JW Insider

I've read that a version of a Hebrew-Aramaic plural of Sicarii could be si-cari-ot or ish-cari-ot. (plural of masculine nouns end in -im; plural of feminine nouns end in -ot or -iot). This could indicate that Judas Iscariot was once a sicarii, just as Simon the Zealot (or zealous one) may have once been one of the terrorist "Zealots," their common name in Judea and Galilee. Even names like "Boanerges" or "Sons of Thunder" could have had roots in prior terrorist activities. A comment in a Google look-up of "boanerges" referring to James and John the sons of Zebedee in Mark 3:17 says: from Galilean dialectal corruption of Hebrew bene reghesh "sons of rage" (interpreted in Greek as "sons of thunder")

Thought provoking though the cartoon is, it misleads in that no one takes all of the blood fractions at one time. I still feel it is pointless and damaging to speculate on Bro Smalley's supposed view. True. I shouldn't have used the word "exactly." I meant that if I had to guess, knowing about his particular history with the doctrine, that it could well have been the fraction problem that is is ridiculously parodied in JTR's cartoon. I understand the idea that it could be "pointless and damaging." Yet, if someone we have deemed to be an expert has evidence that can result in an adjustment to our teaching, then do we lose interest in his expertise because it makes us uncomfortable? I see why we might argue for that position because of the direction he might have taken. What if our expert on vaccinations for so many years (C J Woodworth) while editing the Golden Age magazine, learned that he had been wrong about vaccinations all those years, but then he learned that no one wanted the new information --until a quarter century later-- because we had become too invested in the earlier anti-vaccination teaching? A brother once recorded two hour-long interviews with Grace DeCecca about her husband's imprisonment in 1918, and she revealed at least half-a-dozen points that she evidently hadn't told anyone before about her husband Giovanni and others, or at least they never became known very widely. These weren't points that would result in a doctrinal change, of course, but they became of great interest to Brother Wischuck and others who collected that sort of historical information. Anyway, I can't help but think this could be important, but I admit that I am already disposed to revisiting the doctrine. I also tend to perk up when the subject of correcting errors pops up. But that's also just a bad habit of anyone who has ever been put to work as a researcher or proofreader.

OK. I always hear that apostates make changes to the photocopies, but haven't seen an instance yet. Right. The ones that some Bible Student groups continued to publish after they were no longer printed by the Watch Tower. It was the Dawn Bible Students in East Rutherford, I think. I never bothered to see what changes were made during that time, if any, although I know that the Watch Tower magazine published some remarks about the changes the Watch Tower itself made to various editions during the early 1900's up until 1915. Do you have replicas, or reproductions of the press photographs that each of the speakers at conventions (and other venues) once used in the early 1900's when advertising talks. At some of the early conventions you could purchase these photos of Russell and Van Amburgh and others. I saw a few advertised once, and only purchased the single sheet (also found in a convention report) with a picture of Russell in the middle and smaller photos of other speakers on the same page. I'm interested in a few of the individual photos.

Could you explain exactly how you define the difference between replica and reproduction? I notice that in your description of a Dead Sea Scroll item you are selling, you include the words: I offer reproductions of Watchtower archives NOT replicas. A replica may have changed texts or were replicated to look like the original. A reproduction, however, is an actual copy of the original photo or written script. I understand that this refers to Watchtower publications and related books, not the DSS item. Also, have you ever seen a Watchtower publication item for sale, either replica or reproduction, that had text changed? I have seen very sloppy quotes taken from Watchtower publications, but have never seen an altered replica or reproduction. If you have evidence of one, this would be very important to in addressing the common claim that non-JWs and ex-JWs have often altered original material to make the Watch Tower Society look bad.

I think Melinda is rightly concerned that this does not turn into the kind of discussion that creates doubts that we are not ready to face, and I thought about that before posting in the first place, but made a decision to go ahead based on some of the very scriptural passages Melinda quoted. If I feel up to it, I might explain tonight or tomorrow, if I get a chance. Hard to imagine him (Gene) diverging from the Society's view in any way. He was one of those who would not have varied from Watchtower doctrine by one iota back when the chronology doctrines were being questioned by many of his department colleagues. My close friends know my own feelings about chronology and the "doubled generation," but on the blood issue, the ones I contacted only knew that I had a couple questions about fractions. (Especially cryosupernatant. Although yesterday I just got the definitive answer to that one without contacting Brother Smalley.) If I had to offer a best guess, I'd say the problem for Brother Smalley was exactly what JTR is showing in the cartoon above (posted 3/9/17 9:55am EST). Remember, however, that this info about someone's personal beliefs is second-hand info, somewhere between advice and gossip. Even if true at one time, it might not be true at the moment. People change. But I wouldn't have put his name here if I didn't think this was an extremely serious matter that needs an explanation. Since this is really about life and death, then I think we all deserve more transparency. (Just as I think we need more transparency on the thinking that went into the doubled generation, child abuse procedures, etc.) But I also have the impression that this now goes well beyond fractions and reaches another level (for Gene): that no one should have ever died unnecessarily over this doctrine. I can see how doubting fractions could lead to the latter view more easily than the latter view leading to the fractions doctrine. However, when I got the final answer to cryosupernatant an entirely new and very plausible explanation of his view just occurred to me. It's a bit complex to explain, however.

The typical reaction after backing Trump for President. Also Pope Pius XIII (HBO Series)

I think there was more of a bunker mentality throughout many congregations in the twentieth century. The fear was that the Society's and congregation's reputation would suffer, especially if someone admitted to hospital staff that a JW minister beat his wife, in a small town where people knew people personally. Probably a much greater danger of a reputation problem for a person whose name was known to the entire world (Sister Jackson).

This was my sister's experience. She was always told to err on the side of enduring abuse, even if it meant not going for needed treatment at a hospital - for violent abuse. Her husband, my brother-in-law, remained a ministerial servant after at least half-a-dozen complaints. My sister was disfellowshipped for finally "defying" the elders' recommendations and separating from her husband saying she had no intention of ever trying to patch things up with "mildness and submissiveness"

Funny how almost all bombers since the B52 have been designed to make military contractors rich. And yet the B52, old as it is, is still around and flying, while BILLIONS of dollars worth of military aircraft built since then have never made it off the ground.

@Arauna Yes, that was a good article. Tying it to the Nazi era might play a bit on current public Russophobia, but it's an excellent point to make to show the terrible potential. I wish the author had stated in the actual article that the link went to the video of Russian authorities planting the literature. I'm sure more people would click on it, and understand the situation better, if it were worded better inside the article.

The average time between the abuse and the time of reporting that abuse is still about 30 years. So the kinds of forensics are quite different from a car accident, or what can be found in a "rape kit" for example. I wanted to interpret that into the "circumstantial" evidence mentioned, too. Disappointing not to see this show up in documentation. Also disappointed to see so many "holes" in our own documentation that were so easily pointed out by the ARC. Also saw about three openings made in the Spinks/O'Brien testimony that could hurt us further. One was, of course, the huge discrepancy between in trying to define the age of "approaching adulthood" admitted to be 16-17 generally, then anecdotally to 15, and then later aligned with the age of baptism! It was fortunate that Stewart didn't realize that this places the age back to as young as 8 years old. It adds an element that almost makes the congregational judicial matter moot. If the person is arrested and the matter becomes public, then there is already going to be a loss of congregational privileges. If there is a court case, how would it look if a judicial committee found the person "unchargeable" (not necessarily innocent) while the civil courts found him guilty. If the courts did not establish guilt, it is quite unlikely that the congregation could, yet we would be so wary of a repetition that the loss of position and privileges (along with probable monitoring to some extent) would produce the appearance of guilt even if the accused were potentially innocent.

I've been involved in looking into matters of immorality (fornication, "loose conduct" etc) but have only seen a child abuse case from a distance. I would agree however that not all elders are the same. So I can't speak for the reaction to a case of child abuse, but I would certainly guess that you are right in that elders would surely place the safety of the victim first even if they could not prove that the accused was guilty. But in areas of immorality, elders don't always agree on recognizing the victim. I've seen cases where two sinners were treated equally wrong, but have also seen cases where the majority of elders missed a victim-in-the-making or treated the victim with more punishment than the aggressor. There's the all-too-typical case of a brother who takes advantage of a sister who lives alone, and offers to do things for her around her house, making sure that he gradually stays around later and later, stays for a meal and a TV show and finally "pushes the envelope" to see where a backrub or a massage might lead. There's the sister who has too much to drink and a brother claims to have been seduced. There's the sister-down-the-street who just happened to notice a brother's car parked overnight in "Sister Pioneer's" driveway. In that last case, we know that both parties to the overnight guest have been disfellowshipped for denying the sin, and thus being both unrepentant. That is surely a case where the elders decide without a heavy burden of proof (and only one witness!) The case of the tipsy sister, I have seen blamed on the sister as seductress, so that hers was the greater punishment. The brothers who worm their way into a single or widowed sister's home are usually both considered equally guilty even if it takes months for the prowling brother to discover the moment of weakness. The exposure and discussion of these matters is making us all more aware and more attuned to the right action to take. My wife, serving as principal of a high school with nearly 3,000 students has had to deal with this a couple of times. As a mandatory reporter she has been screamed at and begged not to turn in an incestuous abuser in one case, and a physically violent abuser in another. But it's the law. The best you can do sometimes is to get a social worker, or CPS rep to take over, but sometimes a mandatory reporter ends up breaking a family apart. It's the nature of the law, but more importantly, it's the nature of the crime. Of course the most insidious thing about institutional response to following the rules about contacting local authorities, is that, especially in religious institutions, there is the expectation that no one will believe you. It is often a person taking advantage of their authority and position in the first place. This makes the victim expect that even civil authorities will do nothing. When a priest, elder, deacon, or branch overseer is the perpetrator, then it's even worse: the victim and victim's guardians expect not to be believed. Guardians, other elders, and most of the entire congregation aren't expected to really believe the victim either.

I would not have been surprised if the Society had decided to move the entire doctrine to a "matter of conscience." I would have been surprised to see the Society go back to the original, stricter stance, even if it was clearer. My wife and I were willing to go along with the Society's "fraction" stance until nearly 2000. Actually, my wife, although agreeing that fractions were a matter of conscience, believed that she would remain true to the original stricter position as a matter of her own conscience. Of course, we discussed this before the birth of our three children (between 1986 and 1994). My personal stance changed with respect to my children in the 1990's. For most of my life, I have held that associating with Jehovah's Witnesses requires that I be willing to accept doctrines publicly even if I disagree privately. Disagreeing publicly or personally can result in damage through causing divisions and stumbling. Of course, if someone asks directly, then I have no choice but to either explain my position or decline saying that I would rather not go into that issue right now. For most issues, this was easy. For example, I see a lot of problems remaining with our chronology doctrines, but they aren't important enough to make a fuss over. After all, a few people might have done better by going to college, choosing a more viable career, or saving up for retirement, and they might choose not to do so because of a "generation" doctrine. But that's not my business unless they ask for specific advice. But the blood doctrine can be a matter of life and death (in this life, anyway). My wife and I decided that we can choose what we wish for our own life, and might make choices that could result in death, just so we don't create unnecessary issues for others. That's what all of us are taught, so I would not be expecting anything more of myself here than would be true of most other JWs. However, although my wife and I disagreed for a time, I decided that I would never impose my own conscience upon someone else, especially not my own children. To me, respect for blood might mean "suicide" for myself, and this is my right. But if I truly respected blood, I would never make my own children (or grandchild) abstain from blood, assuming blood could mean an extension of their physical life. The reason is that I believe this would make me guilty of killing. In other words, I would be bloodguilty. The context of Acts 15 and 21 when compared with Galatians and 1 & 2 Corinthians is not so clear-cut that I would risk imposing death on someone. No one has given me the right to decide life and death for someone else. Even if Acts/Galatians/Corinthians really were as clear cut as we have claimed, it would most likely be overridden by Jesus' words that we should disobey the law if it means life or healing for someone else. (Matthew 12:1-12) . . .His disciples got hungry and started to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 At seeing this the Pharisees said to him: “Look! Your disciples are doing what it is not lawful to do on the sabbath.” 3 He said to them: “Have YOU not read what David did when he and the men with him got hungry? 4 How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him to eat. . . 7 However, if YOU had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice,’ YOU would not have condemned the guiltless ones. . . .So they asked him, “Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?” so that they might accuse him. 11 He said to them: “If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! . . . When someone else's life or health is at stake, love tells me to err on the side of mercy, not sacrifice.

I'm sure there is still time. Maybe. I understood it in the sense that he doesn't want to minimize a person's sacrifice, or make it seem like it was all for nothing. A "good" U.S. politician won't speak out against the war in Afghanistan if he is speaking directly to "gold-star" parents of someone who died in that war. But this information regarding Smalley could still be wrong. Perhaps it could be based on someone misunderstanding something he said. Perhaps it was over something he said in grief or anger. It's also possible, I'm just guessing, that he believes very strongly in the previous stricter blood doctrine and regrets how far the "slippery slope" of "fractions" has taken us away from that original stance. And I suppose then that it's also possible (based on the mention of the year 1992), that if he really had rejected the original stricter blood doctrine, that he realized that more lives could be saved if he at least promoted a "watering down" of that doctrine by suggesting that "fractions" could be allowed. It's also true that, in spite of his influence on the progression of this doctrine, this is merely a personal view that shouldn't matter to any of us, and it is just his own conscience speaking. We don't live by the conscience of another person: "To his own master he stands or falls." - Romans 14:4.

Liked the point about using news on site to find names of brothers going through suffering and trying to pronounce those names in his prayers. Good reminder that prayer should not be the same overused, generic phrases.

I can't describe my feelings very well about something I just learned. I seriously don't know how to handle this issue. A couple days ago, I made a post in the area of this forum about the blood doctrine. While writing that post, it reminded me that I have been holding on to a couple of questions about the ins and outs of the doctrine, more specifically about why we now accept just about 100% of the products that are made from blood. It's true that we don't accept "whole blood" transfusions, but "whole blood" transfusions are so rarely offered any more that even the word "transfusion" has come to refer to to several blood therapies that JWs regularly accept. Anyway, it occurred to me that I should have no problem getting a couple of these specific questions answered because I know some of the people who were involved very deeply in the blood issue. About three years ago, at the end of 2013, I talked to Brother Rusk in NYC immediately after the Annual Meeting. I hadn't seen him for many years. He was also good friends with my wife and he gave our wedding talk back in the very early 1980's. When I met with Fred Rusk in his office at Brooklyn Bethel in 1979 and 1980 to talk about the wedding, my fiancee, and leaving Bethel, among other things, he very often took phone calls about the blood issue. He wouldn't send me out of his office, but would usually just say, can you wait a second, and then he would go on for up to an hour (during my work time) talking to doctors, hospital personnel, elders, circuit overseers, patients, or sometimes a brother down in the Service Department who was trying to word a letter correctly about our policy. Our policy was still fairly straightforward back then. Fractions were not a big "thing" yet, but there were still questions about what did and did not contain blood, or whether certain kinds of blood storage machines were acceptable or not (containing the patient's own blood). There were also issues regarding blood decisions that I had never thought of before, related to child custody, headship over family decisions, etc. Brother Rusk died fairly recently, but he wasn't the one involved so much with the new "fractions" policy anyway. The person who began taking over for Brother Rusk as the Society's subject-matter-expert on blood was Gene Smalley, also from the Writing Department. These two brothers have very different reputations. Brother Rusk was a very well-loved, peaceful man, who was nearly always soft-spoken, kind, patient and helpful. Even when taking care of a serious issue, you never saw anger. He was a cornucopia of the fruits of the spirit. Gene Smalley was almost the opposite in every way. Spiteful, hateful, bad-tempered, yelling, angry, backbiting, divisive, contentious, etc., etc. (He wasn't that way all the time of course, but often enough to gain a reputation, and more than once threatened with losing his job in Writing.) But his sweet wife Anita just died very recently (from cancer) and I thought this might be a good reason to contact him and, perhaps, if the conversation could be comfortably turned, it could be a chance to get a couple questions answered about fractions. He would know the precise answer. Well, I haven't called him yet. Instead, yesterday, I started asking around from friends who may have seen how he is doing recently. This includes one person who worked with him until fairly recently in Writing, and one person who was a close acquaintance of both Gene and Anita. Here is the most disturbing thing I learned. I was told that I shouldn't ask Gene Smalley about the blood doctrine. Although still on the Writing Committee, evidently he has not believed in the Blood Doctrine since about 1992, according to one of the persons I just spoke with. Yet, he has still promoted it and given interviews about it. I have always thought of Brother Smalley as the "father of the fractions doctrine." So he would be the perfect person to ask. But the persons I asked are both well known at Bethel, and one of them has even been mentioned in the publications as early as the 1970's. My obvious question was, "Well, if he doesn't believe in it, then why does he still defend it?" Both of the persons I asked gave me the same answer, even though I asked them separately. (Although one could have been repeating the answer they heard from the other.) The answer, paraphrased: Even though he doesn't believe in it, he still defended it because of all the persons who have died.

I understand the claim that we "tear families apart" but we can always point to Jesus' words: (Matthew 10:34-37) . . .. 34 Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and whoever has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me. Does anyone have any documentation on exactly what the complaint is behind the term "indoctrinating young people"? Is this a concern over young baptisms that feed into the disfellowshipping practice. Is it the government's fear of "cult" mentality that we saw with France? (Probably just an excuse) In Bulgaria it was about not even serving in supportive civilian roles to replace military service and the fact that we disfellowshipped those who chose to accept blood even when it was chosen as a life-saving alternative. In Bulgaria, of course, we merely invoked the change that was already in the works in some countries to allow JWs to serve in non-combatant civilian roles as alternative military service. On the blood issue we changed it from disfellowshipping to disassociation, which sounded different to the government, even though we clarified that nothing had changed on the congregational level regarding the shunning, etc., since we were to treat disfellowshipped and disassociated exactly the same. I went to visit Denmark last year, and was suprised to learn that almost no one pays attention to the name and beliefs of the major "national religion." It's like a state religion, that is just there to provide services for marriages and funerals, and otherwise no one seems to care. This is one of the things that makes Islam and Jehovah's Witnesses "scary" to some of them. I suspect that Islam, and Baptist and JW missionaries looking for converts is seen as disruptive for similar reasons. The "state religion" after years of supposed atheism has drifted into just a kind of traditional decoration that symbolizes unity and peace. There is a Russian Orthodox hierarchy, but they don't ask for any political influence. I think the Russian government has therefore become more sensitive to any religious groups who take their religion too seriously, and have their own "judicial systems" within these organizations. It's one of the things that Spain complains about with JWs, they don't even want the Catholics to have an internal judicial system. (Especially when crime is treated only as sin, and there is no transparency into what goes on behind the curtain.) Of course that might be an overreaction in Spain because their reputation suffered over the Inquisition, just like Germany tends to react at Nazism more harshly than surrounding nations.

From a medical point of view, I would submit that it is not just the children, but very few JW parents themselves could "demonstrate an ability to understand the implications of the consequences of refusing treatment." I would also posit that very few JW parents have even fully considered the Biblical point of view on blood transfusions for themselves either. We can surmise this from the fact that the vast majority of JWs accepted what the Watchtower said about rejecting all organ transplants as final, right up until the time the Watchtower changed its position on them. Immediately, the vast majority of JWs accepted the opposite position about accepting all organ transplants as final. Clearly, JWs had not considered the matter for themselves, and had not been using their own thinking abilities or even their own conscience in the matter. If any have had any dealings at length with persons on the Hospital Liaison Committees (HLCs) in various congregations, then it is likely obvious to that JWs do not generally make up their own mind on the matter of blood, either. We merely submit to the "mind" of the Watchtower. JWs continually consult with the Society or HLC members about what blood-related therapies could be acceptable to their conscience and which ones are not allowed to be acceptable to their conscience. (Romans 14:1-5) 1 Welcome the man having weaknesses in his faith, but do not pass judgment on differing opinions. 2 One man has faith to eat everything, but the man who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let the one eating not look down on the one not eating, and let the one not eating not judge the one eating, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for Jehovah can make him stand. 5 One man judges one day as above another; another judges one day the same as all others; let each one be fully convinced in his own mind. There is a relatively new problem that medical professionals and medical authorities have been dealing with and this is finally being considered in the laws of the "superior authorities." (Romans 13:1-5) (Romans 13:1-5) 1 Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves. . . . 5 There is therefore compelling reason for you to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of your conscience. The new problem is that there are now several Jehovah's Witnesses who have "surprised" the medical professionals and medical authorities by asking that they or their child be treated as an exception to the general rule for Jehovah's Witnesses. They will accept blood or otherwise "forbidden fractions" for themselves or children and make this a matter of conscience. These Witnesses make this decision in spite of the risk to their spirituality and/or the risk to their standing and acceptance in the congregation. This new problem has already been discussed in several respected medical journals. It's difficult to imagine the complication that this can cause for hospital professionals, even where the HLC has done its best to explain the Watch Tower's position. (The medical journals even discuss the legal implications of keeping the final decision of the parent or child from getting back to the HLC or other representative from the congregation.) Even putting aside the Biblical aspect for the moment (i.e., consideration about prospects for eternal life), many JWs simply reject that there is ever a time when a blood transfusion offers the best chance of saving (i.e., extending) the life of the patient. There are supposed to always be alternatives, and even if not available, the risks of blood transfusion have been so magnified that many JWs often believe that the medical risk of accepting always overrides potentially life-saving medical benefits. But the Society has admitted that blood transfusions (and other blood therapies that JWs do not accept) are often actually life-saving (from a medical viewpoint, not a spiritual viewpoint). To understand the complications, therefore, let's assume that there are times when the Society is right and the medical authorities are right, and that there really are times when a blood transfusion (or related therapy) is the best chance for saving the life of the patient. We are only considering those types of cases below. Now consider the Law, for example and consider what should be the JW view toward the "superior authorities" in the following circumstances? How much effort should the HLC (or other consulted elders) put into convincing parents or child to conform to current "Watch Tower" policy in these situations? What is listed below are 28 different situations with the following "variables:" The person faced with the question is either: 6 or 16 years of age (6/16) - the 6-year-old is only considered in these cases with JW parents. Baptized or Unbaptized (B/U) - only applied to the 16 year old, where a 16 year old may be associating with Witnesses even though the parents are not JWs Parents are JW or not JW (PJW/NJW) - "mixed" marriage where only one spouse is JW is not included in any scenario. The child herself either wants to Accept, Reject or is Unconscious [and without directive] (A/R/U) The parent of the child either wants to agree with the child's decision or disagree (PA/PD) - note that if child is unconscious, then disagreement with a stated decision does not apply (although it is possible that a child carries a blood directive that JW parents reject at time of emergency) In other words, as an example, case #1 means that the child is 16, unbaptized, parents are JW, but the child wants to accept a blood transfusion, and the JW parents agree that she can choose to accept it. Case #28 is a 6-year-old unbaptized child with JW parents, where the child wants to reject a transfusion, but the parents disagree, and want her to accept it in this case. 16,U,PJW,A,PA 16,U,PJW,A,PD 16,B,PJW,A,PA 16,B,PJW,A,PD 16,U,PJW,R,PA 16,U,PJW,R,PD 16,B,PJW,R,PA 16,B,PJW,R,PD 16,U,PJW,U,PA 16,U,PJW,U,PD 16,B,PJW,U,PA 16,B,PJW,U,PD 16,U,NJW,A,PA 16,U,NJW,A,PD 16,B,NJW,A,PA 16,B,NJW,A,PD 16,U,NJW,R,PA 16,U,NJW,R,PD 16,B,NJW,R,PA 16,B,NJW,R,PD 16,U,NJW,U,PA 16,U,NJW,U,PD 16,B,NJW,U,PA 16,B,NJW,U,PD 6,U,PJW,A,PA 6,U,PJW,A,PD 6,U,PJW,R,PA 6,U,PJW,R,PD The complication of a child having one JW parent and one non-JW parent, is not considered at all here, and might be further complicated by the acceptance of gender roles, where, for example, a husband who is a non-JW demands that he be accepted as the "scriptural" spiritual head of the family. Also, even where the parent and child are in agreement, they may still be at odds with either the medical professionals or the HLC. The "law" of the superior authorities can also become a concern, and may also be a concern that the JW parent (or child) will see differently than the HLC based on their conscience. All these scenarios might be a clue as to why the Apostle Paul rejected the kind of Pharisaism that would try to account for all the various scenarios and merely left "legal" matters up to each individual conscience.

Amazing. Surprising, too. Thanks for sharing this.

Interesting point. Might be appropriate for a separate discussion. It's a curious doctrine. Here's the teaching with a little more context. *** w02 8/1 pp. 13-14 pars. 16-22 Loyally Submit to Godly Authority *** Finally, Jehovah replaced the Levitical priesthood with a very different one—a royal priesthood. That royal priesthood continues down to this day. 17 Who make up this royal priesthood today? The apostle Peter answers that question in his first inspired letter. To anointed members of the body of Christ, Peter wrote: “You are ‘a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that you should declare abroad the excellencies’ of the one that called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” (1 Peter 2:9) From these words it is clear that, as a group, the anointed footstep followers of Jesus make up this “royal priesthood,” which Peter also called “a holy nation.” They constitute the channel that Jehovah uses to provide his people with instruction and spiritual direction.—Matthew 24:45-47. 18 Representing the royal priesthood are appointed elders, who serve in positions of responsibility in congregations of Jehovah’s people around the earth. These men deserve our respect and wholehearted support, whether they are of the anointed or not. Why? Because, through his holy spirit, Jehovah has appointed the older men to their positions. (Hebrews 13:7, 17) How can that be? 19 These older men meet the requirements that are set out in God’s Word, which is a product of God’s spirit. (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) Hence, their appointment can be said to be by holy spirit. (Acts 20:28) The older men, or elders, must be thoroughly familiar with God’s Word. Like the Supreme Judge who appointed them, the elders also must hate anything that resembles partiality in judgment.—Deuteronomy 10:17, 18. 20 Rather than challenge their authority, we truly appreciate our hardworking elders! Their record of faithful service, often over many decades, inspires our trust. They faithfully prepare for and conduct congregation meetings, work side by side with us in preaching the “good news of the Kingdom,” and provide Scriptural advice when we need it. (Matthew 24:14; Hebrews 10:23, 25; 1 Peter 5:2) They visit us when we are sick and comfort us when we mourn. They loyally and unselfishly support Kingdom interests. Jehovah’s spirit is upon them; they have his approval.—Galatians 5:22, 23. 21 Of course, the older men are not perfect. Mindful of their limitations, they do not try to lord it over the flock, “God’s inheritance.” Rather, they consider themselves ‘fellow workers for the joy of their brothers.’ (1 Peter 5:3; 2 Corinthians 1:24) Humble, hardworking elders love Jehovah, and they know that the closer they come to imitating him, the more good they will be able to do in the congregation. With this in mind, they constantly strive to cultivate such godly qualities as love, compassion, and patience. 22 How happy we are to have Jehovah as our invisible Ruler, Jesus Christ as our High Priest, members of the anointed royal priesthood as our teachers, and faithful Christian older men as our counselors! Although no organization directed by humans can be perfect, we are delighted to be able to serve God in the company of faithful fellow believers, who gladly submit to godly authority!

The story brings back a haunting memory. Back in the late 1960's a 17 or 18 year-old disfellowshipped girl from our mid-Missouri congregation died in a car accident. She had only been disfellowshipped for a couple of months, and of course she could not have a funeral at the Kingdom Hall. No Witness would even give a talk at the funeral home or the grave site. The mother was terribly distraught. (I'm sure the father was, too, but he was not a Witness and I don't remember whether I ever met him.) At the Hall, one of the elders immediately started repeating the fact that a Truth book had been found in her car. After the meeting I heard him repeat it to at least 3 different small groups. It became common knowledge throughout the congregation quickly. (The brother wasn't really an "elder," per se, since we didn't have the elder's arrangement back then. He was probably the "accounts servant," if memory serves.) My older brother was a friend of the girl's younger brother, and we still went bowling or to other outings. I once heard the younger brother talking about his sister, and I heard my brother saying, "But, you know, they did find a Truth book in the car." I heard the younger brother say, "Yeah, but that...." and then he just dropped his voice and changed the subject.

I didn't quite catch the connection between the choice a university-educated person might make with respect to caring for an aging parent. I'm guessing that some kind of professional career like being a lawyer, doctor, engineer, nurse, or teacher makes you more likely fail to take care of your parents to the fullest degree. I'm sure there are tens of thousands of professionals who get caught up in the importance of their career and don't do all they can for their aging parents. But I'm wondering if there may not be elevens of thousands of non-university-educated who end up doing or not doing things they deeply regret afterward, and fail to take care of their parents to the fullest degree. My anecdotal experiences tell me that you could easily have this one backwards.

I wouldn't be so sure about it not being his/her blog. I haven't read enough of it to know for sure, but Witness seems aligned with the blog on multiple lines of argument. After the ARC's disclosure on Feb 6 about the 4,500 cases in the Catholic Church, Andrew Collins in his interview on the BBC report, said: "Royal Commission stated today that it takes an average of 33 years before a child who has been abused is ready to stand up and talk." http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bbc-newshour

[Note: Several of the ideas presented below are not in accord with current Watch Tower publications.] Clearly, the overall purpose of Revelation is to show things that must shortly take place. The goal is to help Christians conquer through this final era of time (the last days) when they may face imminent death, persecution, long prison terms, or even a long life filled with temptation to join sinners or, perhaps, to merely leave the love they had at first, by not keeping that day "close in mind." Imminent. (Revelation 2:3, 4) 3 You are also showing endurance, and you have persevered for the sake of my name and have not grown weary. 4 Nevertheless, I hold this against you, that you have left the love you had at first. (Revelation 2:10) . . .Look! The Devil will keep on throwing some of you into prison so that you may be fully put to the test, and you will have tribulation for ten days. Prove yourself faithful even to death, and I will give you the crown of life. Christians in all ages must deal with the fact that we have but one lifetime, or less, before we are "instantly" and "immediately" in the presence of Jesus. Yet he could also return at any time in these last days, too, "interrupting" our lifetime. Hebrews starts out with the same phrase: "in these last days." Paul warned Timothy that the reason he would be seeing such problems in the congregation was because they were in the last days. Peter in Acts tells the crowd at Pentecost that the holy spirit's presence was because they were now in the last days. The letters of Peter and Jude warn Christians that this was the reason they were seeing ridiculers with their ridicule about the delay of the parousia, because this is what they were told to expect during the last days. Yet Peter also implied that the parousia might not begin for thousands of years, because each of those "last days" could be as much as 1,000 years in Jehovah's eyes. But as to the Revelation including a sweeping history of Christianity there is the following as evidence, from the very start of Revelation. Even before we can make use of Revelation 1:10 to claim that John was swept into some future "Lord's Day" we are given a setting that includes the past. Notice that Jesus had already proven himself to be the "The Faithful Witness." Notice that Jesus was already named: (Revelation 1:5,6) . . .“the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.” To him who loves us and who set us free from our sins by means of his own blood— 6 and he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his God and Father—yes, to him be the glory and the might forever. Amen. Revelation speaks of Jesus as the "Lamb" 29 times, referring back to 33 CE. That's more times than he is referred to as either "Jesus" or "Christ" combined! Although the goal of the book is to show that the promises must shortly take place, it is also made up of familiar scenes that had already taken place, and were still in progress, as God's Kingdom by Christ Jesus went on conquering in the midst of his enemies. Note also that an historical sense is found even in the titles of Jesus and Jehovah in names like "Alpha and Omega" and "the First and the Last." Notice the sweep of history: (Revelation 1:4) . . .May you have undeserved kindness and peace from “the One who is and who was and who is coming,” . . . (Revelation 1:17-19) . . .I am the First and the Last, 18 and the living one, and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of the Grave. 19 So write down the things you saw, and the things that are, and the things that will take place after these. In the past, various revelations had included a revealing of what was going on "behind the scenes" which gave Jehovah's people a sense that even if things seemed out of control on earth, there was a method and purpose behind it. Here are some examples of a revelation of something that went on in heaven to explain something that happened in the recent past: (1 Kings 22:19) 19 Mi·caiʹah then said: “Therefore, hear the word of Jehovah: I saw Jehovah sitting on his throne and all the army of the heavens standing by him, to his right and to his left. Also in the book of Job, the "curtain is pulled back" so that the events in Job's life are explained by recent past and current events taking place in heaven. (Job 2:1) Afterward the day came when the sons of the true God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also entered among them to take his station before Jehovah. The vision of Stephen was a revealing of what was going on in heaven to prove to him that Jesus was indeed already standing at God's right hand. (Acts 7:55, 56) But he, being full of holy spirit, gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand, and he said: “Look! I see the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God’s right hand.” I'll give one example from Revelation, since we are referencing chapter 11. The first readers of Revelation were Christians who were about to be swept up into the effects of woes and plagues and tribulations, and they were dealing with the very recent trauma of a devastation on Jerusalem, an entire religious system of things, which was 1,000 times worse than our "9/11" in New York and D.C. Revelation 11 appears to deal with this trauma by reminding the readers that Jesus had predicted it, by referring to Jesus words: (Luke 21:23, 24) . . .For there will be great distress on the land and wrath against this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. (Revelation 11:1-4) . . .“Get up and measure the temple sanctuary of God and the altar and those worshipping in it. 2 But as for the courtyard that is outside the temple sanctuary, leave it out and do not measure it, because it has been given to the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months. 3 I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy for 1,260 days dressed in sackcloth.” 4 These are symbolized by the two olive trees and the two lampstands and are standing before the Lord of the earth. Early Christians would have had very little trouble, I think, identifying the point being made about the two lampstands, the two witnesses, and the two olive trees. Yet they knew that this woe would pass and would only prove to be a part of the ongoing evidence that Jehovah was in control, and all would be right with the world, in time. (Romans 11:13-26) . . Seeing that I am an apostle to the nations, . . . For if their being cast away means reconciliation for the world, what will the acceptance of them mean but life from the dead? . . . 17 However, if some of the branches were broken off and you, although being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became a sharer of the richness of the olive’s root, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. . . . That is true! For their lack of faith, they were broken off, but you are standing by faith. Do not be haughty, but be in fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Consider, therefore, God’s kindness and severity. There is severity toward those who fell, but toward you there is God’s kindness, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise, you too will be lopped off. . . . 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree that is wild by nature and were grafted contrary to nature into the garden olive tree, how much more will these who are natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree! 25 For I do not want you to be unaware of this sacred secret, brothers, so that you do not become wise in your own eyes: A partial dulling of senses has come upon Israel until the full number of people of the nations has come in, 26 and in this manner all Israel will be saved. . . . Jerusalem's fall (their being cast away) was a time for both the witness to the nations (wild olive tree) and the witness to Israel (native olive tree) to carry on in sackcloth (partial dulling) for a time. But ultimately would result in life (life from the dead) for a full number of both. These first readers of Revelation were also dealing with death and war and pestilence and food shortages and earthquakes. How could they "square" that with the fact that Jesus was already ruling from God's right hand? Chapter 6 gave an image of how Jesus was ruling and conquering in the midst of these enemies (including the last enemy death, of course). (Revelation 6:2) . . .and the one seated on it had a bow; and a crown was given him, and he went out conquering and to complete his conquest. Jesus begins his conquest from the first century, right alongside these death-dealing enemies. This was a perfect parallel to what Jesus had told them to expect in the first century while they anticipated his coming parousia. (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) If that wasn't clear enough to the readers, additional references to the Olivet Discourse were included as a reminder of his coming parousia: (Revelation 6:12, 13) . . .And I saw when he opened the sixth seal, and a great earthquake occurred; and the sun became black as sackcloth made of hair, and the entire moon became as blood, 13 and the stars of heaven fell to the earth as when a fig tree shaken by a high wind drops its unripe figs. Yet, they had been reminded that they would still have to wait a while: (Revelation 6:11) . . .And a white robe was given to each of them, and they were told to rest a little while longer, until the number was filled of their fellow slaves and their brothers . . . And of course, chapter 7 shows how this would turn out, using a symbolic way of presenting how the "number was filled" both of Israel (Romans 11:12) and of the nations (see Romans 11:25, quoted above). (Romans 11:12) 12 Now if their [Israel's] false step means riches to the world and their decrease means riches to people of the nations, how much more will their full number mean! They were being reminded that the delay was nothing to worry about because it meant salvation for more persons: (2 Peter 3:14, 15) 14 Therefore, beloved ones, since you are awaiting these things, do your utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace. 15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation. . . (Revelation 7:9, 10) 9 After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. 10 And they keep shouting with a loud voice, saying: “Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.” So I'm not saying we are wrong to read various parts of Revelation with a special meaning we give it for our own day, but we should not forget that they also had an urgent and special meaning for Christians throughout all ages.

No. The idea was more of a mess than I thought at first. It's a humbling task, and I'm not cut out for it. Through my own small attempt, I could tell that Brother Jackson must have put some real effort into the same kind of task. I'm sure you felt that too. But I also felt that something prevented him from getting too pro-active about making it comprehensive.