later? Ps 5:9
JWI, your words are gentle, but if this man can be excused for saying or doing the wrong thing, how is it that the anointed “brothers” of his, who approach the elders about such issues – using scripture – and are very sure of their belief, are not excused by it, but reprimanded and face disfellowshipping?  Matt 24:48-51 explains this. 
He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them.”  Luke 21:8
There is only one translation that I have found for 2 Cor 5:20, that throws in the word “substitute” – not just once, but twice – the NWT.
“Therefore, we are ambassadors substituting for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us. As substitutes for Christ, we beg: “Become reconciled to God.”
KJV – “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.”
Among the anointed ones that I know, none have expected obedience to themselves. The governing body must be obeyed first and foremost over Christ. The scriptures don’t say a “faithful and discreet slave” should be obeyed.  What does that tell you?  They are the false “christs”, the apostates, and even if it does not appear so on the surface, liars. Prov 26:23-25
Matt 24:24 -  “For there shall arise false Christs, (“one who falsely lays claim to the name and office of the Messiah”)  and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect (chosen).”
The governing body lineage, are both false “Christs” and false prophets.
What should be his first love?  Matt 22:37-40
 
 
 
 

My 1991 Flock book has notes in the margins expressing the instructor's warnings about the danger of media contact. And, of course, it contains exactly the same text handwritten on the blank page 143 that every elder at the time was asked to write in their own Flock book.
I'll type out my handwritten notes as dictated during "school" with respect to what goes on an S77 or S79 form. I think it's easy to see from this (and comments from the instructor(s)) that protecting the reputation of the WTS is always considered very important.
I see much value in many of the points that were added. I think most people would be able to read this idea of "protecting the Society" between the lines, even if they didn't hear the words and attitude of the instructor. Here are my handwritten notes:
Avoid expressions on these forms:     S77, S79 form
1) "anything alluding or naming one of the Society's attorneys"
2) any mention of the legal dept
3) any comments referring to the direction from the Society
4) any comments mentioning anyone other than the committee itself as a possible influence in the decision reached
5) any comment that might suggest to someone with a critical eye that the committee did not reach its decision on its own but, instead, somehow yielded to the influence of an outside party
6) any comments indicating that the elders mishandled the case, or committed any error in the investigation of the judicial committee process.
Every time these forms are mentioned in the Flock book, the reference to the "blank" page 143 was to be written in the margin as a reminder. Still, as just one example, page 114 (or 115) in most "schooled" Flock books will also have a marginal handwritten note as stated by the instructor that says (with respect to reinstatements, especially):
"It would be best to check with Branch Office before making the exception."
I should add that the above information we were to write on page 143 comes after several chapters of very specific direction from the Society about various ins and outs of the judicial process, exactly how to judge the difference in "levels" of sexual immorality, porneia, and other types of wrongdoing, repentance, etc. And it comes immediately on the blank page just before the chapter called "Jehovah's People Theocratically Organized for His Name." The purpose of the chapter is to strengthen the idea that all this direction properly comes from the Society which is already somewhat contradictory in spirit to points 3, 4, and 5 above.
The text of the chapter includes many of the following points which are basically correct, but they also add greatly to the sense that Jehovah's Name must be protected through protecting the name (or reputation) of the organization:
Today, this involves a "stewardship from God," an arrangement administered through a "faithful and discreet slave." Local congregations throughout the earth are not organized according to democratic principles but are under God-governed, theocratic control. We must recognize and submit to this theocratic rulership. The anointed remnant has been entrusted with all of the Master's belongings. Overseers serve as earthly representatives under the direction of the steward class. Theocratic submission requires recognition of this orderly arrangement. God's laws are based on righteous principles, and they are enforceable by an organization or an agency.