4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I hear this so often from businesses themselves, not just the government, that I accept it as true.

Almost unrelated but my wife's aunt is in the hospital and that aunt's daughter, my wife's cousin, is a registered nurse who was there with us last night. As we were all visiting, this cousin railed against the fact that the Chinese are manufacturing so many of our standard pharmaceuticals that they administer, and another nurse on duty was agreeing whole-heartedly about poison levels and lead levels in all these Chinese medicines. She gave the name of a few of these medicines, so I started looking them up, and it turned out that quality statistics were more problematic (and lethal) when these same medicines were USA manufactured.

it reminded me that major US media outlets including CNN and the NYT apparently feel obligated to run an anti-China story every few days. One recent one that got some traction was a story on how China had banned a cartoon called "Peppa the Pig." Even late-night comedians made fun of how terrible it was that China had banned the innocuous cartoon as promoting gangsterism, etc. There were dozens of major newspapers that picked up the story on Chinese censorship. Some had ominous overtones of impending danger to the Chinese people if not the entire world. 

Think it's funny that China is cracking down on Peppa Pig? Think again

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/07/china-cracking-down-on-peppa-pig

But, in the meantime, people were noticing that not only had a recent Peppa the Pig video gotten a BILLION views in China, but even the Chinese army was marching in Peppa the Pig formations to celebrate the Chinese New Year.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/02/05/691501906/why-its-the-year-of-peppa-pig-in-china?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20190205

The supposedly ominous crackdown turned out to be about as true as the 5,000 news articles published in the US about Assad (Syria) using poison gas on his own people, etc., etc., that, through leaked documents, we now know that the US government didn't believe at all, over the several years that they were still promoting these articles as true.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If what I know about communism is true, there is no private intellectual property, nor private property of any sort. The property of one person is in theory the property of all.

From what I've been learning in the last couple of years, almost nothing I "knew" about communism was true.

The international financial services company I worked for (for a quarter century) wanted to open up services in China. Negotiations included a 10 year opportunity to see what kind of market share our company could build with no government encroachment, except for limits on officer salaries and profits leaving the country. But after 10 years, there would be rules about the number of Chinese employees at "officer" decision-making levels, and a kind of democratic vote by all employees about profit levels, profit sharing, etc. There were rules about not just pulling out and leaving Chinese customers without financial guarantees. If any of these rules were broken the Chinese government would prepare to take over and incorporate customers into state provided financial services or Chinese institutions which already abided by those rules.

9 hours ago, Anna said:

No one gives private bible studies to children anymore unless they are the parents.

Hate to say it, but there are a lot of single parents, especially sisters, who ask for elders/ms to study with their young children for them. And it still ends up as part of the process for making sure a youngster is ready for baptism. The "rule" is to always have a second person along or have the parent sit in. But this doesn't always happen. But it doesn't even raise the slightest concern for most brothers and parents because we trust one another and can't imagine that anything wrong might be going on. So the sister/parent who is supposed to sit in will go off to the kitchen and make dinner or take an important phone call. (Seen it happen personally.) The adult brother (or sister) who was supposed to join the study will cancel at the last minute. (Seen it happen personally.)

But the perpetrators of these crimes end up being people we would trust with our lives, persons we could never imagine doing anything like this. In fact, TRUST and confidence is a necessary part of the equation. This is one of the reasons I don't think any of us should hold back in letting parents and other children know the horror stories that have happened in the next congregation in our circuit, or among persons at some of the highest levels of organizational responsibility. We don't censor "adult" parts of the Bible for our young ones, so why should we "censor" practical warnings of real lurking dangers that could be around them?

9 hours ago, Anna said:

Being protected from scandal surely does not include remaining an Elder despite clear evidence that they have been guilty of child abuse,  since that is what John was mainly talking about. I cannot see that happening in view of 1Timothy 3:2. A person like that would clearly not qualify, even if the accusation was not true, but there was notoriety.

I know of no current cases, but you would evidently be surprised at some of the terrible things that have been known to happen. In the past, where the "notoriety" had been thought to be limited to the victim, victim's immediate family, and fellow elders (or fellow circuit overseers, or higher) there have been cases (I now know of two, but wouldn't be surprised at greater numbers) where the perpetrator was simply moved to a place, new circuit, or new country, where that elder was no long in contact with the victim or victim's family. Elders in the new congregation were sometimes not told at all. In fact, the person might have simply risen in the ranks again from circuit to district overseer, for example.

I believe that it is now extremely unlikely for this to happen again.

45 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The Economist Magazine tells of one proposed law in Georgia that said no convicted child abuser could live within 1000 yards of a school.

I think it's 1000 FEET, but it wasn't just schools, it was to apply to anywhere where children congregate, including schools.

Note:

"Registered sex offenders in Georgia are barred from living within 1,000 feet of anywhere children may congregate, such as a school . . ."

Unjust and ineffective - Sex laws - The Economist

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2009/08/06/unjust-and-ineffective

23 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Even the GB may have skeletons in their closets. 

I have not heard the slightest hint of scandal about any current members of the GB. I can't say I know any of them on a personal level, either. But surely with all the attention being given this topic, and with thousands of vocal ex-JWs, you'd expect some smoke if there was fire. Yet no one has made a claim (or "made up" a claim) about any of the GB members, as far as I know.

On 5/21/2019 at 11:33 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

Do you believe ANY of the cases, from ANY country in this earth, that say an Elder was allowed to keep his position and status and his conduct was kept hidden, so he was able to abuse more children or abuse the same child on a regular basis ?

Yes, I believe there have been a few. I don't want to give the impression that I think this happens often, or as much as so many ex-JWs and previously abused Witnesses seem to imagine. I have just recently read a couple of statements by activist ex-elders who have sat on judicial committees for several years in their congregations and never personally encountered a case or accusation of child sexual abuse. (I'm responding as if you said "on a repeated basis" rather than "on a regular basis" since the term "regular" is open to interpretation.)

I answer your question to the best of my ability however because I believe this is one of those terrible things that, if true, MUST be exposed so that more of us are alert to the potential extent of the problem. Things done in darkness must be brought to light, no matter the pain and embarrassment to the organization. After all, it's not the organization's fault that these men exist; they bring reproach upon themselves. It's this old belief that they are bringing reproach upon the organization that has led to *a few* amazing cover-ups by "organization men" who thought they were doing the right thing.

However, before responding, I just recently read through a private discussion from a person who says he is now ready to go to the police, now that he has completed collecting a lot of evidence and speaking with corroborating witnesses. (Not to his own abuse, but to other persons abused by the same elder.) He knows his case is strong, but he believes the status of the accused will make it difficult to get very far based on the way that other victims of the same accused have been treated. He already brought his case to the elders a few years ago, before the most recent reporting arrangements were consistent. So he wants to have done all the due-diligence before presenting his accusation to authorities.

Also, in general, I think the evidence is strong that the higher up a person is in the organization, the more he has been protected from scandal, because that scandal was thought to reflect so badly when it is someone known by all the Witnesses of a specific country or, at least once in the past, even internationally. That said, I only know about three cases, in three different countries, that would fit this criterion. Two of the accused brothers are now dead. I have been told about a few others that I am too skeptical to believe, although I might be ready to add a fourth name to my list. (A circuit overseer who was finally disfellowshipped for homosexual behaviour with JW and non-JW "young men" and who, according to his wife, continued with non-JW "young men" after he was DF'd.) The length of time it has taken for several elders' cases to finally be settled, after other accusers come forward, over a several-year period, is also circumstantial evidence that most elders never really knew how to handle such cases in years past. This lack of consistency can easily allow for "abuse-of-power" cases to be swept under the rug. But it doesn't prove that these types of cases were rampant.

Of course, there is a wide range of activity that has been lumped into the term child sexual abuse and some of this activity on the more violent end of the spectrum would be expected to produce immediate discipline. What were considered lesser crimes were more easily dismissed or rationalized away. But, of course, as this thread has pointed out, (in the past especially) many of the vulnerable persons in the congregation were never warned if the elders were assured that true repentance had taken place after a disciplinary period, no matter how bad the crime was.

I am very happy for the more explicit correction in the recent Watchtower that can help change the "culture" about where the reproach really lies.

On 5/19/2019 at 6:42 PM, Indiana said:

The news is a blow to the Chinese technology company that the US government has sought to blacklist around the world.

Google's companies (and now Amazon, too) are US military contractors and must therefore follow US interests. Google even helped to delist and blacklist videos that were going viral about the Huawei phones, so that the originals have often now been re-posted, but with many fewer views. My introduction to the phone was this video showing an amazing 50x zoom that no US phone can come close to yet.

There are also videos showing an amazing ability to "see in the dark" which is a major weakness of iPhones and Google phones.

Of course, all this posturing against the Chinese phone can backfire into seeing the iPhone banned in China.

Similarly, the fact that China has rolled out so much true 5G is going to make it hard for US companies to claim that they were the 5G pioneers who had it first. There has been a partial blackout in the US of a lot of Chinese technology. To reduce interest and international competition, the USA once simply relied on the claim that China only "steals" US and Western technology, but this doesn't make a lot of sense when some of these amazing technologies in China have already surpassed US technologies by several years. (quantum computing, AI supercomputers, etc.) 

23 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

you may not have noticed that someone pointed to a Religion News article (it may have been Outta Here) that Jer 29:11 was the new feel-good verse of our age, replacing John 3:14

Missed that.

23 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

As for Matthew 5:3, I am not one of those who say the NWT is great and all the other translations suck, but in this case I think it has hit a home run. 

As I said, I don't have a problem with this one because I'm sure we have the right idea about the actual correct application. I don't think we needed to put the interpretation into the translation though, because more likely translations of the original Greek were available, and these more likely translations fit other scriptures much better.

For example, the Greek does not literally say: "beggars in spirit." The word usually translated "poor" primarily means wretched or reduced to wretchedness, not beggar. Of course, many wretched or persons "reduced to wretchedness" were forced to beg, so a secondary meaning could be "beggar" in some circumstances. Most beggars are poor, but not all poor are beggars, so it's better to stick with the more literal meaning of the word and not add anything to that meaning unless context says we must. The more literal meaning of the term, was not evidently crouching in the stance of a beggar, necessarily, but crouching as if cringing in fear, or slinking away (from crowds, from society, from getting kicked out of places).

Of course, the term must have included beggars, which makes the translation possible. But look at the parallel in Luke where the verse reads merely as follows:

(Luke 6:20, 21) . . .Happy are you who are poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God. 21 “Happy are you who hunger now, for you will be filled. “Happy are you who weep now, for you will laugh.

Do we think that Luke missed the point completely about the "beggars" and only noticed that they were poor, hungry and weeping? So, the thing to figure out then is if adding the term "of/in spirit" changes the meaning to those who must be conscious of a need for "spirit." If it were so germane to the meaning in Matthew, you'd think it would have been at least hinted at in Luke. We end up giving the words for lack of "spirit" a new meaning of lack of "spirituality" when we add the idea of a "spiritual need." What they really need, we are told elsewhere in Matthew is to have their spirits lifted, because they are broken-hearted and sighing and groaning over the system of things and their particular circumstances in it. So it's right in one sense.

(Matthew 11:5, 6) . . .the poor are being told the good news. 6 Happy is the one who finds no cause for stumbling in me.”

But the more likely sense is that Jesus, by his ministry of curing and preaching and bringing hope, is accomplishing the goal that fulfills what was written about Jesus through Isaiah:

(Isaiah 61:1-3) . . .The spirit of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah is upon me, Because Jehovah anointed me to declare good news to the meek. He sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And the wide opening of the eyes to the prisoners,  2 To proclaim the year of Jehovah’s goodwill And the day of vengeance of our God, To comfort all who mourn,  3 To provide for those mourning over Zion, To give them a headdress instead of ashes, The oil of exultation instead of mourning, The garment of praise instead of a despondent spirit.

Jesus brought hope of justice, hope of a new world. He healed; he fed; he comforted; he even raised the dead. He stood up to the religious oppressors; he preached a day when the world they lived in would pass away and a new Kingdom would be born. He therefore raised the spirits of those who were wretchedly reduced in spirit (despondent, depressed).

(Matthew 11:28-30) 28 Come to me, all you who are toiling and loaded down, and I will refresh you. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am mild-tempered and lowly in heart, and you will find refreshment for yourselves. 30 For my yoke is kindly, and my load is light.”

I think I just got bored that there had been less scriptural discussion of late (not counting some notable exceptions here and there, however).

10 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

With regard to Jeremiah 29:11, I guess this is true what you point out, and normally I would be on your side on this, but here i just can’t get too worked up over it. It is used essentially as an ice-breaker here. Call it not the primary application but a secondary one.

Nothing to get worked up over, but we do have an obligation to handle the word of God aright. And I don't think it is wrong to use the verse as a statement of something positive, because it is something very positive. In fact, to me, there is something very meaningful going on in this verse, and I hate to think we miss it by using the verse out of context.

In context, it is actually amazing that God's people are being asked to stop defending their land, stop defending the Davidic Kingdom and the Temple, but to just willingly leave with Babylonian captors, pray for Babylon to let you live a peaceful life as captives, get ready to stay a long time there, get married, plant fruit trees, have kids, and then await a time when you (or at least your children) can come back to the re-promised land and start fresh. Jehovah had something truly amazing in mind for those who were willing to listen to something that really made no rational sense to most of the people listening.

This probably didn't make much sense that an enemy who would be starving people to death in a siege on Jerusalem was going to be someone they should compromise with. It might even look like treason to their fellow Judean brethren. And yet, we have actual physical evidence among tens of thousands of neo-Babylonian documents that the Jews very quickly formed peaceful communities in Babylon. Jeremiah was right, even though it seemed to be against all the odds. Neither the upper or the lower classes generally believed him; other prophets were claiming something else. Jeremiah was imprisoned for such talk. All the while some Jews were fleeing to Egypt or in other directions for protection, or with the thought that they could regroup and fight Babylon. Jeremiah said they shouldn't do that either. The royal family was sure that it should defy Babylon and make its stand against it. The land was being decimated of all its people. At the time, who'd have thought that Jeremiah was giving good inspired advice?

If there is a "type-antitype" lesson here, it's probably not that we should compromise with some antitypical Babylon.  It's more likely that the point is that God's people today might have to be willing to give up our comfortable reliance on the physical, visible "Temple" and our authoritative "governors." God's people will have to understand that each one of us will stand spiritually on our own. We are temporary residents (alien residents) in a world that we should not get too attached to. We are not judged for what our earthly or spiritual "fathers" have done, but the law will be written on our own hearts. We won't be reliant on what our neighbors or brothers tell us about how to know Jehovah, for each of us will know Jehovah on our own. I think all those points are found in the next couple of chapters, especially Jeremiah 31:28-34:

(Jeremiah 31:28-34) 28 “And just as I watched over them to uproot, to pull down, to tear down, to destroy, and to do harm, so I will watch over them to build up and to plant,” declares Jehovah. 29 “In those days they will no longer say, ‘The fathers ate sour grapes, but the teeth of the sons were set on edge.’ 30 But then each one will die for his own error. Any man eating sour grapes will have his own teeth set on edge.” 31 “Look! The days are coming,” declares Jehovah, “when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, ‘my covenant that they broke, although I was their true master,’ declares Jehovah.” 33 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares Jehovah. “I will put my law within them, and in their heart I will write it. And I will become their God, and they will become my people.” 34 “And they will no longer teach each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know Jehovah!’ for they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them,” declares Jehovah. “For I will forgive their error, and I will no longer remember their sin.”

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Some all-encompassing verses that also work for starters—just offer to read a verse, give a brief statement as to why you read it, ask what the person thinks about it, and then offer to disappear. Such as:  . . . Jeremiah 29:11. . .

I have avoided my old habit of fault-finding for quite a while, but this one just brought up the need for some good, old-fashioned nit-picking again. One thing I like to avoid is the use of a scripture that appears so removed from context that we look like proof text cherry-pickers. I know the average householder is not going to notice at all, but it still seems like a stretch to use Jeremiah 29 as an "all encompassing verse." Here's why:

In context, Jeremiah is saying that his fellow Jewish countrymen just have to give in to Babylon (in effect, they must now compromise with Babylon and pray for Babylon and whatever city they end up in) and let themselves be taken willingly to Babylon as captives.  He says that if you allow Babylon to take you, you can try to do the best you can while you are living there and, because the entire Babylonian Empire is only supposed to last for 70 years max, and at least 13 or 14 of those years are already used up. (The 14 years detail is not part of our doctrine, but is clear from the Hebrew of Jeremiah 10:25; 28:17, 29:10, etc.) So, Jeremiah says that you are going to be a long time in Babylon, so if you just give in, by building houses, planting fruit trees, and getting married and having children in Babylon, you might even personally have a chance to come back to this nation, when Babylon's time is up. 

So, in context, Jeremiah is saying that this is a situation where people are lying to you, but if you follow Jehovah's thinking, there is a good solution by compromising with Babylon. But Jehovah's thinking also includes the thought that if you decide to listen to prophets like Hananiah, or decide to defend Israel/Judah, or defend the Temple, or defend the Davidic kingdom, or even listen to certain misguided prophets already in Babylon. For these Jehovah's thinking is as follows:

(Jeremiah 29:1“For this is what Jehovah says to the king sitting on the throne of David and to all the people dwelling in this city, your brothers who have not gone with you into exile, 17 ‘This is what Jehovah of armies says: “Here I am sending against them the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, and I will make them like rotten figs that are so bad they cannot be eaten.”’
18 “‘And I will pursue them with the sword, with famine, and with pestilence, and I will make them an object of horror to all the kingdoms of the earth, and a curse, and an object of astonishment, something to whistle at, and a reproach among all the nations to which I disperse them, 19 because they have not listened to my words that I sent to them with my servants the prophets,’ declares Jehovah, ‘sending them again and again.’
“‘But you have not listened,’ declares Jehovah.
20 “Therefore, hear the word of Jehovah, all you exiled people, whom I have sent away from Jerusalem to Babylon. 21 This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says. . . , ‘Here I am giving them into the hand of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon, and he will strike them down before your eyes. 22 And what happens to them will become a curse spoken by all the exiles of Judah in Babylon: “May Jehovah make you like Zed·e·kiʹah and like Aʹhab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire!” . . .
“‘“I am the One who knows, and I am a witness,” declares Jehovah.’”
. . . 28 For he [Jeremiah] even sent to us at Babylon, saying: “It will be a long time! Build houses and live in them. Plant gardens and eat their fruit,—”’”’”

In other words this is not an all encompassing verse about how Jehovah is not ready to rake us over, or that he is thinking good thoughts toward us. It's about a specific set of circumstances when he is about to rake a lot of people over, and is thinking to make a curse out of those who won't listen to Jehovah. In this case, Jehovah wanted his people to stop defending Judea and Jerusalem and their Davidic kingdom. He would only protect them if they "compromised" with the enemy and prayed for that enemy, at least until its 70 years was up.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

(The reason I like the verse is because some people think God is out to rake us over, or judging from the current state of things, that there is no God, and this verse says not only that there is, but he thinks good thoughts towards us.)

I wouldn't be as nit-picky about your use of Matthew 5:3 because I'm sure we all have the right idea on this one. But there is something to note here:

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Or Matthew 5:3 - “Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need, since the kingdom of the heavens belongs to them.” (The reason I like the verse is because we all have a spiritual need, but we are not necessarily conscious of it—it is more like vitamins, that if neglected, may lead to sickness and we never know quite why.)

Very few people know this verse as one that says anything about being conscious of something, especially not conscious of a spiritual need. In Greek, the verse just says, happy are those who are poor in spirit (the same words that would mean  depressed or broken hearted or those with a "broken spirit." Most translations correctly say something like "poor in spirit" which aligns with parallel expressions in context about those who are meek, merciful, or mournful. Our NWT translation is more likely an interpretation rather than a translation here. If it were in an obscure place like Jeremiah it might be different, but a lot of people know the "beatitudes" from the Sermon on the Mount, and this could give them the impression we have changed the Bible to fit our beliefs.

There are plenty of good replacement scriptures, however, which I'm sure you already know.

11 hours ago, B. W. Schulz said:

You should note that volume 2 is nearing completion. There will be a third volume of Separate Identity, and it is partially written. We planned a follow-up book covering 1887-1912. It exists only as notes and a tentative outline. I still plan on writing this, though I can make no promises.

I'm saddened by the loss of Rachael de Vienne, but I'm thrilled to hear that at least the second volume of Separate Identity will be available soon. I'd love to read whatever else you publish.

11 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

See what sort of an historian she was?

Absolutely. Quite a loss of someone who knew how to bring value out of historical sources by being thorough rather than taking shortcuts and extrapolating assumptions from just a couple of snippets here and there. Instead of 3 snippets and an assumed conclusion, her work manages to bring 30 snippets, no matter how trivial they might have seemed -- but offers no personal assumptions unless they are obvious, and unless they help guide you away from sloppy conclusions already made by pretenders to the profession.

Although I never commented on it, I read and kept up with the truth history blog on a fairly regularly basis in the last couple years. I bought both of the books and love their work. I know that another volume of "Separate Identity" was planned, even though it was pretty obvious that time and cost would make it unlikely. But at least they covered some of the most difficult time periods, which were also the most vulnerable to obscurity.

I think they missed very little between them, although a few items have shown up since their writing. But they would change very little -- nothing very substantial, anyway.

I like your comment above, and I notice that the version of this comment that you put on the blog gets cut off fairly early. Perhaps it's a character count limit. If it can still be edited your comment makes more sense in full, rather than in the way it's cut short. I understand why you wouldn't want to just link to your own longer version under the circumstances, of course.

Ah those memories. I bought an Apple IIe back in 82 or so for too much money even though I bought it used. I used it with a modem to submit my programs to the "mainframe" at school. My first work "PC" was also an Osborne, that looked much like the above picture, but it was running an early MS-DOS by then rather than CP/M. I bought it from my boss, and it was not something to take on trips. Took it to Boston once or twice. A luggable, they called it. In 1985 my job at ADLittle/Trump bought me one of the first HP laptops.

1 minute ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

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

I rest my case, then.

26 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

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

Way over the top there, James, don't you think?

Ad copy: Fish tend to avoid it because it slows down the current . . .

Translation: The biggest problem is the way it kills so many fish who come up to it because it slows down the current (and might even jam up the turbine, turning it into dam of rotting fish). . . 

Still, if they can solve that problem with a non-capturing convex rather than a concave mesh screen, for example, it might be an excellent source of off-the-grid power.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Well, this Adventist woman was show more confident in JW than in her brothers from her congregation :))

That experience could be used at the next convention. Of course, it could be for other reasons. I know some Witnesses here who don't want other Witnesses doing their lawns and landscaping out of concern for privacy among the friends, or just to avoid business dealings and potential misunderstandings. We also had a brother in our congregation who ran a gas station only a quarter mile from the KH, and he was so taken advantage of that an announcement had to be made from the platform that brothers should pay their debts and not expect credit when doing business with fellow Witnesses.

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

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'

OK. I see where you are coming from on this now. I don't know that the GB instructed the hiding from authorities and others in the congregation, but they certainly have known about the hiding, and have gone along with it, and could have ordered exposure of the problem instead of continued hiding. (In the past, hiding apparently happened in most, but not in all cases.) From that perspective, exposure of such crimes and sins would undoubtedly have reduced the problem. Especially the problem of repeat offenders. There are some cases that will probably never come to light in this system due to the systemic nature of trying to protect the reputation of an organization and leaders at the expense of protecting children.

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

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.

They were late in their correct responses to this problem, in my opinion, but they do see it as a problem. Even if it's exposure and cost. But I know that many have seen it as a problem of justice for the victims, too. Unfortunately, that had previously been dismissed by some in power as less important.

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

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 ?

Just an analogy to show how someone can be both right and wrong at the same time.

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

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.

There are huge scriptural problems with this claim of the GB to be the exact and complete fulfillment of the FDS. I've dealt with that elsewhere. But we can't forget that it is a Christian duty to try to feed spiritual food to fellow Christians. The GB truly believe this is their duty and they also know that they are not perfect, and must admit to providing wrong guidance at times and sometimes bad spiritual food, too, in the form of false doctrines and false predictions. They probably thought them right at the time, but you are right, that it was not all 'food at the proper time.' 

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

So how can they be guided by God to do that ? Do you really think God deliberately misguides His people ? 

People guided by God have made mistakes in Biblical times, when the very same persons had the privilege of seeing Jesus personally, or were even inspired at other times to write books of the Bible. Yet, the GB make no such claim about themselves that they are inspired in this same way. They feel that intensive Bible study, organizational experience, faith in Jehovah, meditation and prayer will all combine in some spiritual way to guide them. Other people have made claims that they claim inspiration, and the distinction gets blurry. And some Witnesses teach "present" truth as immutable in such a way that they, too, have blurred the distinction. In any case, God is not misguiding. It's just that people are so imperfect that we must learn to trust and obey God as ruler rather than sons of men in whom no salvation belongs.

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Quote "the inability to question 1914" ? Are you suggesting more lies ? 

No. The inability to question something is often because something just seems so clear and obvious that we just can't imagine that it could ever be wrong. Or it has been repeated so often that we can't imagine it could be wrong. We don't question things we are "sure" of. It happens to all of us, and then we might be surprised some day to find out we were wrong after all. But by not questioning, we probably will never have to find out.

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

But that being the case, thousands of JW's are hypocrites. So it's an unclean Org.

So the early Corinthian congregation must also have been an unclean organization. Jesus' organization of his apostles must have been an unclean organization, too.

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

So are we looking at a 100% turnaround on it then ? I very much doubt that.  Remember ,'By their works you will know them'.

I think it will come close to that. It won't come immediately, but there will be some countries soon, I think, where we won't be allowed to preach unless we stop shunning family members for example. We will agree, and shunning will become a personal, private thing. Most Witnesses don't want to shun, we just do it because we are told it is loving. When there is no longer any threat of getting in trouble for not shunning, most of us will see that it is more loving not to shun. The change will happen organically from that point.

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Enough for now , my wife is calling me to dinner.

Food at the proper time.

23 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

If the Society / GB and all in 'command' had acted in the way that Paul was saying in that 1 Corinthians 9 19-23 scripture, then the Earthwide Child Abuse / Pedophilia  would never have happened.  

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.

23 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

But you seem to see it as just collateral damage, necessary for the 'progress' of the Org.

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:

23 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

How can that be so when many of the beliefs are based on lies or misinformation and meanings of scripture constantly change to suit the purpose of the GB ?

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.

23 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And you yourself mentioned the Armageddon threats from the Org. When in honesty they have no real idea. They keep moving the goalposts to suit themselves.

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.

23 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And also as I've mentioned above the Child Abuse.  

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.

23 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And of course the shunning we will never agree on but we can agree to differ. 

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.

23 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And I've only just spotted this "and pointing out the value of Christian morality", now that has to be a joke.

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.

23 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And the "We must question." Really ? and get disfellowshipped for doing so. 

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.  

On 5/6/2019 at 5:59 PM, BillyTheKid46 said:

Ryan uses profanity in his posts. You don’t see the librarian banning him from this forum.

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. 

19 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I would love a place that anyone can pick and choose, be good or bad at will. The last place that was that way was called Sodom and Gomorra.

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).

11 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

What you and Anna do in your personal lives is of no consequence to me. If you are married to other people and are having an internet love affair

If I didn't know better, I'd say you didn't have a disgusting and filthy mind.

11 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

If you are referring what you did to AllenSmith34. That’s up to you and that person. If you made fun of or insulted that person back then

The reason I stood up for Allen Smith and all your (his) aliases was made very clear. I always defended your right to say what you wanted. Of course, you had to know, and still know, that the content of what you were saying would be open to countering opinions that could contain criticism, facts and evidence. Even if some of the statements made by some of your aliases have been deleted, none of my own were, and this is how you can see that I never insulted you of made fun of you. I never made fun of your grammar either, which is something that some of your aliases kept repeating, and for which you always failed to produce evidence. I admitted that I could not always understand what you were saying. Several people here had the same problem understanding you sometimes, not just me.

11 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

If you’re able to apologize to an opposer, why haven’t you been able to apologize to a faithful member that sees your errors?

I have apologized to you every time you have pointed out an error. This goes for all your aliases. And I'm not saying this because I think you have never pointed out an error. There have been several occasions when you were right and I was wrong. I still apologize for these mistakes, and have corrected them. By the way, I do not ask the same of you. You could say whatever filthy and disgusting things that might come into your mind. I might point them out, and sometimes I might just ignore them, but I won't ask you to apologize. 

11 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

and regardless if you think you personally insulted my life giver or not, not too long ago, is another example of your hypocrisy.

This reminds me of typical corporate-sponsored news outlets, and other forms of propaganda, in which people obviously believe, hypocritically, that if they repeat a falsehood often enough, it will probably have some "sticking" effect.

12 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

If that means you people consider me AllenSmith, then I will be AllenSmith until this person steps up to the take reins.

Thanks. I have already done so from the first day you took up this last alias. But it does make it a bit easier to refer to you again, Allen.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

My opinion was that @JW Insider is still a Witness but working for both sides, a bit like Judas did. My feelings are that he/she thinks the JW Org as a whole has the 'truth' but that maybe the GB are going off track.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that @JW Insider works for both sides in a different sense. I like the way Paul put it:

• (1 Corinthians 9:19-23) . . .For though I am free from all people, I have made myself the slave to all, so that I may gain as many people as possible. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew in order to gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, in order to gain those under law. 21 To those without law I became as without law, although I am not without law toward God but under law toward Christ, in order to gain those without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, in order to gain the weak. I have become all things to people of all sorts, so that I might by all possible means save some. 23 But I do all things for the sake of the good news, in order to share it with others.

Early Christianity started out in the context of Judaism, which had become steeped in end-of-the-world eschatology, and the legalism of the Pharisees. But end-of-the-world eschatology, although dangerous to Christianity on its own (per Jesus), still naturally drew out crowds of people who sighed and groaned over the injustices of their world. They wanted a new heavens and a new earth, and they wanted it as soon as possible.

So early Christians would be mistaken to focus on eschatology, but many good Christians, desirous of a new heavens and new earth, would naturally come to Christianity through this path.

Jesus gave several illustrations showing why focusing on eschatology was so dangerous to true Christianity, and we have the words of Peter to explain how Christians must transform into those who would be the very same type of person they ought to be, whether the parousia came in their own lifetime, or whether it came 1,000 years after their own lifetime.

Another major focus of Jesus' illustrations and teaching was about legalism. Early Christianity was still steeped in Judaism, and still attempted to put Christians under law, even after it was recognized that the Judaic system didn't apply to gentiles.

Jesus' illustration in Matthew 24:45 of the unfaithful servants --who would beat their fellow slaves and try to lord it over them when the master was gone-- is a good illustration reminding us of the dangers of both eschatology AND the dangers of legalism/Pharisaism.

Paul played both sides of Pharisaism/legalism because he was accused of being an apostate from Judaism. So they asked him to pay for some legalistic customary preparations for the persons going with him to the Temple.

• (Acts 21:20-24) . . .but they said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the Law. 21 But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or to follow the customary practices. 22 What, then, is to be done about it? They are certainly going to hear that you have arrived. 23 So do what we tell you: We have four men who have put themselves under a vow. 24 Take these men with you and cleanse yourself ceremonially together with them and take care of their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is nothing to the rumors they were told about you, but that you are walking orderly and you are also keeping the Law.

So rather than claiming that the GB have gone off track, I believe they are continually getting more and more ON track. I believe they naturally started partly off-track as would be expected with a very eschatological Russell and a very legalistic Rutherford. But all the while, it was the right kind of heart condition being attracted to and joining into the religion -- a religion with a greater focus on the type of person we ought to be for Jehovah, for ourselves and for one another. This was much like the form of Judaism that naturally made persons fit for transformation into Christianity. Legalistic Judaism was like a tutor leading to Christ. But we must still be transformed.

Paul played both sides in order to win more persons over to Christ. To Jews he became a Jew. To Greeks he became a Greek.

Still the core of the religion itself is one that does perhaps the best job of all religions in fighting the machinations of the Devil: avoiding taking one side over another in politics and war, pointing out the unchristian influences on supposedly Christian traditions, and pointing out the value of Christian morality, and unity of purpose in preaching, meeting together, etc. To me these are the most important things. Granted the Pharisaism still keeps us hanging on to rules (like turning in time so that our right hand and our left can distinguish different types of Christian service, and misuse of the two-witness rule so that mercy and protection of children has often been sacrificed, etc.). And eschatology will keep rearing its head now and then, too.

But these things are getting better over time, getting more on-track, not off-track. Pharisees don't want to be questioned, but we must all take our Christian duty and responsibility very seriously. We must question. We must make sure of all things. And we can only expect more questioning as more persons from all walks of life keep coming into the organization. I find that this forum is still a fair enough place to question and get feedback to help test whether those questions are on the right track.

2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Anna, and JWinsider are a couple.

Yikes.

2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

But, their tail is a dead giveaway.

Yikes, again.

2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

When I said you need meds, I heard that from people here before, like JAMES. However, you won’t see a censure from JWinsider lobbied against James Thomas Rook Jr.

This is pretty much correct as I remember it, too. It was JTR who made fun of you (while you were using a different name). It was about "meds" at least once, and he also made fun of you on another occasion in a similar vein. You called him out on it at the time, so I didn't see a need to. You actually called him out on it a second time a few months later and JTR denied that he had ever said what he actually had said. But again, you were already calling him out on it.

I called out John on his "drunk" reference, just as a reminder that these things sometimes escalate and someone ends up getting disciplined and then there are hurt feelings for a long time to come. And what's worse is that sometimes the escalations can get out of hand and people leave or get locked out of the forum. I hate to see such things.

But as I think about it, I was wrong to mention anything to John. It wasn't my place. And perhaps it was even a bit sexist of me to step in for Anna as if she couldn't respond for herself. As you say, it's not like I try to step in for every little thing. Even when you say things I don't like about me personally, I let about 90 percent of them go without mentioning anything. (In fact, when I tried to respond to about 30 percent of your claims in a recent thread, it was John who stepped in to censure both of us for unchristianlike fighting.)

So, @JOHN BUTLER I would like to apologize for involving myself in an argument that was not for me, in the first place. I have my own prejudices like everyone else, perhaps more than you. Some person's comments I hardly ever even read. So I could never be a fair moderator anyway.

17 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Yes I'm upset that you choose to point it out. You are talking like an Elder. This isn't one of your Kingdom Halls so don't try to dominate me.

OK.

18 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Have you ever read Billy the Kid's comments, saying that I need medical attention ?  That's ok is it ? 

No it's not OK. I didn't happen to see that one, but I don't doubt you. I've seen similar from him. If you thought that what he said was unnecessarily harsh and judgmental, I hope you or someone else said something. Even if he would have felt like "elders" were trying to dominate him, he should know that such statements are as hurtful as more blatant types of bullying. It's the unnecessarily harsh judgment of the person's motives or state of mind that I think we should avoid.

20 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And TTH has mentioned my past situation causing me problems etc. 

I think I remember that from him -- a couple of times, in fact. I didn't take it as overly harsh but I was sensitive to your reaction. Sometimes we choose to reveal a portion of our background and experience in order to add credibility to our comments. In such cases, we legitimately open up that background itself to scrutiny and assumptions about its relevance, or import. BTK regularly tries to discredit my own experiences and background as either false or ill-motivated. He has that right, because I have given him that right in choosing to share my experiences as they relate to my opinions. I think that to some extent you open yourself up to criticism about your own views when you admit that they are based on experiences. If we don't like your opinions on a matter we might feel cornered by your first-hand knowledge of the issue, at least anecdotally. So our best defense is to say that your opinions are "tainted" by your experience instead of "informed" by your experience. It's a very weak response, but for those who come here to learn about people's experiences, the weakness of that kind of argument against the opinion/experiences probably becomes obvious to others.

46 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

OK, let's get down to basics. what exactly was Anna saying about people that reject the JW Org ?

I'll let her answer that. I admit there were some weaknesses in her argument, with respect to addressing your view of the organization, just as I suspect there were weaknesses in all of our responses. But I appreciate you bringing it back to the basics of what she was saying.