JW Insider

On 2/21/2017 at 9:07 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I saw MANY Brothers treated worse than  myself, and if they had money and "in" relatives they became bullies never held to any accountability.  Every man has to decide for himself where he MUST draw the line, or he ceases being a MAN

I believe I know of at least two of those types of cases personally. 

On 2/21/2017 at 5:31 AM, ComfortMyPeople said:

We both feel like boiling blood. And we both sincerely believed to be right on this. I only encourage you to wait in Jehovah. Be sure, at his proper time he will correct the injustice… even the injustice inside His people. He always has done so.

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.)

On 2/21/2017 at 8:33 AM, TrueTom said:

It is an imperfect organization and everyone must take it on the chin from time to time. Sometimes the loss of privileges is taking it on the chin. There are ones who refuse to do that because they are RIGHT!!

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.)

41 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I'm sorry to interrupt this discussion but did anyone else find this thread title worryingly sinister? 

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

3 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

And here I thought the focus was going to be on the Beard

lol.

2 hours ago, Arauna said:

It is not coincidence that the word means permissible and also refers to the moon crescent!

From everything I've seen on this so far, on scholarly sites, well-referenced sites, and pro-Islamic sites, it appears that this idea is merely based on a linguistic confusion from non-Muslims. I found this as the first item that came up in Google when I searched on "crescent moon Islam":

https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-new-moon-become-the-symbol-of-Islam

The hilal (Star and Crescent moon) does not, in fact represent Islam. It pre-dates Islam by about 2000 years. It appears, for instance, on the seals and decorations of the Moabites, of Israel, at about 1500BC.

In the past, it was most notably used on the flag of the Ottoman Empire - especially its navy:
 

So, it became emblematic of Islamic power, throughout Europe and beyond, in this period. It remains the symbol on the national flag of Turkey, for this reason.

From this, many other, largely Islamic, countries (especially many of the ones set up in the dissolution of the USSR) included the hilal in their national flags - in the same way that many European nations include the cross. It's sort-of-cultural, but not very significant. Some suggest it represents the lunar month, the period of fasting observed during Ramadan, but if does, the fact that its existence was common place throughout Arabia and across Moghul India, long before Islam, indicates that is an adoption, rather than central to that faith.

Since the 1960s, various Islamist movements have also adopted the hilal (probably because of its Ottoman connotations), and so it is often assumed to be an inherently Islamic symbol.

It is possible that there is confusion over the way its name sounds similar to 'Halal' (lawful), that many Westerners think it is in some way bound up in Islam itself.

This is agreed upon by sites that purport to represent the Islamic faith:

• On the Ottoman flag was the crescent moon – a symbol the Turks adopted from the city of Constantinople after conquering it. Because the crescent moon was the symbol for the Ottomans, it also became the symbol for Muslims in general for many in the West.
• It has since been adopted by some Muslim nations – finding its way onto the flags of countries as diverse as Malaysia, Pakistan and Algeria. Although some in the Muslim community reject the crescent moon because it can be seen as a pagan symbol.

3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Please do the research on the word "brazen"

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").

Quote

Definition of brazen - [Merriam-Webster]

1. 1 :  made of brass <drinking from brazen cups>

2. 2a :  sounding harsh and loud like struck brass <the horrible brazen voice of the fire bell — Elmer Davis>b :  of the color of polished brass

3. 3 :  marked by shameless or disrespectful boldness <a brazen disregard for the rules>

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.

3 minutes ago, Linmi said:

October 15, 2006 Watchtower, last paragraph of page 29 and first of page 30

*** 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.

23 minutes ago, Linmi said:

Why do you look surprised?

7 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

but I just got out of the Hospital this afternoon, and I tire easily ... fortunately I had highly qualified, highly educated, experienced doctors taking care of me. It was fast, and it was good

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

2 hours ago, Arauna said:

It has helped me to know what they believe so I can preach and show the differences of this future government and the differences between sharia and what Jesus taught.  I usually immediately tell them that we are different to all other Christian religions.  They are taught in the mosques that Christians are all idolaters because they believe in a trinity and kiss statues of Mary etc.  So I immediate tell them that we believe, like them, that God is one and Jesus is not god.  I also tell them that we do not have any pagan traditions, statues, or any form of idolatry.... they usually listen....

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. 

1 hour ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

And this has been our position since then.

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. 

9 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

·   2.  The idea that, my behavior when a disfellowshipped relative is living under my roof should change when the same relative is living by his means has no biblical basis, no one verse could be pointed out to support this division -without extending (forcing) its meaning-.

·  3. I think that, to consider a person as disfellowshipped regardless of the length of the elapsed time, violates the sentence (1Co 5:11) “...with anyone called a brother”, because no one in the community could call as a brother whom leave the congregations years, decades ago. And if this is so, to force parents, children and other close relatives to cut off their relation for so long is, simply, cruel.

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. 

39 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Thank the Interwebs for Google Street View

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. 

49 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Is 'loudspeaker man' shouting about JWs or something completely unrelated?

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.   

8 minutes ago, TrueTom said:

@Maron should realize that some here are JWs being serious. Some are JWs making jokes. Some are non-JWs heaping ridicule. This is not the congregation where you personally know people

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

2 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Hope that helps.

Ann bravely applies the Unified Field Theory.

10 hours ago, Maron said:

Lol thanks for your input friends I still don't understand the link 

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.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

My interest in this is merely to see where the world is going and the possible fulfillment of prophecies in the Bible.

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.

55 minutes ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

1. I’m afraid that our present position about disfellowshipped relatives are based in a way of interpreting some passages that violates many important Bible principles.

Sorry about the long post. I didn't even get to some of the things I wanted to say. But what I had hoped to do is show that we can't avoid interpreting, and it's always our "foundational" views that color just how we interpret them.

I didn't want to make too much of the distinction between relatives in the flesh and relatives in the faith, because we are all brothers, and that expression should truly mean what it sounds like: that all of us are relatives, now. 

I think that our "foundational" views that color our interpretation are from the Mosaic Law, and based specifically on how nearly we can get to the harshness of that Law. We interpret by first considering the "sacrifice" side of the legal equation, and not the "mercy" side. I'm sure you already know it but our foundation for interpretation is easily seen by one of the first discussions of disfellowshipped relatives in the Watchtower. It first reminds us that we are not allowed to kill our disfellowshipped children because the law of the land forbids it:

*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship?—P. C., Ontario, Canada.
We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. “Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . ”—Deut. 13:6-11, AS.
Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. However, God’s law requires us to recognize their being disfellowshiped from his congregation, and this despite the fact that the law of the land in which we live requires us under some natural obligation to live with and have dealings with such apostates under the same roof.
 

The rest of the article showed some additional cases where the law of the land and/or God's law requires certain types of contact with relatives. For example: not being able to throw minors out of the house, not being able to divorce due to disfellowshipping/apostasy, marriage partners living and eating under the same roof, etc. 

*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
God’s law does not allow a marriage partner to dismiss his mate because his mate becomes disfellowshiped or apostatizes. Neither will the law of the land in most cases allow a divorce to be granted on such grounds. The faithful believer and the apostate or disfellowshiped mate must legally continue to live together and render proper marriage dues one to the other. A father may not legally dismiss his minor child from his household because of apostasy or disfellowshiping, and a minor child or children may not abandon their father or their mother just because he becomes unfaithful to God and his theocratic organization. The parent must by laws of God and of man fulfill his parental obligations to the child or children as long as they are dependent minors, and the child or children must render filial submission to the parent as long as legally underage or as long as being without parental consent to depart from the home. Of course, if the children are of age, then there can be a departing and breaking of family ties in a physical way, because the spiritual ties have already snapped.
 

Because of cases mentioned such as these certain verses are said not to apply, which appears to be the correct interpretation: 

*** w52 11/15 p. 704 Questions From Readers ***
Because of being in close, indissoluble natural family ties and being of the same household under the one roof you may have to eat material food and live physically with that one at home, in which case 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 and 2 John 10 could not apply; but do not defeat the purpose of the congregation’s disfellowship order by eating spiritual or religious food with such one or receiving such one favorably in a religious way and bidding him farewell with a wish for his prosperity in his apostate course.
 

When the Watchtower said: "we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws" it gives away the foundation. We are looking for the extent of "sacrifice" that is possible, not the necessary minimum. We are not looking for loopholes to show how much mercy is possible.

I suspect that Percy Chapman (the branch servant in Ontario) wrote this question so that Fred Franz could submit the answer with an already written article. I have no evidence in this case, but I saw evidence in the 1970's that something like this was done for other other QFR's. So it's a bit difficult for me not to read between the lines and see the attitude of Fred Franz coming through. I could just see him giving a talk on he subject and adding "perhaps if we lived in Saudi Arabia" to that first paragraph. 

Some current musings about it, that might all change tomorrow.

Interesting and prescient now that Trump is being pushed around by the CIA.  The Snowden paragraph (16th) was not as bad as I'd feared, if anything I would say it doesn't go far enough.  HUGE chunks of Silicon Valley are currently government contractors or crucially depended on being government contractors at their inception, and the CIA has been intertwined with the Internet from its foundation.  Silicon Valley is not only "complicit" with the surveillance state, it literally IS part of the surveillance state (for example see this https://surveillancevalley.com/blog/why-is-thcia-protecting-google).  My beef with Snowden is that his libertarian ideology prevented him from fully grasping the magnitude of his own revelations, (even now https://surveillancevalley.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-tor-project) which is that the private "free-market" spying is a bigger and more pervasive problem in most people's daily lives than government spying on terrorists and criminals.  The libertarian notion of "internet freedom" is a tool used by the USA State Department for regime change around the world.  (Again, Tor is a perfect example https://surveillancevalley.com/blog/tor-project-the-super-secure-anonymity-network-built-on-deception-false-promises-and-heaps-of-libertarian-bullshit)  

Ultimately the term "deep state" is not well defined enough even here.  This article, to me does a good job of describing the circumstances of why the term is popular, but the nailing down a precise and useful meaning is tricky.  Was Alexander Hamilton an agent of the "deep state" when he established military sovereignty violently against the native nations and Whiskey Rebellion in the 1790s?  Or did he and George Washington form the USA's "deep state" through western land speculation/conquest?  When did USA's "deep state" take form?  Under what possible circumstances could any society advanced enough to have an intelligence apparatus NOT have a "deep state"?  The spies of any nation are usually fanatical supporters of that nation, but that alone doesn't prove that they can actually control what that nation does.  

Yes, evidence has piled up since the 1970's that the USA's spies are a "class unto themselves" in the sense that spying is an industry autonomous from the government (https://www.thenation.com/article/five-corporations-now-dominate-our-privatized-intelligence-industry/) but ... so what?  You could say that about all defense contracting in general (see: the F-35).  Is the network of capitalist interests behind the building and maintenance of firepower really so important in the decision-making process of the deployment of that firepower?  Or are they merely loyal servants of politicians who are just greedy careless murder-happy imperialists?  This is the crucial question posed by the term "deep state" and the article doesn't directly answer it.  If anything, I'm leaning towards the latter hypothesis, and if that's true, then there is no deep state, just a plain old classical Marxist ruling class.

To argue by analogy, Hollywood is an industry autonomous from the government too (even though, just like Silicon Valley, it grew out of the machinery of war - early WWI-era propaganda techniques laid the material basis for the modern advertising, movie and recording industries), controlled by interlocking rings of capital who profit from it.  These capitalists make similar products, and the industry has become dominated by monopoly and oligopoly over time.  Do we need the concept of "deep script" to explain why the new Star Wars movie is basically Al Qaeda propaganda?  I don't think so, at least not necessarily.  Seems to me that media act as state propaganda because that's what's materially profitable (Like Chomsky and Herman said https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model), as plain and simple as that.  When private actors work in concert to serve state ends, it can be explained by shared material class interests... the question is what exactly are those interests?

Since inception the USA's spy-state it has served the interests of capital around the world by systematically attacking and destroying secular multi-ethnic nationalism and communism everywhere.  The CIA's very first job was overthrowing the 1948 Italian election results.  The entire purpose of NATO was to prevent the spread of communism west, and the CIA immediately picked up on anti-communist counter-insurgency techniques from the Nazis, and recruited collaborators into the highest positions of government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip).  NATO has never had a problem with working with terrorists whether the Islamic Jihadist or the European Fascist.  We (US) invaded Iraq and destroyed Libya for the same reasons we (US) helped destroy Yugoslavia and pressured the Soviet Union to fall apart - our ruling class WANTS large secular non-racist governments to fall into chaos so they can buy off the remains after the collapse for cheap.  No need for a "deep state" explanation; it's simple class interest.  Same goes for our cooperation with Arabian oligarchies, Central and Latin American juntas, Turkey, Israel, criminal militias in the Congo, etc.  Class interests, and a material need for cheap resources.

On 2/17/2017 at 6:50 AM, ComfortMyPeople said:

• ·        (Mat 18:17) “If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector”.
• ·        (1 Co 5:11-13) “But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is […] not even eating with such a man. “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves”.
• ·        (Titus 3:10)  “As for a man who promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition”
• ·        (1 Ti 1:20) “Hymenaeus and Alexander are among these, and I have handed them over to Satan so that they may be taught
• ·        (2 Jo 10, 11) “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.  For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works. t by discipline not to blaspheme”.

I believe the problem is completely resolved by the Bible itself. You gave several examples of the ways in which situations either become an kind of announcement that we are fanatics, or that we have no natural affection, or that situations are created where we would need pharisaic rules to deal with all the many different possibilities. And I agree that many do come back after disfellowshipping, but that's just as much due to a method that any psychiatrist knows is the same as emotional blackmail. The combination of emotional blackmail, guilt, and personal ego, end up playing as much of a role as spiritual concern. There is also the factor of how humans love to judge and love the feeling of superiority and self-rightousness that they get through judging. The opportunity to shun a disfellowshipped person is something that some might even gloat about to themselves. 

(Luke 18:11) . . .The Pharisee stood and began to pray these things to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like everyone else—extortioners, unrighteous, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 
 

Yet, the Israelites were given a law that supposedly provides the foundation for the Christian practice of expelling someone from the congregation. I don't think we are starting in the right place if we think like this. We need to start with the words of Jesus himself. Remember that it was Jesus who said that expelling one's wife for any reason was a concession that Moses gave due to their hard hearts.

(Matthew 19:7, 8) . . .They said to him: “Why, then, did Moses direct giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” 8 He said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but that has not been the case from the beginning. 
 

But Jesus did not preach that we should have hard hearts. The Jewish law said that there was to be no punishment for a man who beat his slave to death as long as the slave suffered for more than one day before dying. (Exodus 21:20, 21)  The Jewish law allowed for the beating of children with a literal rod. The Jewish law allowed for chopping off hands and gouging out eyes and knocking out teeth.

But now we have a different kind of law that is written on our hearts. The entire law itself can be summed up in just a few words:

(Matthew 22:37-40) . . .“‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets.” (Also, Luke 10:28)  . . .  keep doing this and you will get life.”

(John 15:17)  “These things I command you, that you love one another.

(Romans 13:8-10) . . .Do not owe anything to anyone except to love one another; for whoever loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law. 9 . . . whatever other commandment there is, is summed up in this saying: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does not work evil to one’s neighbor; therefore, love is the law’s fulfillment.

(Galatians 5:14) . . .For the entire Law has been fulfilled in one commandment, namely: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.”

 (1 Timothy 1:5) . . .Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 

(James 2:7, 8) . . .Do they not blaspheme the fine name by which you were called? 8 If, now, you carry out the royal law according to the scripture, “You must love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing quite well. 

(Matthew 7:12) 12 “All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must do to them. This, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean.
 

So I think we need to keep that primary point from all those verses in mind, when we try to understand what was going on in the earliest Christian congregations. So I'll give it a try: 

1. Matthew 18:7 as you quoted above says that the "expelled" person becomes just like a man of the nations and a tax collector. In other words, they are no longer thought of as "family" (brothers) or as "someone related to us in the faith." But they are now just like everyone else in the world that we generally might avoid except when necessary to speak with hospitably, or do business with. But does this refer to a temporary or a final situation? Of course, Jesus set the perfect example by associating with tax collectors, and spoke with persons who rejected him. Ideally, a person of the nations would be someone that we would continue to see as our neighbor. Within months after this comment by Jesus in Matthew 18, people of the nations would now be desired to join with them again as those related to them in the faith. Also note that Jesus used the same pairing of "tax collectors" and "people of the nations" in the following way:
   • (Matthew 5:43-48) 43 “You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? 47 And if you greet your brothers only, what extraordinary thing are you doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing? 48 You must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
2.  When we consider the logistics of disfellowshipping in the first century congregations, we should remember that some met in homes where the social consideration of hospitality was the key, where one could invite many people in, but if you were not invited you would not dare to "invade" the house. The size of the houses of most Christians would probably result in a much closer, more intimate atmosphere, and were probably usually timed to include the meal, with an exception made for the Memorial celebration. Therefore, if a person was invited in, it would be quite impossible not to associate in a close and friendly manner, which might provide the reason that some would not be invited into the house, "not even eating with such a one." Note this situation at Matthew's house (which may have been bigger than average, of course):
   • (Matthew 9:10-13) . . .Later as he was dining in the house, look! many tax collectors and sinners came and began dining with Jesus and his disciples. 11 But on seeing this, the Pharisees said to his disciples: “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 Hearing them, he said: “Healthy people do not need a physician, but those who are ill do. 13 Go, then, and learn what this means: ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice.’ . . .
3. As congregations began to use larger facilities, people could just come through the door and take a seat:
   • (1 Corinthians 14:23) . . .So if the whole congregation comes together to one place and they all speak in tongues, but ordinary people or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you have lost your minds? 
   • (James 2:2, 3) . . .For if a man with gold rings on his fingers and in splendid clothing comes into your meeting, but a poor man in filthy clothing also enters, 3 do you look with favor on the one wearing the splendid clothing and say, “You take this seat here in a fine place,” and do you say to the poor one, “You keep standing” or, “Take that seat there under my footstool”? 
4. With those last two points in mind, now think about a key point that is rarely, if ever, explained according to the context. It's the point about the "rebuke given by the majority:" 
   • (2 Corinthians 2:5-11) 5 Now if anyone has caused sadness, he has saddened, not me, but all of you to an extent—not to be too harsh in what I say. 6 This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man; 7 now you should instead kindly forgive and comfort him, so that he may not be overwhelmed by excessive sadness. 8 I therefore exhort you to confirm your love for him. 9 For this is also why I wrote to you: to determine whether you would give proof of your obedience in all things. 10 If you forgive anyone for anything, I do also. In fact, whatever I have forgiven (if I have forgiven anything) has been for your sake in Christ’s sight, 11 so that we may not be overreached by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his designs.
5. The interesting point here in 2 Cor 2:5-11 is that the context is about how Paul says that "we [Paul and fellow apostles, we could assume] are not masters [governors] over your faith." (1:23-2:4) Paul says that he expects that most would agree with him in the matter of forgiveness, and that this is why he mentioned the word "obedience" (see verse 9). I think this should remind us that there would be certain situations where Paul might expect everyone to agree but that this might also mean that everyone was NOT always expected to agree. In fact Paul had already dealt with this same idea of how not everyone would be in agreement with direction that came from letters from Paul:
   • (2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15) 14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked and stop associating with him, so that he may become ashamed. 15 And yet do not consider him an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.

In 2 Thessalonians, the issue was withdrawing from those who were walking disorderly (3:6) and not in agreement with the instructions given by Paul in this same letter which we now know is inspired Scripture (and by extension, any apostles with the same authority to instruct). 

There is never any talk about the specific amount of time that goes by between giving a rebuke for an offense by withdrawing our hospitality and when the person is received back. A rebuke has nothing to do with trying to judge whether the person is repentant, or how much time had gone by. A rebuke can be a one-time thing. Perhaps it was never up to the elders to judge repentance. Perhaps it was not up to the elders at all, but was a matter of every individual's conscience, after hearing the instruction and guidance that Paul gave. (And no doubt the elders would provide good guidance based on showing the same spirit Paul was showing and which he made clear in his letters.) But these things give us the idea that it was still up to each individual as to whether they might agree with the need to withdraw their hospitality. That's the most likely reason, I'd think, that Paul would speak of the "rebuke of the majority." It could also mean that by the time that a majority of people in the congregation had heard about it and had an opportunity to indicate to the wrongdoer that they were now aware of his or her wrongdoing. If either case, this could just as well be something that was over and done with in a matter of a week or so, or however long it took for a majority of the members to learn of the problem. Also on this matter of timing, some were evidently too willing to continue their withdrawal of hospitality without considering the sadness of the person affected. So Paul had to remind them.

And Paul wasn't all that concerned with the fact that not every conscience would be in agreement, even when Paul knew he was right, and that he was giving the correct counsel for the situation. Paul was writing a letter that was inspired scripture (2 Thess) and he said to continue admonishing someone as a brother if they decided not to follow those instructions. How often do we hear anything like that from any of the governing authorities of religions today?  And they aren't even apostles, and are not even inspired.

It wasn't specifically about whether they were "repentant" but whether they were still practicing the wrongdoing:

(1 Corinthians 5:9, 10) 9 In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10 not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world.
 

And the other idea from the verse is that the persons they withdraw from are not entirely out of their lives, otherwise they would have to get out of the world, but that they would not mix with them in a friendly hospitable manner as if they were sharing with them in an approving way regarding their conduct.

The point from 2 John about not even saying a greeting is similar, but appears to be taking it even a bit farther because of a specific, dangerous teaching that there never was a real Jesus on the earth. What reason would Christians have to be friendly and hospitable with this person. It was the most insidious teaching that the entire religion was based on a lie. That all of this was being made up by liars and impostors. We might expect that after the apostles died out, but as long as the apostles were alive, they knew that this was the most dangerous of all teachings when all the eye-witnesses of Jesus were dead. The testimony of eye-witnesses and the writings of the literate associates of those eye-witnesses is the very basis for what would be accepted as Christian Scripture. That verse, according to 2 John applies only to that particular form of apostasy or falsehood where Jesus himself is being denied:

(1 John 2:22) . . .Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.

(2 John 7-10) 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Look out for yourselves, so that you do not lose the things we have worked to produce, but that you may obtain a full reward. 9 Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. 
 

2 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

By the way, JWI, I’ve found an old post of you -- https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/2285-when-did-jesus-secure-full-kingdom-power/#comment-3268 – and I wish to contribute some ideas. May I follow this old post or do I need to start a new one? Also, I’m sure many would appreciate some contribution in the post DISFELLOWSHIPPING OF RELATIVES AND SPACE TRAVELS

Unless your present concerns are limited to paleographic issues!!

I'd be happy to contribute to a new topic about Jesus' Kingdom power or the old one, your choice. I think that I have commented in several threads that just went on so long they are difficult to navigate. So, if you have a new or specific point, or question, I think most people would prefer a new thread.

And thanks for the invite to comment on your disfellowshipping thread. It was quite interesting. I'll be there tomorrow.

2 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

So, If I understood, is the Isaiah Dead Sea Scroll more recent than we taught? For some time I believed the Masoretic text was older than LXX (you know, Hebrew older than Greek) but I read some interesting books about Septuagint that provided evidence that some books of the LXX belongs to a different stream than the sources served as base for Masoretic.

It depends on the book. Also, my date of 900 C.E. for the MT only refers to the time when the earliest extant mss are available. It was obvious that they were copied carefully from earlier sources and even the vowel pointing was not 100% new to the Masoretes. It had been developing for quite a while -- although the point in the OP about using specific consonants to stand in for certain vowels sounds is related to this same research about the MT.  

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

We are then equipped to deal with questions that relate specifically to our times, excercising conscience

I have no interest in Valentine's Day, but I understand the appeal, especially for young ones, to have an excuse to express an amorous feeling verbally in a kind of teasing way that won't get them into trouble (because the holiday is designed to create an approved way to do this without the typical issues that young ones would deal with trying to navigate social norms). But the very fact that such a day was named after a "saint" that I knew nothing about was enough for me to avoid it and disapprove of it for my children. I can't say I ever cared to learn about the true history of the holiday, but it wouldn't surprise me that many things that might have some small value to some people are based on practices that we would and should find disgusting today.

I often hear that we make it difficult to our children to get along in school by taking away so many things that others find "innocent." To me, however, taking a stand against something is a good and healthy thing, as long as we can explain our reasons correctly. (1 Peter 3:15)

That said, I am very glad that someone (Ann, in this case) actually answered the question with relevant research. The question implies that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Valentine's Day is related to Nimrod, and this should be quite embarrassing to many Jehovah's Witnesses, if they don't know anything about the basis for the claim.

The Bible doesn't say anything about Nimrod being related to any one of the gods mentioned in the OP. None of that is Biblical and therefore 2 Tim 3:16 doesn't apply directly.

What if the topic had been:

Was Santa Claus and the Babylonian God of Pedophiles the same god worshiped?

The Bible does not say anything about a Babylonian God of Pedophiles, of course, but neither does it say anything about Nimrod being worshiped. But if we became known as a group of supposed "Bible students" or "Bible researchers" and we went around talking about the "God of Pedophiles" then we should rightly be ridiculed for sloppy research. It turns out there also is no research that ties Nimrod to any of these claims we have made for him, either. 

Now if the discussion had turned toward false or improper practices and the ease with which religion absorbs these things for syncretic or ecumenical purposes, or the relationship of worldly attitudes in religion as a form of Satan's influence, then this could still be a useful and reasonable discussion of how such things from old still related to our times and our conscience. 

The fact that the Watch Tower publications stopped making such claims years ago, is a hint that we should probably be more careful ourselves. 

Just a quick follow-up quote from the Watchtower:

*** w84 9/1 p. 20 Would You Spread a Rumor? ***
DURING the Middle Ages an incredible rumor spread among the so-called Christians of Europe. It was whispered that each year at Passover, the Jews murdered a Christian and used his blood in their rituals. Sometimes they were said to capture Christian children and torture them horribly before killing them and using their blood. Right up until this century, during the Nazi period in Germany, this rumor was used as an excuse to persecute the Jews.
The story was investigated and disproved several times, yet it persisted for almost a thousand years. If someone had told it to you, would you have shared in spreading it? Hopefully, all of us would have had enough common sense or compassion not to do so. Yet rumors are persistent and complex things. Once started, they are difficult to stop. Even today, absurd rumors spring up and spread like wildfire.
For example, Procter & Gamble, a large firm supplying household products in the United States, was recently victimized by a rumor that it promoted Satanism and that its trademark was really a demon symbol. Another widespread rumor had it that a well-known chain of fast-food stores was putting worms in its hamburgers! Some years ago it was widely believed that a member of the singing group the Beatles had died in an auto accident and had been replaced by a double. Even the Watchtower Society’s publications have been the subject of rumors—for example, that one of the artists had secretly been introducing pictures of demons into the illustrations, was subsequently found out and disfellowshiped!
Did you share in spreading any such stories? If so, you were—perhaps unwittingly—spreading an untruth, since they were all false.