JW Insider

11 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

In my neck of the woods, the process was clear cut. The majority of Elders would place the safety of the victim first. Even with just an accusation, in my culture, those Elders would chastise the accused without evidence. That was then, and the humanist society changed. Regardless of the secular authorities handling the criminal investigation which needs a heavier burden of proof, the body of Elders would decide on the lesser preponderance of, evidence.

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.

11 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

What should be done if the “victim” and the “guardian” plea to the Elders NOT to contact the local authorities, as was the case in Australia?

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. 

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I am very surprised, JW Insider that you were surprised by the information you have .... you are a very observant and thoughtful person ... but everybody has blind spots ... especially if deep love for the whole Association of the Brotherhood is concerned ..... you overlook what you ALREADY KNOW with absolute certainty ... that the original stance was correct on blood .... it don't get any simpler than "Abstain from Blood" .... it's crystal clear ... absolutely unambiguous ... and conforms 100% with the theme of the sacredness of blood that permeates the ENTIRE Bible from beginning to end...... unless ... unless ...the Society's Lawyers and Accountants are running the Society ... which they are.

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.

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Shame. I'd rather hear Gene Smalley's view.

I'm sure there is still time.

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Actually, isn't this silly logic? Like saying even though I don't believe in war, I stilll defend it because of all the people who have died.

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.

2 hours ago, Kurt said:

Prosecutors, who call the group an extremist sect, responsible for tearing apart families and indoctrinating young people, are now set to ban the Jehovah’s Witnesses from the country for good.

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.

On 3/4/2017 at 10:54 AM, Kurt said:

Blood transfusions are a common and often lifesaving procedure. . . .

While English law deals with the capacity of 16 to 17-year-old children under the Family Law Reform Act 1969, decisions about children under the age of 16 still rely heavily on the Gillick case and its subsequent developments.

However, the standard for determining capacity has changed since Gillick and it is now pitched at a higher level – which is more difficult for children to reach because it can include, in some instances, a requirement to demonstrate an ability to understand the implications of the consequences of refusing treatment. This can become an almost unattainable standard. Additionally, case law dealing with children has now shifted much of its focus from respecting the autonomy of children to adopting an increasingly more paternal approach.

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.

1. 16,U,PJW,A,PA 
2. 16,U,PJW,A,PD
3. 16,B,PJW,A,PA
4. 16,B,PJW,A,PD
5. 16,U,PJW,R,PA
6. 16,U,PJW,R,PD
7. 16,B,PJW,R,PA
8. 16,B,PJW,R,PD
9. 16,U,PJW,U,PA
10. 16,U,PJW,U,PD
11. 16,B,PJW,U,PA
12. 16,B,PJW,U,PD
13. 16,U,NJW,A,PA
14. 16,U,NJW,A,PD
15. 16,B,NJW,A,PA
16. 16,B,NJW,A,PD
17. 16,U,NJW,R,PA
18. 16,U,NJW,R,PD
19. 16,B,NJW,R,PA
20. 16,B,NJW,R,PD
21. 16,U,NJW,U,PA
22. 16,U,NJW,U,PD
23. 16,B,NJW,U,PA
24. 16,B,NJW,U,PD
25. 6,U,PJW,A,PA
26. 6,U,PJW,A,PD
27. 6,U,PJW,R,PA
28. 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.

1 hour ago, Witness said:

Appointed elders represent the royal priesthood

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!

15 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

“So are you saying, Tom, that he is on your JW paradise waiting list? The obvious answer is ‘how would I know?’ but we do know that if you’ve made any mistakes, your death pays for them.

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.

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

it occurs to you that life would be less likely to have worked that way had you immersed yourself in the type of career that is generally only possible with a fine university education as its underlying base

I didn't quite catch the connection between the choice a university-educated person might make with respect to caring for an aging parent.

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is, though, a reminder that the university course can 'trap' you into doing things or not doing things that you may regret deeply afterwards, since 'this life' today is not the real life, but failing to take care of your parents to the fullest degree you can perhaps is.

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.

4 hours ago, Anna said:

If you are talking about Witness, then that is not his/her blog but some crazy woman's, who thinks the GB and the WT are the antichrist....

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.

4 hours ago, Anna said:

She only disclosed everything many years later when she filed a lawsuit against WT and the congregation.

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

Australia's Catholic Church Abuse

21 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

I specially find it difficult to accept this idea in you post: “I can see Revelation as a sweeping history of the Kingdom from 33 CE on, conquering in the midst of its enemies, until the end of the thousand-year reign.”

This is so because I can’t find any basis to go back from the time the Revelation was written to year 33. Moreover, when this book clearly states, from his beginning to his end:

• ·        (Re 1:1) “to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place.” . . . (Re 4:1) . . . (Re 22:6) . . .

[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.

2 hours ago, Anna said:

By the way, did you ever manage to put together a draft of what you thought might be the best policy for us when handling child sexual abuse?

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.

On 2/28/2017 at 7:16 AM, ComfortMyPeople said:

“I see Satan already fallen” (Lu 10:18)

We all agree these words, expressed in a past tense, would have a future fulfillment.

[Note: Several of the ideas presented below are not in accord with current Watch Tower publications.]

Why? It's quite possible you are right, but the Scriptures seem to point away from a distant fulfillment in the future.

Just for the record, I see no reason to deny Jesus' words here. Yes, it's true that the full destruction of Satan would come at a later date, but there is no reason to believe that Satan had not fallen based specifically on the accomplishment of Jesus' ministry. Jesus' ministry was for the very purpose of breaking the power of Satan, and that ministry was accomplished.

Is there a scripture that says that this falling, or casting down of Satan from heaven was scheduled for some time far in the future?

Satan's rule of sin was broken because Jehovah could now view sinners as if righteous. Men of goodwill now had a proper means of approach to God and a means, therefore, of taking back what Satan had taken away. Jesus took away the sin of the world. 

A part of the symbolism about the power over Satan was the fact that powerful works performed by Jesus and his early disciples included proof positive that Jesus was conquering Satan's power. Jesus had given the disciples authority over the demons. But the primary accomplishment of his ministry was that Jesus saved mankind from the spiritually paralyzing effects of sin. Satan would still be here to tempt us and would still be the "god of this system" just as he was in 1815, 1915 and 2015. Clearly Satan's power over us was brought low, because, through Christ's ministry Christians now have power to conquer -- to get the mastery over sin. Satan lost his "rule" over us, even though he continued his rule over the world. We know from Hebrews that this ministry was fully accomplished at Jesus' death and resurrection. Note:

(John 12:31-33) 31 Now there is a judging of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And yet I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all sorts of men to myself.” 33 This he was really saying to indicate what sort of death he was about to die.

(Hebrews 2:14) . . .so that through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil,

(John 14:30) 30 I will not speak with you much more, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has no hold on me.

The spread of that Kingdom in 33 CE, starting at Pentecost was also a key part of the ministry of Jesus through the pouring out of the holy spirit:

(John 16:8-11) . . .And when that one comes, [holy spirit] he will give the world convincing evidence concerning sin and concerning righteousness and concerning judgment: 9 first concerning sin, because they are not exercising faith in me; 10 then concerning righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; 11 then concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.

(Acts 26:17, 18) 17 And I will rescue you from this people and from the nations, to whom I am sending you 18 to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light and from the authority of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those sanctified by their faith in me.’

And of course, this whole argument comes "full circle" again, explaining how the Kingdom is already at work:

(Ephesians 2:1-6) 2 Furthermore, God made you alive, though you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you at one time walked according to the system of things of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience. 3 Yes, among them we all at one time conducted ourselves in harmony with the desires of our flesh, carrying out the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and we were naturally children of wrath just as the rest. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of his great love with which he loved us, 5 made us alive together with the Christ, even when we were dead in trespasses—by undeserved kindness you have been saved. 6 Moreover, he raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus,

Surely, it was in this same way that Satan was cast down knowing he had a short period of time, seeking to devour, just as he is depicted in Revelation 12:

(1 Peter 5:8) . . .Your adversary, the Devil, walks about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour someone.

(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.

(Revelation 12:9-12) 9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him. 10 I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the Kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! 11 And they conquered him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their witnessing, and they did not love their souls even in the face of death. 12 On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to you, having great anger, knowing that he has a short period of time.”

In 2016, Satan was surely aware that his time was even shorter than it was in 1916, yet there is no specific evidence that Satan's anger was any less visceral during Nero's day, or back when Peter said that Satan was already walking about like a roaring lion, seeking to devour someone. Therefore, I would take Jesus at his word, and not place this event of Satan's falling or "casting out" as something that occurs thousands of years later.

11 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

But when a brother is threatened with banishment for plugging his pro-JW book AND the same forum lays down the Welcome Mat for apostates – well, perhaps there are some who would have an issue with that. Don’t you agree? It isn’t hard to screen for apostates if one has that desire.

I thought it just sounded like a reminder about the etiquette of book promotion through forums. I don't think anyone here was too worried about the chance to learn about your book. I liked what I read and I will very likely buy one or both. But once a place becomes known for promotion of books or JW.ORG pins or Sophia book-bags, etc, then the audience here for discussion of issues drops.

8 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I would be interested in how you see Rev.11:15 and Rev.11:17 Fitting in with this discussion.

"The seventh angel blew his trumpet. And there were loud voices in heaven, saying: “The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever." Rev 11:15

“We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the one who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king." Rev 11:17

I can see Revelation as a sweeping history of the Kingdom from 33 CE on, conquering in the midst of its enemies, until the end of the thousand-year reign.

The two verses picked out above are clearly about milestone events or achievements of that Kingdom. Whichever particular milestone is referenced, whether past or present or future, results in much appreciation, especially in heaven. It must be an integral part of the working out of an overall purpose for the Kingdom. It fits the idea you pointed out earlier about how a major achievement or event related to the Kingdom could be spoken of as a time when "Jehovah becomes King" even though he was already the eternal King. In this particular case it appears that "Jehovah has become King" due to the installation of Jesus as a king who will rule forever with Jehovah. I find this to be a parallel to (or echo of) 1 Chronicles 16, as was already pointed out earlier. Also see, Isaiah 24, Psalm 93, 96, 97, 98, 99. Part of the beauty of Revelation is the fact that these echoes are purposeful, and there are many of them in this chapter alone, starting with references to Ezekiel, Zechariah and Luke 21 at the beginning of the chapter.

I would love to go into detail on the appreciation I have for all of Revelation. In fact, I find it difficult to just pick out these two verses without discussing how it fits into the entire book. I started to answer about Revelation 11 by showing how it fits well within the content of chapters 8 through 19. Naturally, this is not the purpose of your question, so I will save that, and not even try to comment on the surrounding verses in the same chapter. But you are probably aware that I no longer find this chapter to include predictions about 1918 and 1919, and therefore it is unlikely that certain ideas I appreciate from Revelation 11 would coincide with certain ideas you appreciate from the same chapter.

But I also don't see these potential differences as a problem, because Revelation was purposely provided to us in a cryptic manner, such that the Watchtower itself has rarely kept the same interpretations of entire chapters intact for more than a few decades at a time. Revelation continues to serve the purpose of giving us hope through all kinds of trials, tribulations, woes and plagues, and yet we are encouraged that our faith in Jehovah's Kingdom is not misplaced. Jehovah is always in control and his Kingdom will continue to conquer so that the promise of a new heavens and new earth cannot fail.

Other than that, the specifics of Revelation will always pique our interest in serious Bible study, fuel the imagination of Christians and would-be Christians alike, encourage us to rely on persons who know more about Bible history and the Bible texts than we ourselves do, and, perhaps primarily, test our humility. It reminds us that we cannot rely on ourselves alone for understanding, and perhaps, too, that not everything that has happened or will happen in Christian history will always be personally about us.

15 hours ago, Anna said:

No one in their right mind tolerates child abuse, individuals in the Catholic Church don't either.

Toleration is not a black and white idea. It's on a spectrum. 50 shades of gray, and sometimes shades of black and blue. Colleges tolerate abuse reports about athletes for as long as they believe they can avoid public embarrassment. Murder is a crime, yet abuse, even if it reaches the level of rape, is more of an embarrassment than a crime. So it's handled internally if possible. In religious organizations, murder is a crime, yet abuse, even if it reaches the level of rape, is also thought of as a sin, which can also be handled internally in the eyes of the religious organizations. Colleges and religions are often in the same category as "recruitment" organizations, so the need to keep problems quiet is a historical tradition. The focus has traditionally been about the reputation of the organization, not on looking out for the best interests of victims.

And, yes, I know I'm rambling, because you know all this better than I do. I still tend to avoid the topic because I still find it uncomfortable and embarrassing. But I think that all sexual abuse is a kind of rape, and I think rape is a crime, and I think that any organizations that get out front and show that they are more concerned with the little ones, the victims, will have made themselves even more appealing in the area of recruitment, too.

On 2/28/2017 at 7:16 AM, ComfortMyPeople said:

I’d like to point out the similarities in the appearance, as reflected in the pictures, in both situations: when inspecting the congregations and in his final war against the enemies. But there is a paramount difference: the crown. . . .

. . .The three times he is seen with crown in the Scriptures

Errors and omissions excepted, there are only three accounts where Jesus is seen crowned.

The issue of the "crown" is probably one of those issues that perfectly fits the point that Eoin made. By the way, I still agree that the argument you were making from Romans 4:17 will be important to the discussion, and the verses that you and Melinda applied to that argument are valid. I'm not dismissing it, even though I didn't think that Romans 4:17 was the right verse to find the foundation of that idea. But that was a trivial side point. Still, it made more sense to start with this idea that Eoin presented, because it is a better bridge for resolving the apparent contradiction that Jesus begins a kingship in 33 and the kingdom also comes at a later date, too. As Eoin put it, this was not an "either-or" situation. 

That said, a king receiving a crown even after he has been declared the king is possible even among human kings, and likely would provide a scenario that indicates the exact idea of a special occasion when the Kingdom achieves a special milestone. This is exactly the idea behind "Jehovah becoming King" even though it was obvious he is already an eternal King.

You did leave out a mention of a crown that I think is crucial to getting a truer picture:

(Hebrews 1:2-4,8; 2:5,9) ² Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things. ³ He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power. And after he had made a purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. ⁴ So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs. . . . ⁸ But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. . . . ^2:5 For it is not to angels that he has subjected the inhabited earth to come, about which we are speaking. . . .9 But we do see Jesus, who was made a little lower than angels, now crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death,

I believe our traditional teaching makes it too easy for us to miss the point that even words like "subject" "obeisance" and "Christ" [Messiah] were also references to kingship. In Jesus' day, the term Christ (Messiah) was exclusively tied to the royal heir of King David, of the tribe of Judah. See Peter's speech in Acts 2, for example. Or, more simply:

(Matthew 22:42) “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him: “David’s.. . ."

The book of Hebrews clearly includes a commentary on Psalm 110 and appropriately expands on the glorious royal imagery of a throne, a crown, a scepter, glorious garments, and royal "subjects" (angels subject to him as ministers, doing obeisance to him). That's the basis of the first two chapters. Later chapters explain how this king can also be a priest according to the manner of Melchizedek based on Psalm 110:4. It was already understood from chapters one and two that Jesus was a King. So here's what Hebrews says about Melchizedek:

(Hebrews 7:2, 14) . . .First, his name is translated “King of Righteousness,” and then also king of Saʹlem, that is, “King of Peace.” . . . 14 For it is clear that our Lord has descended from Judah, yet Moses said nothing about priests coming from that tribe.

So it was clear that Jesus was king, but less clear how "Scripturally" he could also be a priest. What is the conclusion after the first few chapters of Hebrews show that this King is also a priest?

(Hebrews 8:1)  Now this is the main point of what we are saying: We have such a high priest as this, and he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,

I wanted to mention that, based on the idea from Romans 4:17 (or elsewhere), that it really doesn't matter so much about the exact chronology of saying that the Kingdom was among them in Jesus' day, or when he sat down with God as his throne in 33 CE, or when he again arrives to be seen in the Kingdom "present" or Kingdom "coming." But based on the language of Hebrews 1 through 8 for example, it doesn't seem right to minimize the kingdom in 33 and then highlight the Kingdom as being so much more important at a later date. To me the question boils down to whether we really need to minimize the meaning of Matthew 28:18 (among other verses). In effect, we say that Jesus didn't really mean to use the word "all" here:

(Matthew 28:18) . . .: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.

And for further consideration:

(John 17:1-5) . . .Jesus spoke these things, and raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your son so that your son may glorify you, 2 just as you have given him authority over all flesh [authority over all mankind, NWT footnote], so that he may give everlasting life to all those whom you have given to him. 3 This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ. 4 I have glorified you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do. 5 So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.

On 2/28/2017 at 7:16 AM, ComfortMyPeople said:

I must recognize, this is an "entrenched truth" for me. I find it difficult change my mind because, after a lot of years, my neurons and dendrites have a lot of highways in the direction of thinking that:

·        Jesus went to heaven and sat down (waiting, not actively ruling)

·        Jesus would be crowned, and his kingdom would begin at a later date

I'm sure you are right. About the entrenched dendrites, that is. It's a very rational-sounding scenario. I also find it very appealing. Jesus is appointed, but told to sit and wait. Then 1,881 years later, he stands and begins ruling. It's as if we really can no longer imagine that a King can actually rule while sitting down on a throne (even though it's the way Jehovah is depicted when He rules as King). We have this idea entrenched that Jesus can't really begin ruling, for real, until he's allowed to stand up. It makes sense as long as we can think of Jesus as a child whose father just told him to sit there and be quiet until he tells you it's OK to stand up.

But that's kind of a "smart-aleck" reason and carries very little weight with any of us. A better reason to break away from our traditional thinking is found in the Bible itself. It's a fairly quick process:

1. We have to remind ourselves why Jesus is "waiting." We find the answer in the same verse that gives us the "waiting" idea in the first place:

   • (Hebrews 10:12, 13) But this man offered one sacrifice for sins for all time and sat down at the right hand of God, from then on waiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet.

2. So Jesus is waiting from the time he sat down at the right hand of God. (I assume you agree this was in 33 C.E.) But for how long was he waiting? Until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet. And how long would that last? Obviously, until the last enemy death is brought to nothing. (I assume you agree that this is most likely at the end of the thousand-year reign, and I assume you believe that the thousand-year reign is still future.)

   • (1 Corinthians 15:24-28) ²⁴ Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. ²⁵ For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. ²⁶ And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing. ²⁷ For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him. ²⁸ But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.

   • (Revelation 20:14, 15) ¹⁴ And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire. ¹⁵ Furthermore, whoever was not found written in the book of life was hurled into the lake of fire.

   • (Revelation 20:4-6) . . .And they came to life and ruled as kings with the Christ for 1,000 years. ⁵ (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the 1,000 years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. ⁶ Happy and holy is anyone having part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no authority, but they will be priests of God and of the Christ, and they will rule as kings with him for the 1,000 years.

3. Therefore, Jesus is still waiting until his enemies, including death, are made a footstool for his feet. He is waiting until the appropriate time when all is finished, and he can "hand over the Kingdom to his God and Father."

   So, this particular idea of "waiting" does not refer to inactivity, or waiting until he becomes an actively ruling King. I would think it might be something like U.S. President Abraham Lincoln actively sending men into a "Civil War," yet at the same time also waiting until the war would be over. According to Paul, "sitting at God's right hand" is the equivalent of "ruling as king."

2 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Doesn't seem to be the spirit of how we understand this currently?

Doesn't seem to match anything I can find published. But sometimes these points go back to Watchtowers prior to the Watchtower Library (pre-1950). The notes are also loaded with type-antitype teachings, some of which I had never heard of, but might go back prior to 1950.

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Did you get time to do this?

Yes. It's from a set of "Gilead Notes" - Ulysses V. Glass, May 1978. Nothing ever published. I was thinking Sermon Outlines or Make Sure of All Things so I looked in one and couldn't find it, but remembered that Glass's Gilead Notes are typed up about the same way, in kind of an outline form.

"Stephen not praying to Christ, addressing Christ in vision like John, Christ standing indicates vision is future"

Thanks for going to the trouble of looking it up.

@Eoin Joyce Wow! I was just thinking about this same point last night for the current thread on Christ's power and authority. In order for us to get a sense of Jehovah's majesty, there must be some extent to which we need certain images in our head, like a crown, a throne, royal garb, a scepter, etc. Jehovah must know that these images are helpful to understand his Sovereignty. The images of a kingdom --with all the glorious splendor of a central palace, a sizable realm, along with an innumerable entourage of soldiers, servants, slaves, messengers at the king's command-- probably carries about the same meaning from the time of the earliest empires until now.

Clearly there is an element of anthropomorphism in the imagery, because a perfect spirit being needs nothing physical.

But the fact that Jehovah is a Sovereign or King is important to the concept of his Sovereignty and Kingdom. That Jehovah is at the top of a heavenly hierarchy and is all-powerful is conveyed immediately with these images.

As Jesus is also a heavenly spirit creature, the same would be true of his Kingdom, too. Obviously, many of the disciples had trouble "spiritualizing" some of the concepts about God's Kingdom through Christ. They considered the physical seat of the Kingdom to be earthly Jerusalem, rather than the Jerusalem above. He spoke of his Father's house as having many mansions, but he also had to remind them that hierarchical positions in that kingdom were not given the same meaning that they might have on earth. Heaven is a place "not made with hands."

Clearly, the same goes for the term "Bride of Christ" too. In heaven, where "in the resurrection there is neither male or female," Jesus marries a good number of "male virgins." Marriage carries with it the idea of union, love, closeness, loyalty, and an unbreakable bond. The physical concepts of marriage do not apply.

Therefore, even terms like "Father" and "Son" carry an element of anthropomorphism.

@TrueTom   You make some very valid points in your post. I wouldn't argue against any of it.

2 hours ago, TrueTom said:

Somewhere i read that a child can more readily survive sexual abuse than they can persistent bullying, yet that goes on all the time.

There is also considerable overlap between bullying and sexual abuse. Sexual abuse often becomes just another type of bullying, and those in the "herd" who have been weakened emotionally by either/or will often find themselves targeted (picked off) by abusers (predators) for the rest of their lives. After looking at 4,500 cases of reported sexual abuse in the Catholic Church between 1950 and 2015, (and looking at more statistically significant reporting especially since 1985) The Australian Royal Commission (ARC) reported that about 7% of Catholic priests have been accused. But it was lower in the Catholic schools run by nuns dealing with children, and much higher in the places where males in authority dealt with children (average age was 10 and 11). 30% of the crimes were committed by Catholic "brothers," (those usually assigned to various "orders") another 30% of the crimes were by priests themselves, and 5% by Catholic "sisters" (generally, nuns). It was highest in the "Order of St. John of God" where a full 40% of those in authority there were accused of child abuse. The reason, it shouldn't surprise us, is that these men worked specifically with emotionally disturbed children. Easy picking! One person I listened to on the BBC made it clear that any organization anywhere in the world that had such a high rate of accused and convicted child abusers would be considered a "criminal organization."

2 hours ago, TrueTom said:

Ironically, the JW organization that some would love to take down does much to promote the interests of children in most of these other areas. Even on sexual abuse, they have produced one of the best videos out there: Protect Your Children. I mean, C'mon! - an organization that does that is going to wink at child sexual abuse? 

I agree that all of us want to do all we can. But our own track record was awful, especially in those early years when expensive lawsuits were being covered up long before the very first article about protecting children came out. And members of our own Governing Body fought against printing articles and information on the subject. Just as in other organizations, we didn't want to admit that it was even possible in our own organization, because this would bring such reproach on Jehovah's name and organization. It would give opposers something to point to. My own father in his capacity as a congregation elder, counseled my sister to avoid going to the hospital after abuse by her husband to avoid bringing reproach on the congregation. "What if they asked you what happened, what are you going to tell them?" "What kind of witness would it give to the community if it got out that a minister in the congregation had to go to jail?" "Don't you think it would be more appropriate to try again, but be more humble and conforming and win him with a mild manner?" "Spending more time in prayer and study and service is surely the best counsel." 

My sister came back to the congregation, but she was disfellowshipped for defying this counsel. (She said she would separate and NOT try to get back in her husband's good graces.) I agree that we can always say that it was her unrepentant attitude and anger at the counsel that got her disfellowshipped. I also agree that she was never told NOT to go to the authorities or to specifically LIE to the authorities who might ask her questions at the hospital. But she was definitely pressured for years not to go to authorities and professionals, and even to "lie" through omission of facts if she did go. And she was definitely punished for reacting negatively to the counsel and authority of the elders.

I know about similar cases, and even of a case of child abuse that was covered up in the same way through not-so-subtle pressures to "do the right thing" when it comes to the issue of reproach and even "mandatory reporting." But the case of my sister, I know first-hand. I even offered to give my brother-in-law a taste of his own medicine, which was not the Christian thing to do, but I thought it was a pretty fair interpretation of Matthew 18:15 at the time.

Another point to remember before we start putting our own organization on too high a pedestal here is that if you count the Catholic population and the reported cases in those districts in Australia and compare them to the population of Jehovah's Witnesses and the reported cases in the same districts, then you see that our problem might even be many times worse than the Catholics. I can't say that it really is worse, because this is also a factor of how accurately such accusations are reported. 

Also, if you watched the videos from the previous ARC hearings, you might also be surprised to learn who the abusers were in several of the 1,000+ cases reported among Witnesses. I had heard that at least one of these abusers would be revealed in a separate case by November 2016, but that case is evidently under some kind of gag order, or otherwise delayed under some slow-moving wheels. So please strike what I said and forget I said anything about it. But I am almost certain that the plan is to engage some of these cases in public courts. (Partly because some lawyers involuntarily salivate when money is involved.) I don't think too many Australian Witnesses are holding their heads very high when the topic is brought up during witnessing activities.

18 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

There seems to be an unecessarily extreme position set out in this debate. It appears to be assumed that the idea of Jesus "becoming" king at a date considerably later than the time of his being " exalted to the right hand of God " excludes him being a king in the interim period.

I think you understand my position from previous discussions, but I will clarify. I don't hold to that unnecessarily extreme position. I assume that Jesus can "become" king again at a date considerably later than the time when he is first exalted to the right hand of God. I believe he was made King in 33 CE, but I also believe that what holds true for Jehovah should also hold true for Jesus: that there can indeed be events and accomplishments of that Kingdom after 33 CE for which we could say again say that "Jesus has become King."

In a previous discussion the point was about whether it was OK to say that Jesus had not yet secured full Kingdom power in 33 CE. And that is the primary question behind the OP here, too. I think it would be wrong to say that he didn't have full authority (power) in 33 CE if Jesus made a specific point of telling us that he did in Matthew 28:18:

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." - KJV

"Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: 'All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. . . .' " - NWT

Imagine how little sense it would make if someone claimed that an earthly ruler did not have the authority to do something just because he hadn't done it yet. What if they said any of the following things?

• "Julius Caesar does not yet have the authority to invade Gaul because he hasn't done it yet."
• "Caesar Augustus was just crowned and enthroned as the Emperor, but let's not call him Emperor until some point in the future when he takes some specific action we are waiting for."

So when Jesus is called the King of Kings (another term for Emperor) the exact point is made in 1 Timothy: that even though he has not made all his power manifest yet, he is still already holding all that power, and will manifest it at the appointed time.

(1 Timothy 6:13-15) 13 Before God, who preserves all things alive, and Christ Jesus, who as a witness made the fine public declaration before Pontius Pilate, I give you orders 14 to observe the commandment in a spotless and irreprehensible way until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times. He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords,

Also, since Paul mentions the "fine public declaration before Pontius Pilate" it might be good to review that declaration in total:

(Matthew 27:11) 11 Jesus now stood before the governor, and the governor put the question to him: “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus replied: “You yourself say it.”

That's the entire declaration that Matthew, Mark and Luke chose to mention. And therefore it could have been the entire declaration that Timothy would likely be aware of, since it was quite possible John had not likely been written yet. John adds just a little more to it:

(John 18:36, 37) 36 Jesus answered: “My Kingdom is no part of this world. If my Kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my Kingdom is not from this source.” 37 So Pilate said to him: “Well, then, are you a king?” Jesus answered: “You yourself are saying that I am a king.. . ."

So that "declaration" itself was about Jesus' kingship. (And this was, of course, a few days before his resurrection and ascension.)