JW Insider

22 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Did John Butler 'threaten' the GB. I note you put it in inverted commas.  No one covered for him, you (BillytheKid) complained so much he was d/fed from the forum. 

19 hours ago, César Chávez said:

A simple image post can resolve this issue. So, no, you were not removed because of complaints, but rather the threat you made against the GB.

I might even get in trouble for this because no one gave me permission to capture images of posts. But I promise The Librarian and admin(s?) that this is the only place I will do this (for this particular topic). Here is an image of BillyTheKid (Cesar Chavez) responding to the words of John Butler (4Jah2me) and another image in response to action taken by The Librarian:

Personally, I believe that the words from John Butler did not constitute a specific imminent threat, but they still reveal something dangerous. Even if it only reveals a "fantasy" that God by some miracle will "one day soon" find a way to kill a specific group of people, this fantasy may result in someone acting on it. If I were the forum owner/admin, I would have removed it and given the person a warning because the death fantasy is about a specific group of identifiable individuals. In this case I think BTK46 did the right thing to bring it to the attention of the forum owners. If they had allowed the continued promotion of these ideas, they could possibly even be held liable if someone had acted upon the fantasy.

I am only repeating two of the posts here because they put JB's words in an expository context, and they are being rightly confronted by BTK46 in this case.

2 hours ago, xero said:

In truth, they have no right to be offended or disgusted by anything but themselves as they fall short of Jehovah's standards. Of course rather than focusing on their own offensive, disgusting behavior from Jehovah's standards, they presume to be clean. In this presumption they are the filthiest of them all and the most disgusting.

I agree that what you said at first, and it is probably true quite often. But I honestly couldn't tell if you were trying to be funny or ironic when you appeared to be coming "full circle" by putting yourself in the judgment seat to judge these behaviors of others as even more filthy, offensive and disgusting.

19 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

that puts a different face on it.

I don't like the fact that they had to administer laughing gas to get this sister to be happy:

On 3/7/2021 at 1:59 PM, 4Jah2me said:

So, JWI is almost saying here that Zalkin has over 100 CSA cases against Elders and Minsterial Servants. 

Not necessarily. Perhaps 98 of the backlog of cases are rank-and-file and he has had trouble arguing that all JWs are "ordained ministers" and representatives of the WTS. But perhaps the case of 1 ministerial servant and 1 elder he knows will be easy to argue. Therefore, he will only take on new cases of ministerial servants and elders since he has too many rank and file cases.

That's a purposeful exaggeration to make a point. I actually don't know anything about the make-up of his backlog except that a reliable Witness told me that his backlog is about 100 cases and he is now very selective in the new cases he will take. And that this is supposedly something that new attorneys know, who are anxious to pick up cases that Zalkin can no longer take on.

On 3/7/2021 at 1:59 PM, 4Jah2me said:

Thank you JWI, you have just proved a point, which @TrueTomHarley  constantly denies.  Tom says it is rank and file that commit CSA.

@TrueTomHarley does not say it's only rank-and-file Witnesses who commit CSA, he says that it is probably a lot more rank-and-file than appointed servants. I would agree with him on this. His main point is that you can't usually make a comparison between JWs and Catholics by looking at the raw numbers in the statistics. For example if the ARC had reported that there were 5,000 perpetrators of Catholic CSA, he says this was mostly "appointed priests" whereas if you also saw a parallel report of 1,000 perpetrators of JW CSA, this would have been "appointed servants" along with a large percentage of "rank-and-file" JWs.

I think that there could be a bit of wishful thinking in TTH's view, but I can't say he is wrong. My view, after looking at several collections of evidence and statistics, is that most rank-and-file cases still go unreported, and under-reported. This is just one anecdote, but I was at a Witness funeral/memorial a couple years ago where the brother "eulogized" the late elder, and this resulted in some whispers, hushes, and then escalated into a real disturbance and then several sisters "took it outside" to keep the disturbance down. It turns out that the elder, from 20 to 30 years prior, had been incestuous with his own daughter, and perhaps another of his daughters starting well before becoming an elder, but it had evidently continued for years.

Most CSA cases are "familial" and the experience told me that most cases don't ever get reported, much less prosecuted. And why would an attorney take on such a case unless the family had a lot of money and could afford to sue themselves, basically?

The case I mentioned was an elder, well respected all his life by the congregation, but with notable exceptions within the congregation as I discovered.

The spreadsheet that the ARC provided for the JW cases, had a high percentage of elders and ministerial servants. (And at least one, probably more, were not listed as elders at the time of the crime, but became elders later -- this is something I wanted to look into as a problem outcome of not reporting cases.) But a friend in Australia has told me that if you look at the breakdown among Catholics: priests, nuns, brothers, school teachers, volunteers, etc., then it seems that they did have records on more than just appointed priests. And the breakdown was apparently similar to that of the JW breakdown. But you can't make too many conclusions about what it means overall if we realize that so many cases are never reported, or were thought to fall under "elder-congregant" or "priest-penitent" privilege. It also turns out that some of the other churches somehow did have a breakdown that included rank-and-file members. The media tends to report on those cases where the church authorities were perpetrators and victimizers, and this gives everyone the impression that it is just the higher-ups.

I remember from the US reports after the ARC, and preliminary discussions of investigations elsewhere in the world, that there was a lot of talk and interviews about treating some of the Catholic entities, even the church itself (in Australia) as a criminal organization. This type of talk reminds me of when TTH speaks of the ARC as going after the others as institutions but going after the JWs as a religion. I know what he means, but I can't say that I agree. In the media outlets, I saw/heard some talk about JWs not reporting any of these 1000 abusers of 1,500 victims, and how terrible it was. But I heard and read much more talk that made it appear that that made it appear they were going after the Catholics as a "criminal" institution, because, it ran so many entities that had such high rates of CSA crime.

My overall impression that it's going to about the same for JWs, Catholics, Mormons, Hasidic Jews, Boy Scouts, Government employees, etc. Namely that most CSA will be familial, and therefore it will be underreported and not make statistical lists. But OUTSIDE of familial CSA, the perpetrators will tend toward those with some level of presumed authority over rank-and-file members, and will therefore tend toward priests, Catholic brothers, JW elders, JW ministerial servants, Scout leaders, bosses, etc. 

27 minutes ago, Outta Here said:

Not a patch on the JW version, which easily comes a second only to the original.

Video-wise, the JW version is much more fun to watch than the original which is diminished for me by a shot of Pharrell inside a Baptist church. I noticed that (at least) one church version changed the lyrics to "God's Word is the truth" instead of "happiness is the truth." The former is a true statement, of course, but the latter works better for us.

27 minutes ago, Outta Here said:

Wow!! I bet this flabbergasted some of those crusty old 1970's and 1980's Bethelites who probably thought they were a pretty groovy lot at the time!

I admit to being flabbergasted, flummoxed and even dumfounded, but, speaking for myself, can't remember ever thinking we were a groovy lot in those years. I certainly had a lot of fun in the 70's and 80's. Even seeing the "Watchtower 25" address featured in the video reminds me that this is where the WTS finally built us a small gym even with a basketball hoop and two bowling lanes. I tried out the bowling lanes but was too lazy to reset the pins manually after each throw. Truth be told, I never got back down there again, except for that one time. But we were always surrounded by lots of friends, so didn't need a gym. I literally came from a place where the only dancing I had ever done was square-dancing. (And I think square was the opposite of groovy in the contemporary lingo.)

When I watch the video, I mostly wonder how everyone got so young.

I was happy to see this video, because it indicated a change that went far up the chain of command at Bethel. If we had tried anything like this in the 1970's and 1980's at Bethel, a lot of unhappy heads would have rolled. LOL.

The video had to be approved by several overseers of several departments which means it had to have higher approvals than just those overseers.

Witnesses weren't the only religious group to try this, however.

Mormons did the same as a way to hopefully connect with their youth.

https://thirdhour.org/blog/buzz/entertainment/idaho-stake-presidency-happy-music-video/

The Meridian Idaho North Stake presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints decided to reach out to local teens by producing a lip-dub version of Pharrell Williams’ hit song “Happy” for their upcoming youth conference.

“We are a new stake presidency and thought this would be a fun way to connect with our youth,” J. Thomas Ahlquist wrote in an email to the Deseret News.

“Youth conference was Saturday, and it was a success! They loved it.”

Read Sarah Peterson’s full article on DeseretNews.com.

The Mormon Tabernacle Choir even covered the song.

There are also several examples from churches all over the country. The following is N. Houston's Fallbrook Church:

http://myhoustongospel.com/2014/04/video-fallbrook-church-covers-pharrells-happy/

1 hour ago, Matthew9969 said:

Then as I and millions of others read it, Jesus would resurrect his physical body.

It's a good question as to why Jesus said he would raise his own body. I take it that it was his responsibility to follow through on the entire purpose for which he came to earth. It was his ministry. Jehovah gave Jesus a great responsibility and he had to meet his death completely on his own, of his own volition, without Jehovah putting him in a pain-free trance, or mentally removed to "the third heaven" or anything like that. Only by facing and accepting his death as a human, and effectively "abandoned" by his God, would he be able to "take back" his body in the resurrection. The mere fact that Jesus would cry out that his God had abandoned him is an indication that he was not always "on his own" because he could rely on his God, his Father, for whatever was necessary.

Some would merely shift the complexities of this to another set of questions by saying that Jehovah gave him the power to raise himself when he gave him "life in himself" but the scripture that mentions this does not necessarily indicate that he had already been granted life in himself as a power. But I think it only means that by Jesus' personal actions right up to his death, he gained a resurrection, and therefore, in effect, Jesus raised himself.

(John 5:26) . . .For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself.

(John 6:38-57) ³⁸ for I have come down from heaven to do, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me. . . . ⁵¹ I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and for a fact, the bread that I will give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world.” . . . ⁵⁷ Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father,. . .

In fact, it would be very difficult to resolve the following if we believed that Jesus literally raised himself.

(John 8:28, 29) . . .Jesus then said: “After you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me, I speak these things. 29 And the One who sent me is with me; he did not abandon me to myself, because I always do the things pleasing to him.”

(John 10:17, 18) 17 This is why the Father loves me, because I surrender my life, so that I may receive it again. 18 No man takes it away from me, but I surrender it of my own initiative. I have authority to surrender it, and I have authority to receive it again. This commandment I received from my Father.”

Similarly, it is common to say that Jesus resurrected Lazarus, but it was really the Father who granted that resurrection as we see here:

(John 11:41, 42) 41 So they took the stone away. Then Jesus raised his eyes heavenward and said: “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42 True, I knew that you always hear me; but I spoke on account of the crowd standing around, so that they may believe that you sent me.”

As to the idea that Jesus would be raised with a physical body, I believe @César Chávez already responded with the appropriate scripture in Mark:

(Mark 14:57-59) 57 Also, certain ones were standing up and bearing false witness against him, saying: 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will throw down this temple that was made with hands, and in three days I will build another not made with hands.’”

I think this is a clear indication that what Jesus was "building" through his resurrection was something not physical, even though the "temple" that was being thrown down was a physical body.

(1 Corinthians 15:44-48) . . .It is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, what is spiritual is not first. What is physical is first, and afterward what is spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 Like the one made of dust, so too are those made of dust; and like the heavenly one, so too are those who are heavenly.

(1 Corinthians 15:50-53) . . .But I tell you this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s Kingdom, nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Look! I tell you a sacred secret: We will not all fall asleep in death, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we will be changed. 53 For this which is corruptible must put on incorruption, and this which is mortal must put on immortality.

(1 Corinthians 3:16, 17) . . .Do you not know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that the spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him; for the temple of God is holy, and you are that temple.

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

By the way I love the 'smashwords' idea,  it suits you. You contiu

a

I can't tell what you mean here. Seems like some words got smashed?

On 3/10/2021 at 8:42 AM, Matthew9969 said:

He supposedly shows 137 different translations that insert the 'a' in John 1:1, but that link is blocked.

The number of current translations that insert the "a" in John 1:1 would not be as important as those translations that were made back when koine "NT" Greek was still a spoken and living language. For that we would look to early Latin, Coptic, Syriac, or Aramaic translations. Unfortunately some of these languages, just like NT Greek, didn't use the word "a." You could choose to put a "the" in front of a noun or entity, or you could leave off the "the" on purpose, and that could sometimes (not always) imply the word "a."

For example, if you were pointing to a rock, you could say "This is the rock" or "This is rock." If you didn't use the "the" you might mean:

1. "this is the rock" or
2. "this is a rock" or
3. "this is rock [not wood, not just a clod of dirt, not styrofoam, not paper, not scissors -- but it is made up of the substance we identify with rock/rockiness/rocky"].

All three of those choices are possible linguistically in NT Greek when the "the" is left off. And it would have been was very easy in NT Greek to repeat the word "the" which had already appeared just before it in "the word was with the god." (No capitalization in the Greek text.) In English, the phrase "the god" is simply translated as God, not "the God." But then you lose the differentiation between "the god" and "god." Adding an "a" to "god," and a capital "G" to "the god" is one way to do this.

Fortunately there is an early translation from the time that NT Greek was still a living language in speech and writing. And that language did make use of a word equivalent to the word "a." It's the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1:

https://www.scribd.com/document/14960597/Coptic-John-1-1

https://www.scribd.com/document/25496486/Translating-Sahidic-Coptic-John-1-1

The Coptic translators rendered John 1:1 in this way (Transliterated):

1. a. Hn te.houeite ne.f.shoop ngi p.shaje

1. b. Auw p.shaje ne.f.shoop n.nahrm p.noute

1. c. Auw ne.u.noute pe p.shaje

Literally, the Coptic says:

1. a. In the beginning existed the word

1. b. And the word existed in the presence of the god

1. c. And a god was the word

On 3/7/2021 at 12:47 AM, ETERNALBLACKPROJECT said:

scorner of prophets?

No scorn came from me. I merely quoted scriptures associated with those who would try to make predictions about the times and seasons. If you felt scorn, perhaps that is why the scriptures speak of the Word as "sharper than any two edged sword:"

(Hebrews 4:12) For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints from the marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Your words on this topic fit a pattern of unhealthy words that most of us have seen from others either working from door-to-door, or on the street. And these patterns are all the more prevalent online. Personally, I have seen about a dozen persons who have presented themselves as some kind of prophet, with the same strong assurances as you that they are 100% correct in their predictions about the near future. Specifically, of course, there is nothing wrong with the idea that the end of the parousia could come before 2034. It could come today, or it could come at any time Jehovah wills. If we are "awake" to this fact, we will be patient and be more concerned about our Christian personality, not making predictions which show ourselves to be presumptuous.

(James 5:7-11) . . .Be patient then, brothers, until the presence of the Lord. Look! The farmer keeps waiting for the precious fruit of the earth, exercising patience over it until the early rain and the late rain arrive. ⁸ You too exercise patience; make your hearts firm, because the presence of the Lord has drawn close. ⁹ Do not grumble against one another, brothers, so that you do not get judged. Look! The Judge is standing before the doors. ¹⁰ Brothers, take as a pattern of the suffering of evil and the exercising of patience the prophets who spoke in the name of Jehovah. ¹¹ Look! We consider happy those who have endured. You have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome Jehovah gave, that Jehovah is very tender in affection and merciful.

Even if the end of the parousia were 1,000 years off, the instructions for those who stay spiritually "awake" do not change. If we are in the "dark" we will be trying to make predictions, and trying to focus on the "times and seasons" which are not in our jurisdiction. But we are not in the dark about those things we should focus on instead.

When 2 Peter 3:17 speaks of having "advance knowledge" it is important to note that this "advance knowledge" is the knowledge that it would come as a thief, unpredictably, whether immediately or 1,000 years from now. That's exactly the opposite of trying to put a time prediction on the parousia. Second Peter says that people even in his day were already ridiculing the fact that this day of judgment (parousia) hadn't come yet. Were Christians supposed to answer this ridicule by assuring naysayers that they knew it would come within a few short years?

(2 Peter 3:8-18) ⁸ However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. ⁹ Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. 10 But Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar, but the elements being intensely hot will be dissolved, and earth and the works in it will be exposed. 11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, consider what sort of people you ought to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 as you await and keep close in mind the presence [parousia] of the day of Jehovah,. . . 14 Therefore, beloved ones, since you are awaiting these things, do your utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace. 15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking about these things as he does in all his letters. However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You, therefore, beloved ones, having this advance knowledge, be on your guard so that you may not be led astray with them by the error of the lawless people and fall from your own steadfastness. 18 No, but go on growing in the undeserved kindness and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. . . .

Similarly, the letters of Timothy put the emphasis on healthful words, which help us avoid being puffed up with presumptuousness, or abusive speech, or wicked suspicions.

(1 Timothy 6:2-8) . . .Keep on teaching these things and giving these exhortations. ³ If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to the teaching that accords with godly devotion, ⁴ he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words. From these things spring envy, strife, abusive speeches, wicked suspicions, ⁵ violent disputes about trifles on the part of men corrupted in mind and despoiled of the truth, thinking that godly devotion is a means of gain. ⁶ To be sure, it is a means of great gain, [this] godly devotion along with self-sufficiency. ⁷ For we have brought nothing into the world, and neither can we carry anything out. ⁸ So, having sustenance and covering, we shall be content with these things.

(2 Timothy 1:12-14) . . .For I know the one whom I have believed, and I am confident he is able to guard what I have laid up in trust with him until that day. ¹³ Keep holding the pattern of healthful words that you heard from me with the faith and love that are in connection with Christ Jesus. ¹⁴ This fine trust guard through the holy spirit which is dwelling in us.

(Acts 15:29) . . .Good health to you!”

3 hours ago, xero said:

No but this might help...

That article about Daniel was a terrible example of a strawman argument. It makes a lot out of an argument with no sources cited. I doubt that one in ten thousand apostates have heard such a silly argument, or give that example any significance. I don't think any Witnesses have heard it either. I have never seen it. It's possible that the author has merely misunderstood the focal point of a more common argument that the Watchtower chronology would make Daniel as much as 100 to 120 years old by 539 BCE depending on whether one understands Daniel's chronology to be literal, or if it is reinterpreted according to the way some 19th century religions understood it (including the Bible Students).

This would be similar to the age-related argument about the old men mentioned here:

(Ezra 3:11-13) . . .Then all the people shouted with a loud shout of praise to Jehovah because the foundation of the house of Jehovah had been laid. 12 Many of the priests, the Levites, and the heads of the paternal houses—the old men who had seen the former house—wept with a loud voice when they saw the foundation of this house being laid, while many others shouted joyfully at the top of their voice. 13 So the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shouts from the sound of the weeping, for the people were shouting so loudly that the sound was heard from a great distance.

Is it likely that these old men are 95-100 years and older whose weeping is drowning out those shouting joyfully at the top of their voice, or is it more likely they are about 75-80 years and older -- the only two choices according to Biblical chronology? Based on Psalm 90, the Biblical answer appears to work better for those 75-80 and older.

(Psalm 90:10) . . .The span of our life is 70 years, Or 80 if one is especially strong. But they are filled with trouble and sorrow; They quickly pass by, and away we fly.

Similarly, this author focuses on a minor difference in age when Daniel was taken as a minor. It looks suspiciously like a a way to purposely miss the point about whether Daniel would have been near 60 or 70 at the time of Cyrus' conquest, or as old as 90 according to the Watchtower's chronology. Either way, it has almost nothing to do with the argument about 607 and 587, yet the author presumes (or pretends) that it does.

@Matthew9969 I have never heard of him. He uses an odd-sounding Twitter handle, which supports JWs but delves uncomfortably into politics, for most JWs. Also, it's easy to link the "life coach" promoted on the same site (Valdir Camilo) to JWs through Facebook and Watchtower artwork. It disturbs me that the author of the site is trying to monetize his work.

And he has evidently fallen for some popular conspiratorial ideas ideas that have yet to be evidenced anywhere.

46 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Essentially, if you have money, someone will devise a means to take some of it. It will not be a completely fictional means, for that will seldom produce results.

So true. I was killed once (not kidding) for a couple of minutes. As a pedestrian, I was standing on the curb but with one foot in the crosswalk waiting for the light to change when a man who wanted to get through the "long yellow" in time angrily sped around a car that was stopping for the yellow. I was thrown across the street, and his windshield hit me in the chest in a way that stopped my heart for a minute or so and produced lots of broken ribs and a bilateral pneumothorax as a bonus. I even had the out of body experience in the ambulance remembering from "above" seeing them remove my tie and cut off my shirt and T-shirt with a pair of scissors. I was hit only 3 blocks from the hospital they drove me to.

I got $10,000 from his insurance. But we never bothered to push for more. I admit to being about one foot into the crosswalk even though the driver actually came up slightly on the curb. Brothers still chide me for leaving so much "on the table."

But my son was hit very softly by a car that partially sideswiped his car, and they both got out and saw there was no damage. My son, a lawyer, even took pictures of the non-damage. A few months later he gets hit by a lawsuit that puts another passenger in the offending car and claims that there were serious injuries. Our insurance (Geico) got all the details and photos from my son, who showed them how this suit was baseless and frivolous. We were sure they would fight it. But they paid the party some amount under $10,000! We couldn't believe it.

I'm seeing a couple of law offices that advertise for CSA lawsuits with hour-long commercials on TV. I understand that the primary lawyer who takes on cases against the WTS (Zalkin) has a backlog of over 100 cases in the US. Also, they will hardly take on cases that only involve rank and file because it is harder to prove "agency" to the WTS which is considered the source of the money. They only want MS and elders. This way even if the WTS did nothing wrong, they still can claim "agency" to the WTS (where the money is).

50 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

There is probably something unsavoringly sexist about this remark. Having said that, I thought the same. If sexist, it is not necessarily in an unflattering way, as in supposing women don’t think. With me, and probably with you, it was in a complimentary way, as in men are so likely to bluster on about their overpowering thinking ability, but women, though they will think every bit as much, seldom make such a display about it.

It's good counsel about sexism. And I recall being impressed that she explained that her "Thinking" moniker was not to be taken as a reference to any pride in thinking ability or habits, but merely as a reference to what should be a necessity for all of us. My sexism wasn't in regard to misunderstanding the moniker as any kind of bluster but the fact that I had never noticed any real gender hints after years of participation. I just had a feeling that if she was a sister she would say so on  a forum like this, perhaps even inadvertently. And of course, I don't read everyone's every word, so I figured I might have even missed a gender reveal.

Now that you mention private conversations, of course, I have a different impression. I now have the impression that she intended not to reveal this fact to everyone, and I can figure many reasons a sister (or any female) might not wish to let people know on such a forum as this.

The actual thought of Thinking being female came across to me as a choice recently when she said this:

On 2/27/2021 at 8:37 PM, Thinking said:

But I know first hand of certain issues here in Australia..I watched all of the ARC..talked with victims and elders...know  of certain    cases...intimately ..so can speak from experience...  The way they were handled by elders and the Branch directions of the time..and how victims were handled...and the frustrations of elders and the victims.

First of all, that kind of a statement stands up to self-righteous brothers (even potentially on this forum) in a way that no one would attempt unless they were either a frustrated elder, brutally honest, or a sister who was aware of problems, and brutally honest. Any brother who had knowledge of multiple cases of victims mentioned in the ARC would have been either an elder himself, or a sister who had known or spoken with multiple victims. Sisters are the most common victims and are much more likely to speak voluntarily with other sisters than with brothers. I thought of it as a possibility but somehow still preferred to think "he" was a brutally honest elder, who had perhaps known one of the cases, and had perhaps been driven to a site like this based on the experience.

This reminds me that I meant to ask @Thinking about one of the ARC cases, as I had come to believe that this victim was never telling the truth, or was projecting the abuse claims onto the wrong perpetrator. Something is off about one of the cases that got a lot of attention in the ARC.

13 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

I wish I could copy and paste something i have on file. Something that @JW Insider uploaded a long time ago.

I think we all know of a suicide or two among the brothers. But if your anecdotal example is about someone jumping in front of a train, it was a story about someone else I know nothing about. The two I know of related to Bethelites were not train-related. And they were many years apart. Overall, I'd say that Bethel did not have much of a problem at all in this regard. The US Army, on the other hand . . . or even New York University (NYU) has had as many suicides in a year, as Bethel has had in four decades.

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

But I regard her as a reliable source, and I suspect she is spot-on.

Fair dinkum? Funny how things slip by. I never thought of @Thinking as female.

1 hour ago, Witness said:

Yes

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your position. I'm not agreeing, but I understand your belief much better.

23 hours ago, ETERNALBLACKPROJECT said:

The end is very near, before 2034 in fact.

(Luke 21:8) . . .He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them.

(Mark 13:32, 33) ³² “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father. ³³ Keep looking, keep awake, for you do not know when the appointed time is.

(Luke 12:46) the master of that slave will come on a day that he is not expecting him and at an hour that he does not know. . .

(Acts 1:7) . . .He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction.

(Matthew 24:36)  “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.

(2 Thessalonians 2:1-3) . . .However, brothers, concerning the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you ² not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. ³ Let no one lead you astray . . .

(1 Thessalonians 5:1, 2) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. ² For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day is coming exactly as a thief in the night.

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

As to the “gig economy,” another sister said (not specifically about me) that often really creative and/or intelligent people deliberately choose menial work so as not to hand over their mind and soul to “the man.”

In 1973, when I quit high school, I was still 15, almost 16, and my art teacher had a terrible time with it. The principal came over to the house once, but my art teacher made several "shepherding" calls to our house during that summer, encouraging me to come back after the summer break. He tried to bribe me with paints, canvases, pens, charcoal, brushes, etc. I took some of these to Bethel in 1976 and still run across leftovers in the house now and then.

But, in 1973, I had already switched from auxiliary to regular pioneering and decided that this was an example of Jehovah providing a work opportunity. So I painted landscapes and sold them for between $10 and $25 depending on size. I became "rich" to the tune of about $50 a month for a few months. Even if I had been any good at portraits --I definitely wasn't-- I probably could have barely doubled that, since more people will pay to have a likeness done. So I had to change my strategy quickly to join my brother's cleaning business. This put me in a "club" of regular pioneers, where I knew members across the entire state.

There was even a lot of buying and selling of cleaning accounts. And real mergers and acquisitions.

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Much less was I like “Davey the kid,” who bypassed a college scholarship to pioneer, who loved his time in Bethel but confessed he always felt a little cheated there by not being able to make his own way. Upon leaving Bethel, he walked into the 8-story Medical Arts Building to secure the cleaning contract.

Yes. I read about him here: https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/friends/

After Bethel, I still didn't feel ready for the great big world. Art was not an easy thing in NYC so I didn't even try. And I didn't get the bindery or printing  or construction experience that most Bethelites got. I had my letters of recommendation from Dan Sydlik and Bert Schroeder that were supposed to be useful for general employment. But if you have ever seen examples of these letters, they were only about exemplary conduct and honesty, and this was supposed to impress a prospective employer, but without any specifics or skills mentioned. I tried to use one of them with my resume which necessarily included my years of Bethel experience, but I had the impression that these letters actually detracted.

My brother would leave Bethel later and start a micro-controller business which followed directly upon his Bethel assignments, and he had help from our Dad who had been doing electronics work since the 1940's. I hoped not to just fall into the older brother employment network again, so I ended up getting married and going off to college myself part-time.

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Finally he tired of it, took a few college courses, combined it with college credit for “life experiences,” and emerged a psychotherapist.

Reminds me that ex-JWs have sometimes unfairly made fun of an old Circuit Overseer refrain that a few years of reading the Awake! magazine can be the equivalent of a 4-year college degree. But I also found that the university had a program called "Adult Collegiate Education" which allowed night classes and also allowed one to work with professors of various departments to try to test out of a bunch of credits to meet the 128-132 credit requirement for the B.A./B.S. degree. It wasn't from the "Awake!" of course, but due to some research projects I managed Middle-East history credits (8), first semester Classical Greek (3), first semester Modern Greek (4), and since I had been attending a French congregation on the side, even got 3 French credits. I had a large art portfolio worth, sadly, only 4 credits. I also tried with limited success at some other subjects: religion, philosophy, Bible as literature, music theory, psychology, but only squeaked out about 6 more credits altogether. But it shaved a full year off my 4-year Computer Science degree so that I could mostly focus on math, computer programming, and 7 semesters of Hebrew.

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

people deliberately choose menial work so as not to hand over their mind and soul to “the man.”

I have discovered, as many others have, that you are paid better for less tangible work. The person who works hard at menial jobs is paid for some measure of productivity and, nearly always, very little. But the higher paying jobs are often much less taxing to the mind and soul. Sometimes, if your productivity cannot be measured, the sky is the limit.

4 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You think so, do you?

I read your story with unfeigned interest before your final question hit me. I rarely laugh out loud literally, but I just did. Thanks.

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

He will probably treat them like he did the thief on the stake next to him but the thing is he repented at the last moment...where as the other fellow didn’t ......so what happens to him....wouldn’t he be covered by Jesus ransom...?

[Moved from another place to avoid an off-topic discussion]

Good question. I have wondered what the point was if we generally think that both of them have pretty much the same chance to repent and be resurrected to Paradise on earth. It has occurred to me that this person dying around the same time as Jesus, might be another indicator of the change in hope for Christians at the time, for which we partially depend upon Matthew 11:12 :

(Matthew 11:12) From the days of John the Baptist until now, the Kingdom of the heavens is the goal toward which men press, and those pressing forward are seizing it.

The "truly I tell you today" verse could be another indication that our view of Matthew 11:12 is correct, if Jesus were referring to paradise as heaven, just as Paul spoke of heaven as paradise:

(2 Corinthians 12:2-4) . . .was caught away to the third heaven. 3 Yes, I know such a man—whether in the body or apart from the body, I do not know; God knows— 4 who was caught away into paradise . . .

And this might re-open up the discussion of why the Bible writer would have included a statement that seemed clear but actually needed to be seen as more ambiguous by adding a comma, nearly two thousand years after the statement. While Greek was still a living language, no early translations (into Coptic, Syrian, Latin, etc.) noticed the need to add a comma here:

(Luke 23:43) . . .“Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise.”

Compare Jesus' words about a rooster the day before:

(Mark 14:30) . . .“Truly I say to you that today, yes, on this very night. . .

At any rate, these are the kinds of questions that don't really change anything. ("First world problems" as xero said about something else.) Even if Jesus had meant "today" in the unambiguous sense, we would simply take it in the same way we understand Jesus' words about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob:

(Matthew 22:31-33) 31 Regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, who said: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob’? He is the God, not of the dead, but of the living.” 33 On hearing that, the crowds were astounded at his teaching.

Or perhaps, with new questions, we could look at the following:

(Matthew 8:11, 12) . . .But I tell you that many from east and west will come and recline at the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of the heavens; 12 whereas the sons of the Kingdom will be thrown into the darkness outside. . . .

(Luke 13:26-28) 26 Then you will start saying, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our main streets.’ 27 But he will say to you, ‘I do not know where you are from. Get away from me, all you workers of unrighteousness!’ 28 There is where your weeping and the gnashing of your teeth will be, when you see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets in the Kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown outside.

(Luke 16:21-31) . . .. 22 Now in the course of time, the beggar died and was carried off by the angels to Abraham’s side. “Also, the rich man died and was buried. 23 And in the Grave he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and he saw Abraham from afar and Lazʹa·rus by his side. 24 So he called and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazʹa·rus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this blazing fire.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you had your fill of good things in your lifetime, but Lazʹa·rus for his part received bad things. Now, however, he is being comforted here, but you are in anguish. 26 And besides all these things, a great chasm has been fixed between us and you, so that those who want to go over from here to you cannot, neither may people cross over from there to us.’ 27 Then he said, ‘That being so, I ask you, father, to send him to the house of my father, 28 for I have five brothers, in order that he may give them a thorough witness so that they will not also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to these.’ 30 Then he said, ‘No, indeed, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.’”

(Hebrews 11:8-16) . . .By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place he was to receive as an inheritance; he went out, although not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he lived as a foreigner in the land of the promise as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the very same promise. 10 For he was awaiting the city having real foundations, whose designer and builder is God. 11 By faith also Sarah received power to conceive offspring, even when she was past the age, since she considered Him faithful who made the promise. 12 For this reason, from one man who was as good as dead, there were born children, as many as the stars of heaven in number and as innumerable as the sands by the seaside. 13 In faith all of these died, although they did not receive the fulfillment of the promises; but they saw them from a distance and welcomed them and publicly declared that they were strangers and temporary residents in the land. 14 For those who speak in such a way make it evident that they are earnestly seeking a place of their own. 15 And yet, if they had kept remembering the place from which they had departed, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But now they are reaching out for a better place, that is, one belonging to heaven. Therefore, God is not ashamed of them, to be called on as their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

These latter verses especially tell us that there were already exceptions seeking the kingdom of the heavens as their goal, which might reflect upon the meaning of "kingdom of the heavens" in Matthew 11:12.

I don't think that there is anything here that in any way contradicts our view that Abraham is still in the grave, as David still is --(Acts 2:34) ". . .For David did not ascend to the heavens. . . ." Hebrews 11: 13 says pretty much the same.

So I think that the "Truly I tell you today" verse is not a verse about the difference in whether Jesus meant that literal day, or whether we needed to add a comma. The important difference between the two evil-doers was that Jesus' presence on earth and our reaction to him, reveals our choice to seek the Kingdom of the Heavens. Just as with Abraham, it's not about whether we live in heaven or on earth, but that all of us should be seeking a place belonging to the heavens. In other words, like Abraham, we all have a heavenly hope, whether Jehovah allows us to live on paradise earth or in paradise heaven.

30 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

When I pioneered years ago as an unmarried 20-something, I drove a school bus to support myself.

I imagine it had very clean windows. 😉

My brother drove a school bus in Missouri at age 18, although he wasn't pioneering. Not to be outdone, my mother (!?!?!?!) added a "chauffer's" designation to her license and drove a school bus while pioneering. You are the very first other Witness I know who also drove a school bus while pioneering.

My brother tells a story that he kept the kids in line by offering to allow them water balloons on the bus on the very last day of school, but that he threatened to revoke the promise every time some of them acted up too much. On the last day of school he allowed it and noticed that the bus had a slight tilt that made the back a little lower than the front, so that he could hear the water sloshing around the floor of the bus. When he got to the first stop sign on a downslope, a wave of water came crashing towards the front of the bus. Good times!

20 hours ago, Anna said:

Grrrrr, that is so sad, and I would say unnecessary. But of course we are not masters of an other's conscience, so no one can judge him for that (I am not saying you are ) and say it was totally unnecessary. But, the ironic thing is, how was his conscience formed? Was it through the Bible, or was it through the interpretation and understanding of some men who have erred in the past over a number of things?

@Srecko Sostar asked how it was that I got through the material with him in the first place, and this is the key. During a study with someone I don't think it's my place to tell him where I might think differently, or why certain material may be questionable. But I don't have to go against my own conscience by saying things I don't believe. I can emphasize the points of agreement and defend, to a large extent, the basic concepts of the 1914 doctrine. And I end up in pretty much the same place: that we are in the last days, that Jesus is reigning, that Jesus is invisibly present, and that we are undergoing critical times hard to deal with. But when I go through Daniel 4, I present the 7 times as one of those ideas that might even point to our own time period.  (I believe it does point to our time period in the sense that it shows Jehovah still has everything under control, no matter how chaotic the effects of world governments are.)

I will typically add a bit of scriptural balance by pointing out what Jesus said about knowing the day and hour, and what Jesus said about the times and seasons being in the Father's jurisdiction, and Paul saying that we don't need to have anything more written to us about the times and seasons, or even the parousia itself, for the reasons he gave. But it is natural for us to want to see whatever we think is possible to see, and we live in times when it is important to keep our hope alive during an age of fear and distress upon all nations. This is especially true of times that can see conflicts escalate into world wars. When half a nation will take sides against the other half, or half a world will take sides against the other half.

What I think is obviously quite different than what appears in the WT, and I can't blame his own conscience. I am surprised that it came up years later, but fortunate enough that I am not "turned in" for my own conscientious beliefs. (I can believe that something made him doubt the chronology himself to trigger his dredging it up and then choosing to dig in his heels.) But it is sad to lose good friend.

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

You have very, very good memory

These days it is easy to confuse memory with a good search engine.

16 minutes ago, xero said:

Seems like a fair analysis.

For the specific point that Arauna refers to, I think it's fair. However, I got interrupted with a long phone call before adding an important point in Cesar's favor. Arauana was not clear about a separate point where I believe she was also agreeing with Cesar against Srecko, but she quoted Cesar's response to Srecko instead of going back to the original statement by Srecko in her quote. So it made it look like she was quoting Cesar and responding to him:

------Arauna, responding to Cesar's response to Srecko------

------------------------------------------------------------------

This could very easily have been the "trigger" because the "you" looks like it refers to Cesar.