JW Insider

That point was also made clear in the article. Thought of you as I was reading it. You've specialized in the very type of work the article was all about.

I agree, but I didn't think you would go there on this particular article. Based on the history of "new light" we obviously have had a mix of valid and invalid teachings. We would be foolish to think that this track record somehow disappears after each and every correction. Yet we sometimes act as if our doctrines are unquestionable, or at least that we should treat them as if they are. The one thing I saw in the article that reminded me of you was this statement: *** w17 May p. 5 Helping “Foreign Residents” to “Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing” *** GIVING REFUGEES PRACTICAL HELP 11 At first, we may need to supplement our brothers’ food, clothing, or other basic needs. Even small gestures, like giving a brother a necktie, mean a lot. I was thinking, "a necktie"? Really? That's on par with supplementing their food, clothing and other basic needs? It reminded me of a satirical post you made once and something similar I saw once in "The Onion."

Yes. This started late in 1981, a little before the GB member was disfellowshipped, but after he had been asked to resign from the Governing Body. These kinds of things were not typical, as far as I could tell, except around the epicenter of Brooklyn Bethel. You're welcome. As I mentioned to Anna, I thought that this kind of thing was much more rare outside of the headquarters area. I appreciate getting a better picture from some of the anecdotes you have included on the topic. Percy's case was the most extreme that I took personally, and which made my blood boil. There was another, but I won't tell it again now in any detail (about my sister being asked to put up with her violently abusive husband and to try more meekness, field service and prayer, because they didn't want to remove his privileges as a ministerial servant). But please remember that these are told in the context of the time that they happened. We are nowhere near perfect, and we don't really claim to be, but we have all seen many improvements, especially in the last decade or two. And I think that all of us continue to expect more big improvements, some of which are likely to surprise us. In fact, I was pleased that @Eoin Joyce didn't think this was the whole story (about Percy) and that @TrueTomimplied that such stories might be only partially true. When something that happened is extremely difficult to believe, then it should be that much less likely to ever happen again. I notice that the question of dirty laundry and motive also comes up, which shouldn't be surprising. The question should be welcomed. If we are concerned about truth and justice and improvements and error and tradition and 'strongly entrenched things' then the common "refrain" will be the request to refrain. Accusations of pride and apostasy are expected too. Love for the brotherhood should override these minor obstacles, however, and we should do our best to imitate Biblical examples of faith and courage. I appreciate the discussion. If we see error we should spotlight it. In the long run, this makes the light of truth shine more brightly. (Mark 4:21, 22) 21 He also said to them: “A lamp is not brought out to be put under a basket or under a bed, is it? Is it not brought out to be put on a lampstand? 22 For there is nothing hidden that will not be exposed; nothing is carefully concealed that will not come out in the open.

Sometimes I have felt sorry for the majority of the population of the world, who (over the centuries) have never even heard of Christianity, not to mention that, even today, it's possible that most of the people on the earth have still really never heard of Jehovah's Witnesses. Of course, we still trust that Jehovah and Christ have taken all this into consideration for the time of judgment and, perhaps more importantly, throughout the time of resurrection. So this is not about who will survive Armageddon, and who won't; it's merely about the wonderful advantages of knowing about the teachings of Jesus and the freedom to make changes in your life based on taking these teachings to heart. Most of the world may not have the freedom to take advantage of true Christianity even if they have heard of it. Another large portion of the earth has heard about historical Christianity, and wouldn't go anywhere near it because of its terrible reputation for violence, deception and theft of resources. They won't give it the benefit of the doubt. But even for persons who fall into that last category, there is hope that many more will benefit from exposure to Christian ideas and ideals -- even under the worst of circumstances. The latest study edition of the Watchtower (May 2017) nailed it in the timely article "Helping 'Foreign Residents' to 'Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing.'" Note: *** w17 May p. 3 par. 2 Helping “Foreign Residents” to “Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing” *** Worldwide, refugees who have fled their homes because of war or persecution now number over 65,000,000—the highest ever recorded. The footnote expands on that idea: *** w17 May p. 3 Helping “Foreign Residents” to “Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing” *** In this article, we use the term “refugees” to denote those who have been displaced—whether across national borders or within their own country—by armed conflict, persecution, or disaster. According to the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), today “1 in every 113 people” worldwide is “forcibly displaced.” Nearly 1% of the world's population! Granted that this article is primarily about how we treat our spiritual brothers and sisters who are refugees. And I know that some have criticized us for focusing almost exclusively on other Witnesses, instead of ALL persons. (Even though I'd guess that non-JWs don't criticize each other for choosing their favorite charities.) Scripturally, there is nothing wrong with primarily taking care (materially) of our family, and after that those "related to us in the faith." And I think it's also true that even giving primarily to Witness refugees, will still give a good witness that some groups are much better than others at 'taking care of their own.' (1 Timothy 5:7, 8) . . .. 8 Certainly if anyone does not provide for those who are his own, and especially for those who are members of his household, he has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith. (Galatians 6:10) 10 So, then, as long as we have the opportunity, let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith. One thing I like about the article is the balance. The bulk of the article is about ways in which we as JWs can help out refugees in material practical ways. Of course, there are a few paragraphs on spiritual support, too. In the past we've seen the same basic idea presented, but often with only a generic statement about material support and very few practical ideas for what we can do materially. This article talks about helping persons not just with providing food, clothes, shelter, but also with transportation, government paperwork, learning the language, applying for jobs, driver licenses, etc. I think a lot of persons will also appreciate that the paragraphs on "spiritual support" included emotional support with spiritual support. I thought these two paragraphs were especially useful: *** w17 May pp. 6-7 pars. 15-16 Helping “Foreign Residents” to “Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing” *** 15 More than material assistance, refugees need spiritual and emotional support. (Matt. 4:4) Elders can help by obtaining literature in the language of the refugees and by helping them contact brothers who speak their language. Many refugees have been torn away from their tight-knit extended families, communities, and congregations. They need to sense Jehovah’s love and compassion among their fellow Christians. Otherwise, they may be drawn to unbelieving relatives or compatriots who can relate to their culture and experiences. (1 Cor. 15:33) By making them feel fully accepted in the congregation, we have the privilege to share with Jehovah in “protecting the foreign residents.”—Ps. 146:9. 16 As with young Jesus and his family, refugees may not have the option of returning to their homeland as long as their oppressors remain in power. Further, as notes Lije, “many parents who saw family members raped and murdered cannot bear to bring their children back to where those tragedies occurred.” To help those who have experienced such trauma, brothers in lands receiving refugees need to have “fellow feeling, brotherly affection, tender compassion, and humility.” (1 Pet. 3:8) Persecution has caused some refugees to become withdrawn, and they may feel ashamed to talk about their suffering, especially in the presence of their children. Ask yourself, ‘If I were in their position, how would I like to be treated?’—Matt. 7:12 The article reminds us that we should be known for being concerned with good works, not just the preaching work. This fits a lot of ideas that have been mentioned in the recent past showing how sometimes doing good for persons in a material way, really is a spiritual work, and can be related to our sacred service.

It nearly stubbled me.

I'm sure there are two or more sides to every story. We met Percy probably about 80 times. I was very interested in his reasons and his reasoning. He had no senility of any kind, and I like that he focused on the positive. He would show me how fast he could get up from his chair. He could walk, and even get up the stairs, but it was painfully slow. Still, he didn't want the wheelchair. It was really for people like me who were impatient to get him from point A to point B and back as quickly as possible. His complaints were usually about food, and he was very particular about how his food was cooked, but he was very appreciative. He discussed recipes with my wife, and told us both a lot of wonderful stories and experiences, some of which have probably appeared in past yearbooks and from assembly platforms. I tried to imagine what would have happened between Percy and the elders that made him seem like such a danger. He had been in the same congregation for 50 years, and hadn't got in trouble before. Of course, I finally asked him and he was very clear about it. The elders asked him to reveal private conversations with his friends that he had discussed Bible topics with where those topics were out of harmony with current Watchtower teachings. He had made it clear to the elders that he wouldn't discuss private conversations with his friends. This is obviously an affront to the entire process because it does not show deference to the authority of the elders. He had three judicial hearings, and even went to 124 Columbia Heights for the last one. You probably know that there was a set of questions in those days that Bethel elders were asking of persons suspected of disloyalty. One of them was the question about whether the "suspect" believed that the Watchtower Society and its Discreet Slave was the only organization Jehovah was using to feed spiritual truth on the earth today. (Don't know if Percy told this to the elders, but to me he said answered that same question with another question about how the scripture says, 'For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.) He thought the question itself was not fully scriptural, which ultimately leads to the fact that he is questioning the faithful and discreet slave. As I'm sure you know, that was the true and only definition of apostasy at that time: "Do you question the faithful and discreet slave?" If the judicial committee can get you to either directly or indirectly answer that question in the affirmative, then you are an apostate. I would never claim that Percy was exactly right in his opinion. And I would never suggest that anyone be so blunt with elders on a judicial committee, especially one with Bethel elders. At Bethel, many of the long-term elders are completely divorced from the reality of living in the real world. There was often little room for justice to be tempered with mercy inside Bethel. Every week, we had to listen to Brother Knorr and and others make loud and angry tirades about who was being kicked out of Bethel for this or that. We sometimes had to sit through the shame and embarrassing details of their sins. I heard it was much, much worse under Rutherford where he was able to dress down someone until he got them to cry in front of hundreds of people. I don't think some of these brothers were trained to think of real-world consequences to the person being judged, or the subsequent consequences to their own reputation for acting harshly.

I believe I know of at least two of those types of cases personally. I know the feeling. But waiting on Jehovah does not mean waiting on the organization. I took a great risk not long after I left Bethel, and it was mostly at the request of my wife and brother. I was not 100% willing to take the risk because I had just been recommended for appointment as an elder about a month earlier, and it would be confirmed at the next Circuit Overseer's visit. As a Ministerial Servant I had already been giving dozens of public talks in various congregations around NYC for about 5 years, and I have to admit that I didn't want to lose this privilege. I hate to admit that there was very probably some "ego" involved in my decision to avoid the risk. But I finally took the risk anyway. And I got away with it. My older brother and his wife were best friends with another couple in their Brooklyn congregation, and my wife and I were in a different congregation that met in Queens, NY, 15 miles away. My brother was the best man at my wedding, yet this other spiritual brother, we'll call him Gene, was the best man at my brother's wedding. I mention it to show that Gene was "closer than a brother" to him. Gene and his wife, we'll call her Jill, were quite ashamed for what they allowed to happen to them. Part of this story is well known by some of you already. But here goes: Gene and Jill called up my brother one night after their meeting and Jill was crying, because Jill is a Registered Nurse (RN) and she was just told by the elders that she could no longer visit Percival Harding or she would be disfellowshipped. Percy was a 91-year old anointed brother who had started congregations (classes) in Russell's era, and was a colporteur in Rutherford's era until 1925 and served at Bethel for 4 years until 1929. He was born in 1890 and had been active and loyal for the past 71 years, much of it in full-time service. But he had just been disfellowshipped because, at some time during the past few months, he had discussed some Bible topics privately with another friend, and that friend shared his own view with an elder. At this point there was nothing dogmatic or even public in any of these discussions of Bible topics from Percy, although I don't know anything about the other friend he had spoken with. When the elders asked Percy what they had talked about he wouldn't answer, and got disfellowshipped for not cooperating and then telling them that he believed Jehovah blesses our work as an organization, but that Jehovah treats us and judges all of us as individuals, not specifically because of the merit of the organization. He believed the Bible teaches this (and could even show where the Watchtower taught the same) and I assume he wouldn't budge from this position. Jill, the RN, was upset at the threat of being disfellowshipped, of course, and she and Gene went to the elders and begged to at least continue giving him the free medical attention she had been giving him in the past. He could get to the bathroom himself, but was very slow, took daily medication, and needed someone to come in and see him at least a couple times a week. Another sister visited regularly delivering his groceries, and to clean and cook for him. Percy lived on the second floor of a brownstone walk-up that required about 8 steps up from the sidewalk to the first floor door, and 16 more steps up to the second floor. He was taken to the meetings in a wheelchair. Percy was very alert and sociable and well-liked in a very large congregation often attended by about 200 persons every weekend. The sister who visited him for cooking and cleaning was also threatened with disfellowshipping if she continued to help him. When Gene insisted that this made no sense. He was also threatened with disfellowshipping, too. He wanted this matter to be decided upon by Bethel. But there were already at least two Bethel elders involved and both of them had very responsible positions. We'll call them H**** P****** and J**** P********. In other words, the case had already reached brothers in the Writing Department. (One of whom became the editor of the Awake! magazine shortly afterward.) I already mentioned my own concerns in this regard, but it was so hard for my wife and Gene and Jill to believe. To tell the truth it was actually fairly easy for me to believe because I had already ignored and remained silent for the same kind of treatment of a few older Bethelites in the previous year. I was afraid to get involved, also because I was handling assignments for one of the members of the Governing Body who had been personally involved in all the high-profile 1980 disfellowshippings at Bethel. I was afraid of his reaction, and never spoke up. I knew I would lose everything in a minute, and might even be disfellowshipped if caught, but my brother and his wife begged, and the nurse, Jill, was desperate. (They thought no one would recognize us in the area.) No one in their congregation dared to visit the man any more. Only a non-JW woman, who acted as a kind of landlord or building manager (on the first floor) would do anything for him for the first few days. Percy had no close relatives, except elderly ones a couple thousand miles away in Canada, whom he could not reach. He had estranged himself from them 70 years earlier by becoming a "Russellite" Bible Student and one of Jehovah's Witnesses. My wife and I agreed to start weekly and sometimes bi-weekly visits, and I began a friendship with him. He offered me an entire library with a full collection of just about everything Russell and Rutherford ever wrote. He told me about Rutherford in a way that corresponded exactly with stories my "table head" told at Bethel. We would pick up groceries for him and my wife would cook and clean. I got him some daily exercise and helped him with the bathroom, but mostly he loved to talk. I learned so much. After several weeks, one of the ex-JW groups in NYC heard about him and began setting up regular visits to help him out. Over the months, I crossed paths with two of these other disfellowshipped persons, one of whom had been disfellowshipped recently at Bethel (and recognized me), and also a NYC circuit overseer who had been disfellowshipped in 1980. We stayed out of the way of all these other disfellowshipped persons who visited him, and my wife and I continued visiting him regularly for two years (1981-1983), for at least three hours a week plus the one-hour drive each way. Yet, I never got caught, or at least I never got turned in. Today might be the first chance for some people in my congregation to know about it, although I don't think anything drastic will happen at this point. Jill and Gene both drifted away from the congregation after this incident, and they told my brother it was over this. My brother's wife, too. There was another nurse involved who might have also left over this, but it may have been over something else. But at least 200 persons in his congregation must have been at least somewhat affected by this, and he was well known and well-liked by another large congregation meeting in the same hall. But still, no one from the congregation he had been in for 50 years ever visited him, and I'm told that this remained that way until he died in 1994. Looking back, I don't think I had a choice. My wife agrees. She sees it the same way. If we had been disfellowshipped over this, I probably would have found it nearly impossible to admit real repentance, and I even tried to come up with phrases, in case we were caught, so that it might sound like we were repentant but still "honest" to Jehovah. (My wife didn't believe in that kind of rehearsed answers, and I don't either anymore.)

I felt very sorry for the duck that was about to be taped.

lol.

I've heard you express problems with this word before. I don't have a problem with it because, well, it's a word and it is a fair match for the Greek "a-sel'geia." The word "brazen" is a little dated, but not obsolete. Personally I would have gone with "shameless" because it fits the meaning of the original word as a negated word and "a-selgeia" is negative in the way amoral means without morals, and shameless means without shame. But the original word does include a sense of "strength" or "boldness," which could get lost in the simpler "shameless," where the sense of boldness is not always implied. Greek writers outside the Bible used it often with reference to the same idea that is heard in the cliché or hackneyed phrase: "brazen hussy" (in the sense of "wanton woman" "shameless prostitute"). There is another small problem in that it's the third of three primary definitions, which allows for an ambiguity or perhaps a small delay in understanding by a first time reader. But that's not an important issue here. In any case, it was intended to fix a poor translation in the previous pre-2013 NWT where we used "loose" as in "loose" morals, "loose" conduct. (compare "loose woman" to "brazen hussy.") This is inaccurate, because someone who plays loose with the rules is not necessarily either bold or shameless. It can be like the difference between the archaic meaning of "licentious" and the current meaning. (Archaic: someone who disregards accepted conventions, as in "poetic license" and Modern: unprincipled and promiscuous.) Even the current definition is not quite strong enough to cover the bold/shameless idea of "aselgeia" well enough. In combination with a couple of contexts about prostitution in the Hebrew Scriptures, I think "brazen" makes for a fair translation of a couple of the ideas is Hebrew, too. In those cases the idea of "boldness" is probably stronger than "shameless" and "brazen" might even be a better word to translate the Hebrew.

Got to love the state of political discourse.

Reminds me of the world's shortest poem: (from Google) The shortest couplet that forms a poem is perhaps "Lines on the Antiquity of Microbes" by Strickland Gillilan: Adam/Had 'em.

*** w06 10/15 pp. 29-30 Increase the Joy and Dignity of Your Wedding Day *** Consider what the bride wears for the occasion. While tastes vary from person to person and from country to country, the Bible’s admonition is applicable everywhere. Women are “to adorn themselves in well-arranged dress, with modesty and soundness of mind.” That applies to Christian women at all times, and it certainly includes the wedding day. The fact is that a joyful wedding does not require “very expensive garb.” (1 Timothy 2:9; 1 Peter 3:3, 4) How satisfying when this advice is applied! David, mentioned earlier, comments: “Most couples endeavor to follow Bible principles, and they deserve commendation. There have been cases, though, when the gowns of brides and bridesmaids were immodest, being very low-cut or see-through.” In his meeting with the bride and groom beforehand, one mature Christian elder helps them to keep a spiritual perspective. How? By asking them whether the attire they have in mind would be modest enough to wear to a Christian meeting. Granted, the style of clothing might be different from regular meeting attire, and what is worn for the wedding may reflect local custom, but the level of modesty should accord with dignified Christian standards. Even if some in the world might view the Bible’s moral code as restrictive, true Christians are content to resist the world’s attempts to squeeze them into its mold.—Romans 12:2; 1 Peter 4:4. “Rather than viewing the clothes or the reception as the most important thing,” says Penny, “Aret and I focused on the ceremony, the spiritual part of the occasion. It was the most important part of the day. The special things I remember are, not what I wore or ate, but whom I spent the day with and the happiness I felt at marrying the man I love.” A Christian couple do well to keep such thoughts in mind as they plan their wedding. [I didn't notice at first. I think it's the word "low-cut," right?]

Started to watch "Men Who Stare at Goats" a couple of years ago. Gave it 10 minutes and was already too disappointed to finish it.

Why do you look surprised?

Hope you are feeling well, and will feel even better soon.

That's quite interesting. Able to break down long-standing prejudices about Christians in just the first few minutes. They should want to know more about our kind of Christianity, just because it breaks the norm in such important ways.

You covered a good portion of what we called the "pendulum swing." That's what I was going to bring up next. I think the general expectation is that we will sooner or later end up, not exactly in the middle of the two extremes, but a little closer to "erring on the side of love." One reason might even be due to concerns with our reputation and legal issues. It's a shame if that's what shames us into no longer using shaming techniques in the same way we have been. But I do know that it is true that when Judah Ben was at the head of the Public Relations department, he admitted that "shunning" was one of the worst policies we had in terms of the way in which it helped create and give a voice to a community of ex-JWs. Ex-JWs could now correctly claim an injustice even when their only reason for not coming back was that they disagreed with specific policies including, ironically, the policy of shunning. It's of interest that we would notice the contradiction and therefore had to make exceptions for eating with disfellowshipped spouses or minor children. Yet, we would not notice (as quickly) the issues you pointed out, or that what we recommended often contradicted the example of Jehovah and Jesus and the counsel about "showing no natural affection." This does not mean that there is only one definitive way to read the specific expression "anyone called a brother." But in general, overall, I think you are making a correct point. Personally, I agreed with Judah Ben and also believe that we would be as large as Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists (who started out defining themselves at about the same time) if we had abstained from the shunning policy.

@Arauna Your personal acquaintance with the language, I assume, and persons who have been involved in the Muslim religion is rare and valuable to these discussions. When I first learn about a topic I know very little about I think about anything similar that I can have the ability to verify, first. But this means that I take a very circumspect if not a suspect view of a lot of things. So I hope you'll forgive the slow pace at which I come to accept a lot things I have heard about Islam -- and 1,000 other subjects for that matter. I was raised in the "Show Me" state. So, I have no problem believing that various ideologies produce terrible practices. I see this even in "Western" ideologies. A sample is to be found here: What I'm saying is that I will take my time with some of these claims, because I've heard so many claims from both sides for years. I've had two employees, one whose husband was in the Israeli army many years earlier, and one who had himself been in the Israeli army in just the previous few years. And the stories they told of the actions of their Muslim prisoners and neighbors struck me as containing a high proportion of propaganda. Yet, some of my best and smartest employees have themselves been Muslim, although I made a point never to discuss religion or politics with them.

I love it. Just a couple of nights ago, I "drove" through my old hometown in a place I hadn't been in for 30 years, to see if I could still find the places I had worked, the old territories I had worked by myself as a pioneer (my "magazine route"), schools I attended, the bowling alley, the parks, the restaurants, my studies and return visits, where all the friends from the congregation lived. It's a great way to trigger memories I might otherwise have forgotten about. I was able to make a list of about 60 names from a congregation of 70 publishers. Judging from his shirt, I think he's saying this: JOGGING IS A SNARE AND A RACKET! MILLIONS NOW JOGGING WILL STILL DIE! But you are right that we can't make any assumptions here. In NYC there are competing voices at the same corners as the Witnesses all the time. At Union Square Park (14th St) the carts used to set up early last year, and there have been so many competing messages for the past couple years that this park hardly sees any Witnesses now except on the weekend, and even then it's in the quietest area where hardly anyone notices.

It's a "congregation" where any one of us can pick up a 12-pt or a 14-pt "megaphone" in a professional looking font. We can even shout in a bolder and larger font if we wish.

Here is where the megaphone idea in an urban setting probably came from. The picture was already discussed on this site a few months ago. It's a portion of a picture that appeared on a Russian site for Devino Communications in 2012 (and applied to Russian elections) even though it's from London somewhere near Bond Street and Piccadilly Circus: http://www.devinotele.com/company/press-center/press-relizy/ Главная / Компания / Пресс-центр / Пресс-релизыПресс-релизы The full picture is found here

Ann bravely applies the Unified Field Theory. I didn't know you were serious. You know that this comes from the currently studied Watchtower which is also found here: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-simplified-december-2016/throw-all-your-anxiety-on-jehovah/ So it is intended to remind you of the kinds of things that cause stress and anxiety. There is nothing in the article that specifically defines a meaning to each picture. This is probably on purpose, so that you can impose your own ideas on a couple of these. This way you can see them as depicting some of the stress and anxiety that you face. Images very similar to the man on the left forefront have been used in past Watchtowers to indicate financial problems, but it is somewhat similar to depictions of stress over family and marital problems, too. (and several other things) But the "rolled up sleeve" motif usually means that he realizes he now has to face an issue and deal with it. The man in the hospital bed is more obvious, although there could be a connection between these first two. Perhaps the older man's left-handed son knows his father is not covered by health insurance, or long-term care insurance. The woman-and-son "pieta" is similar to recent depictions of refugees from crime in war-torn and drug-lorded countries. Single motherhood, hunger, stress of dealing with children with special needs, and a dozen other things could be read into this, too. @TrueTom notes that "megaphone man" could be one of those loud opposers near a convention site. This could very well be the artist's intention because something similar was the idea behind a recent image (2012?) of a megaphone being used against street witnessing. But any kind of protest could also be depicted. The surroundings are urban and it's therefore easy to see it as part of a political or ideological protest of some kind.

I remember the talk shortly after 9/11 by a friend of mine from Bethel, who suggested that we seriously consider the possibility that Islam be considered the new "King of the North." I think he didn't have the right to express this, but the talk went "relatively" viral for a couple of years. (At least among some brothers I spoke to.) Interesting how this same interview above asked the candidate why he obsesses about Islam when non-Muslim Russian/Ukranian issues were the only source of "terrorists" death to Dutch in recent history. I imagine that Ciro got a similar speech as his talk was making the rounds.