JW Insider

I could be wrong, but I think what you're trying to say is that I should start a discussion about 1914, the Kingdom, and 607 BCE, and the parousia.

I'm pretty sure I'm one of the long-winded idiots, but I really enjoyed the island walk. Someday, I'll watch more of it at actual speed. I have a habit of turning everything up to 2x speed and then watching for only 3 seconds before skipping a minute and watching another 3 seconds and then skipping another minute, etc. This video was too nice for such short-shrift treatment.

xero has been rightly criticized for condescension with respect (or lack of respect) to some Witnesses and their IQs, and prior references to Witness obesity, gluttony, lack of exercise, etc. But this is nothing compared to the near constant condescension of a couple of others who have graced this forum under names like John and Billy. So I thought that I would join the fray of critics and point out that even TTH shows some condescension above by implying that freed slaves are somehow prime examples of those who are not necessarily bright. It's true that doctors were not necessarily well respected. Even a character on PBS' Downton Abbey was looked down upon for his choice to become a doctor. And it's true that many scholars say that Luke himself may have been a slave, as they were commonly forced to serve as someone's private physician. But slaves (before capture, during, or after being freed from captivity) were not necessarily less bright than their captors. And some "particular training" does not necessarily make someone bright, either.

Me too. As I see my parents getting older, I see that the Zoom meetings work for them better than the telephone connection which they have used on occasion in the past. We used to have a KH in the suburb where I live and we consolidated with another KH two towns north of here. No travel problems because it's only an extra 3 miles, and we traveled more than a mile as it was. But the decision included two factors. We could sell our local Hall for more money and use it to upgrade the other Hall, which is now central to 5 congregations (although it hasn't been used for months). The other reason for the decision is that the "new" Hall provides better "advertising" on a highly traveled street. The old Hall was nicer looking, but out of the way. I think this is an important factor. I've mentioned before that a local "evangelical" church that bought an old synagogue nearby has turned it into something like a mega-church that draws literally three hundred cars twice on Saturday and twice on Sunday, which has started up again these last two months bigger than when they stopped last year for Covid-19. I don't know if these are different services for the same "congregation" or for multiple "congregations" but I'm guessing the latter. It also serves as a large food and charity distribution center since Covid-19. This provides them with a lot of easy "advertising" and I bet that's a reason for part of their growth. Giving up the KH would be nearly impossible to imagine, and as it is, I think an entire community of two or three suburban towns would wonder what happened to us if that Hall disappeared.

A CO who talked to my father about a requested upgrade to the sound system in the KH and who recommended that this upgrade effort go towards a different need in the Norco Assembly Hall. I heard something like it from a trusted elder in NYC. He claims it's talk from "higher up," and I didn't press him.

I started a thread about physical meeting attendance and zoom, and moved it here: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88710-physical-attendance-at-meetingsassemblies-and-zoom-attendance/?tab=comments#comment-156799

But it was OK for the WTS to use Oracle and Delphi when they set up their accounting systems using an IDE with Object Pascal?

It sounds like you are applying "conscience" to very mundane matters of getting along with others. You are then generalizing these mundane things so that they might apply loosely to matters of spirituality and "sin." Nothing wrong with that of course. It's also what many of Jesus' illustrations and parables do. But the mundane matters in themselves are not about conscience. If a brother wants a grey carpet in the new Kingdom Hall, and you want a beige carpet, it is not a matter of "conscience" for you to say OK to the grey. It's just a mundane decision. There are no grey areas of right and wrong -- unless it's a very cheap carpet. Our KH once had wallpaper in the bathrooms with a light fleur-de-lis pattern. Someone mentioned the political, religious, even possible Trinitarian associations, but he was not in the least personally offended; he just wanted to show off his knowledge of history. Since no one else really cared, the COBE decided that when it came time to change it someday, they'd remember not to repeat the pattern.

As an aside, here, I keep hearing more talk that the WTS is transitioning to no more KH at all, just assembly halls and larger conventions perhaps. It's not just us, but churches, too, have spoken about the success they have had with Zoom in terms of attendance. I fear that it would be a losing decision about the KH's if this rumor is true, but attendance numbers on Zoom have normalized and even risen for some churches. For us, I fear that less physical gathering would result in more drifting, too much video content, less local participation and enthusiasm. Even --dare I say it?-- more marriages to unbelieving mates!

I liked your KH building experience. We've all had that experience when we would have made different decisions if we were in charge, and then we are glad we weren't. But I can't seem to fit your musing on conscience into what I thought was the most common use of the term "conscience" in the Bible. Of course, it might be right anyway, depending on what you mean by consequences. For example: Let's say that you would love the experience of eating roast beef a couple times a week, but depending on your location (and your time in history) the only viable source is the meat shop just outside the local pagan temple where they sacrifice animals and then sell the meat. In this case, the consequence of eating meat is something you would want to experience, but perhaps you'd rather not experience the consequence of spiritual brothers and sisters who react to your attitude by: their own revulsion that you would dare be associated with idolatry. talking behind your back and gossiping that you are not a serious Christian because you would dare go against the counsel of the Jerusalem body of elders who declared that you should not eat meat that had been sacrificed to an idol. their being shaken in their faith or even stumbled that you would do this openly in front of them and even defend it as no big deal (because idols are no big deal). Or perhaps you are not truly convinced in your own mind that eating meat sacrificed to an idol is OK. Therefore you think it might be a sin, and are therefore going to suffer the future consequences of judgment against yourself for continuing in sin. This is probably the way most Witnesses look at blood-sourced medical therapies. Most Witnesses will accept the full range of "allowed" blood products (smaller fractions) that the WTS has identified as OK "if your conscience allows it." What the WTS has currently identified as "not allowed" (whole and larger fractions) are not considered to be a matter of conscience. They are simply not allowed without the potential consequences of disfellowshipping. But as regards the "conscience" matter of those allowable fractions, the Witness wants the consequences of the therapeutic medical advantages including longer and healthier physical life in this system. You will not be gossiped about behind your back nor will brothers and sisters be shaken in their faith by your decision to take these blood products, because there is trust in the WTS decision that you have made a decision that properly falls under the range of decisions that are allowed by your own conscience. One could argue that this really has nothing to do with conscience, and comments from HLC elders (including one of my cousins) would appear to bear this out. There have been several comments in this thread where the subtext, at least, shows that we might be confusing conscience at times with guilt or "reasonable" choices regarding sin, or just "reasonable" choices regarding not wishing to offend people. It occurs to me that the apostle Paul would rather eat vegetables (instead of meat) in front of brothers who might be offended/stumbled. Yet he was willing to write a letter that publicly declared that it was OK to eat meat sacrificed to an idol. Which is worse, eating in front of one who might be stumbled, or writing a letter that offends 10,000 brothers who might be stumbled at hearing your flippant attitude about meat sacrificed to idols.

You accuse yourself. CC is right about the insinuation. You insinuated that someone committed a heinous crime, but without any basis or evidence. That's a lot different than insulting someone or accusing them of doing stupid things.

I think this is a good idea. I see that many people have used the Weekly Study Materials, even some elders that I know. And at least one of those elders was getting them from a MS who emailed them to all the elders after getting them here. As unlikely as it seems to some, there is always a chance that certain persons will start to believe that this site, especially this forum, is somehow "supportive" of the WTB&TS when it clearly is not always supportive. You can't have an open forum anywhere that is always supportive, because a forum will (should) always be a discussion of pros and cons, evidence and counter-evidence, opinions and counter-opinions, etc. WTB&TS should probably be expanded to include CCJW, jw.org, etc.

I did no such thing. I teased him about a simple anachronism, because he mentioned a phrase like "C.O.s and D.O.s." Arauna chides me all the time for giving examples that go all the way back to the days of Russell, Rutherford, Franz and Knorr. But D.O.s are still fresh in our memory. Many of the talks I recall best were given by D.O.s.

No.

Thanks. I was exaggerating, of course, but I just noticed that you posted a few minutes ago in the topic: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/86713-modern-society-and-censorship/ The admin's post included the following about censorship: This was in a non-religious part of the forum, posted by someone who probably knows comparatively little about JWs. So, months ago, you responded to that post with: You see what I'm talking about?

I'm sure that whenever someone admits a fault about themselves, or the organization they are associated with, or a fault among the first century anointed apostles and disciples, we are already aware that some persons will be anxious to jump on those faults to either trash the confessor, the associated organization, or even to trash the anointed apostles of Jesus themselves. It all depends on the themes that people wish to focus on. Your themes are well-known. But I think most people can see through an obsession for trashing the WTS organization with any excuse possible. I expect that if a non-Witness participant here writes something about Bitcoin, you would look for a way to say: "Just like your GB because they cover up CSA, and we should wait for a True Anointed to tell us whether we should use Bitcoin." Yes, that was facetious and insulting, but I wouldn't be surprised if it hasn't already happened in parts of the forum that I don't bother to read.

I'd say it was more of a mental condition, referring to the metaphorical difference between heart and mind. I am just admitting that the elders likely made a mistake, probably because they assumed that neither of these were truly anointed, because of traditional conditioning around previous teachings. (Assumptions about the "Replacement doctrine," "seniority," worthiness, etc.)

There is a scene in a Netflix show I just watched a few days ago where "Reporter Jack" asks Jerry Rubin a loaded question containing a false supposition, and Jerry Rubin answers: "You've posed that question in the form of a lie." It's a variant of a classic example often used as a joke. I.e., "Do you still beat your wife?" If person answers with the reflexive "No, of course not!" then the person who asked still has one "Aha!" jab left, even though it was based on a lie in the mind of the questioner. For the record, I have never beaten my wife, and I have never sent a hidden message to Srecko. And I have never emailed Srecko, or privately messaged Srecko. Now, when a person becomes obsessed with finding a mistake, it's usually better not to answer questions that are posed in the form of a lie, because the questioner will merely look for loopholes still available to them in the answer. (Such as "Aha! He didn't deny telephoning him!" or "He didn't deny inserting hidden messages into the regular forum responses directed to him.") Of course, they may also pretend that a non-answer is an admission of guilt, which is the reason I went ahead and answered the "lie."

I am not aware of "many accounts" but if we're honest, I'd bet that most of us here know of at least one case in any average sized congregation. I just wrote up a related experience of a sister who I think no one would consider mentally imbalanced, but who was told to hold off a few years partaking in public because awareness of her "calling" was causing distress for another sister who was then only one in that congregation who partook. I just removed the long-winded version of the experience because it's too easy to figure out who these ones were.

Lately, I'm mostly just a stamp licker. It's all so efficient, I can't get in enough hours to meet my goals. (Unless my printer jams. Then, I'm back on track again.*) *I've been accused of pushing the envelope.

This might actually be simpler than it sounds. If you look at the style of many standard commentaries, for example, you can see that some weather the ages better than others, such that certain commentaries from 300 years ago, have much greater, lasting value than many that have been made in the last 30 years. Of course, there will be obsolete sections in almost all works of men. Take for example, a denomination that sets itself up as a teaching ministry, such as ours which says this about the meaning of the name Jehovah: *** nwt p. 1735 A4 The Divine Name in the Hebrew Scriptures *** What is the meaning of the name Jehovah? In Hebrew, the name Jehovah comes from a verb that means “to become,” and a number of scholars feel that it reflects the causative form of that Hebrew verb. Thus, the understanding of the New World Bible Translation Committee is that God’s name means “He Causes to Become.” Scholars hold varying views, so we cannot be dogmatic about this meaning. However, this definition well fits Jehovah’s role as the Creator of all things and the Fulfiller of his purpose. He not only caused the physical universe and intelligent beings to exist, but as events unfold, he continues to cause his will and purpose to be realized. I don't think any Christian-oriented religious mind would find anything really debatable in that sentence, and it even includes the non-presumptuous statement that we cannot be dogmatic, and that this is our current understanding. So we are prepared for the idea that it is subject to change when and if more is learned. This is similar to how many commentaries handle almost any Bible reference or teaching that might not be obvious. And there are Christian-oriented people who learn their Bible through and through with this kind of non-presumptuous, non-dogmatic teaching style. Changing a doctrine under this paradigm need not result in any debatable anomalies.

I don't deny that this was a subtle (and to some, not-so-subtle) way of insulting others. I have only denied specific false claims about ways in which persons claimed I had insulted them. I don't mind calling out trolling behavior. I have specifically pointed it out with JB/4J2 and I don't mind that you have said that this can be insulting to others. There's an admitted element of trolling in what I just did, too.

LOL. That's what happened to me when I first heard this one as a kid and there was no Internet. These days I would rack my brain for only an hour at most and then just Google "two trolls" for the answer.

Oh! You're the better person. LOL! I think not. 😁 Somehow this reminds me of the old riddle: There are 2 doors: life and death. There are 2 trolls: a lying one and a truth telling one. You have to get through the right door by asking both trolls the same question. (Only one question.)

D.O.'s? How long has it been since you were a JW?