JW Insider

On 11/16/2019 at 9:11 AM, Arauna said:

As I said before: eight old men who never personally touched a child (actually too innocent  to comprehend how wicked people can be - too good for this world)

It's quite possible you are right about the current eight old men who may have never personally touched a child (in an abusive way). It's my impression that they are also quite innocent of any such issues.

But I don't think you can ever say that anyone in such a position as in the GB cannot comprehend such wickedness in others. They have dealt with a lot in their lives and they have been forced to deal with the topic even if they didn't want to.

And not to deal in gossip, but I can speak almost positively about the following situation, at least I can speak for the trustworthiness of the brothers who gave me the information. What I heard about several years ago from a friend in Writing, were things I talked about before the ARC, and they came up again from another brother after I discussed the ongoing ARC with him.

It actually started with two members of the Governing Body, who seemed not to want to speak to each other. Both became GB members in 1974 and this issue was visible during the time I worked around them. One had previously been assigned to a leading position for the Branch in Australia and the other had previously been assigned to work in Japan. The brother assigned to Australia was recalled suddenly and demoted to become a Circuit Overseer in the Midwest in the United States. After many years of rebuilding his reputation, through Circuit then District work, he finally was asked to join the Governing Body in New York. The explanation I was given was that the demotion was punishment for being involved in accusations of child sexual abuse. (I never knew if the accusations had been in Australia, the USA, or both, but a later separate rumor had tied him to a case in the United States through a Witness doctor.) At any rate, by 1974, this issue was considered to have been from long enough in his past for his appointment to the GB.

By 1991 one of the GB members was heading the Writing Dept, and the once-accused GB member was heading the Service Dept. You probably already know that the October 8 1991 Awake! had an article on Child Sexual Abuse that included "worldly" therapy as a possible solution for some victims, and this head of the Service Dept hated the article. (For that matter it's probably true that most members of the Governing Body apparently thought that worldly psychotherapy was little more than something worldly or even satanic.) But by now, there were Witness psychotherapists and psychiatrists, and they appreciated the article. Mostly the article was appreciated by CSA victims, and tons of letters of appreciation came in. For an April 1992 follow up, the head of Writing decided to print some excerpts from some of those letters of appreciation and the head of Service actually "stopped the presses" to have the article replaced while the head of Writing was out of the country. The head of Service didn't get his way; presses started up again, and you can read the article in the April 8 1992 Awake!.

But, as head of the Service Department, he sent out several of the most well known Circuit and District Overseers on a campaign in 1992 to speak with abuse victims to let them know they should never reveal anything about their abusers and their abuse, or they could be disfellowshipped.

One of those men in the intimidation campaign is now on the Governing Body.

You can take these are merely unsubstantiated rumors, and I admit that I have no evidence to substantiate them. I can only speak to the honesty and track record of the brothers who told me about them.

On 11/16/2019 at 2:29 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

I have heard (or read about it in some WT article, not sure)  that too in first part of 1980'

Closest thing I remember to this idea was here:

*** w95 1/1 p. 8 par. 16 Triumphing Over Satan and His Works ***
16 This appears to be especially necessary today in view of the bizarre music with which Satan is drenching this world. In some cases there is a direct connection to Satanism. A report from the San Diego County (U.S.A.) sheriff’s office stated: “We had a concert down here where the band had 15,000 kids chanting ‘Natas’—that is, Satan spelled backwards.”

4 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Yes I'm angry and I'm confused, as are others that trusted the JW Org for years

There's trust as in the type of trust you have in a trusted friend, and blind trust in someone who turned out not to be what you thought they were. I don't think of the organization as the religion we trust in. True religion is helping people who we can best help - materially, spiritually, emotionally -- with the proper unselfish, loving motivation, and therefore without spot from this world. An organization, i.e., a publishing house, researchers, coordinators, a legal department, etc., are just tools that a group of sincere Christians might be expected to utilize for a more efficient method of getting the word out in the midst of a complex world. It's not something to trust blindly as if it is Christianity, or even as if it represents true Christianity.

(These are my opinions, of course.)

I think that a lot of persons get baptized as Witnesses with a kind of naive view that the organization is more than it really is. This might even be true of new GB members who are asked to join that particular committee of elders. Perhaps they are surprised at the difference between reality and expectation. But I think they are better prepared, since they have already worked at various levels of the organization.

I didn't mean to call myself JW Insider here. I intended to use "The Bible's Advocate" but when I joined someone was making a claim that was easily clarified by someone who had worked directly with members of the GB before. I had worked with members of the GB from 1976 to 1982. I worked directly for a member of the GB from about 1979 to 1982. I planned to tell some of the stories from that period, and therefore called myself "JW Insider" and allowed it to stick, in spite of some unintended implications.

But I mention this because if a person can work with (and around) some of these same persons for a few years, then they are already prepared for an experience that is quite different from the expectation of the average Witness. They have seen them in a bad mood, they have seen them curse and yell, they have seen them make mistakes, they have seen their prejudices, seen them connive, possibly even be dishonest. I have seen all these things among a couple of them, but I'm obviously talking about exceptions to their usual conduct and demeanor. And for MOST of the members that I knew, I never saw any of these things, they always came across as perfect "saints." But I would not have been surprised to learn of a different side, because of what I had seen in a very few others, even if I only saw it rarely.

I also had an advantage of an uncle who was a circuit overseer, and a grandmother and grandfather who seemed to know all the "big shots" from headquarters. (My great grandfather was a Chicago Bible Student who traveled with Russell and spoke at conventions with him.) But most of these relatives were apt to say things like, "Jehovah puts half of us here to test the other half," when referring to some of these same persons. Before going to Bethel, I heard a Circuit Overseer evoke laughter from another by asking, "Can you imagine how the Apostle Paul would have blown up if anyone told him he had to keep all these numbers [records] on everyone?"

So, I probably come at some of these human imperfections from a different perspective than most. I'm hardly surprised at anything. My grandparents who knew Rutherford thought he was sleazy. My table head at Bethel had a personal "hatred" of him. But Russell himself was apparently dishonest, too, sometimes. Both Russell and Rutherford weren't defined by these errors, because their greater goal was to spread the word about the Kingdom hope amidst expectations of the imminent end. And now, we've gotten rid of most of that chronology rhetoric and spend more time highlighting the positive, life-changing aspects of the message. And I see a great value, like a pearl, in the overall set of teachings we stand for. And I do tend to fall back on how the Israelites had asked for a king and got a range of kings, from evil to good, but none perfect, of course.

I am out for the rest of the day without much access, so I won't spend much time revisiting issues already covered. And I know the answers won't be satisfactory anyway. I should also say that I hope you don't lose your spirituality. Many exJWs do. Also, I wouldn't make too much of the fact that I used the word "apostate" when referring to the challenges you offer. I don't think of you as apostate as long as you are in a stage, as you describe, of anger and confusion. That could be understandable. I would hope you could see that there is a beautiful baby in that bathwater before you throw it all out.

A hundred thousand of these "models?" I sure hope they still have enough money to find some decent clothes to wear!

<sarcasm on>

What's this BS I hear about the supposedly bad Nazi's under Hitler. Did you see what Argentina and the UK did in the Falkland Islands?

I'm never going to believe the Nazi's were bad again!

</sarcasm off>

8 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

NEED to step down, seems to show a dictated instruction. In my opinion it is a Man Made rule, not a direction from God. I would lump it into the 'traditions of men' category.   What do you think on that ?

Yes, it is a man made rule, but based at least in part on scriptural principles. Also these are man-made rules coming from those who should be in a better position to see a wider set of statistics and experiences as they get reports from all around the world. Elders are sometimes called "epi-skopos" in Greek, meaning overseers. When we consider those who literally watch over a flock closely, we might expect them to count the number of sick, the number who die, the number eaten, the number of sheep in various categories: mottled, speckled, young, old, male, female. They also know the dangers of taking them through "Wolf Ravine" or making them wade through "Poison Water River." Similarly, if the elders working at headquarters got 100 reports of divorces right after holding an international convention in Las Vegas or Amsterdam, but no reports of divorces every time they held the same size international conventions in Helsinki or Reykjavík, I think it would be a wise man-made rule not to schedule international conventions in Las Vegas or Amsterdam. Not all traditions make the word of God void.

16 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

I would ask again. Where did the GB's Lawyers get their qualifications from ? 

The WTS had a program to pay for Law School for selected individuals already working full time at Bethel or other full time service who showed promise or aptitude for such. This program was dropped, and you can be sure that there those at HQ who were counting the cost, much like those shepherd counting the survivors of "Wolf Ravine." They reverted back the previous system of using volunteers who had finished Law School before becoming Witnesses.

8 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Also I asked how old your 'child' was when they went to a college a long way away. Surely if they are of a certain age to make their own decisions then it was out of your hands. And why should the newspapers get knowledge of it ? 

Age 17.

But all scores that count are measured at the end of Junior year, not Senior year of American High School. Therefore it requires a conscious choice to pick the maximum number of advanced placement classes which could result in the best choices and scholarships and would therefore be a path chosen by age 15 or 16 at the latest.

Local papers print up the bio given by a Guidance Counselor office of each high school reporting on the scores of their "Valedictorians" and those who are accepted by certain colleges.

16 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Where did the planners / designers of the 'new' HQ get their qualifications from ? 

Asked and answered in a prior post.

8 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

difficulty navigating platform assignments that promote .... " etc,  Um, a tactful way of saying 'I don't believe half of what the GB say but I'll stick with it anyway'   

So far, I believe well more than half of the GB says.   

8 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

And the, Quote "on which we might well be right .."  Fact is it's not WE that might well be right, it's following the GB's interpretations. There is no WE. There is only THEM ( at the top) and  congregants (at the bottom) .  And the congregants go out and preach exactly what they are told to preach (Workbook).

I believe that since WE, if we hope to be noble-minded individuals, are responsible to search the Scriptures and see whether these things are so, then this must be WE not only THEM. And there are many ways to tell someone about the Kingdom hope, the paradise, the resurrection, God's purpose, God's government, and why it's got to be a sight better than what we are putting up with now. Sometimes the CLAM workbook is spot on, sometimes it doesn't fit my style at all.

8 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

It would seem that some JW's on here wear blinkers and worship their Governing Body.

This might be true, but I think that you have had some trouble pinning this "GB worshiper" label on people here. You probably see a lot of potentially contradictory ideas that seem like cognitive dissonance to you. But this might just be a point that many thousands of JWs have reached, while trying to make sense of the extent of human imperfection in trying to put a human structure around good spiritual concepts.

We often look back at Israel's past, or even note the imperfect leadership of the early Christian congregation. Do we expect to be any better? Jesus said of the Pharisees and other religious leaders in his day that they had put themselves in the seat of Moses, and some ended up making "disciples" who were worse off than before they started. Yet what did Jesus also say about some of the same leaders?

Matthew 23:2-4 says: 2“The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy, burdensome loads and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.…

We can still follow, even "obey" religious leaders, even when we know they are very imperfect.

Any organized religious structure will end up being led by men who are imperfect, and therefore by men that we can never trust 100 percent, no matter how well they think they are doing. This is really what we must always expect: "Put not your trust in earthling man (even princes/nobles) in whom no salvation belongs" "Let God be found true though every man be found a liar."

Still, Christianity requires a human, social structure because it is a "brotherhood." It's a place where we can comfort others and be comforted, encourage others and be encouraged, feed and clothe and visit others, and be fed, clothed, and visited as needed. But those who would be "leaders" at the very top of any organization will always tend to grasp at reasons to explain and hold on to their authority. They may not well understand this authoritative position they are engaged in, and human nature will lead them to continue in the type of behavior that works best for persons in authority. They will tend to look for what they believe is the best solution to any religious questions (doctrine, process), and then make a "command" out of it. It's the reason that we don't see a lot of public admission that a question has them vexed. Instead, in order for authority to work (for most of us) they must make a private decision about what solution works the best (least number of unexplained discrepencies) and then teach this "solution" (often conjecture) as if it is gospel. 

(1 Peter 4:11) . . .If anyone speaks, [let him speak] as it were [the] sacred pronouncements of God;. . .

(NIV) If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God. If anyone serves, they should do so with the strength God provides, so.

Some of these "oracles" will attract sycophantic followers. That's also human nature. Russell acted as one of those "oracles" and so did Rutherford and Fred Franz, and David Splane to an extent. Just like in the first century congregation, people followed Paul, or Apollos, or Peter, who were all fine ministers. Some of us want to think of these modern day examples as being apostle-like. Some might even be apostle-like, but it's up to us to never just accept them this way, but to put all new teachings to the test.

(Revelation 2:2, 14) . . .and that you put to the test those who say they are apostles, but they are not, and you found them to be liars.. . . you have there those adhering to the teaching of Baʹlaam, . . . you also have those adhering to the teaching of the sect of Nic·o·laʹus. . . . you tolerate that woman Jezʹe·bel . . . I say to the rest of you who are in Thy·a·tiʹra, all those who do not follow this teaching . . .

Notice that Jesus' instructions to the 7 congregations was never about waiting for a governing body of apostle-like persons to tell them what was true and false teaching. It was the congregation's own responsibility to put to the test anyone who wanted them to be accepted as apostle-like. They were responsible to compare it to the true original apostolic source (for us, the Biblical source of teaching)  "Therefore, continue mindful of how you have received and how you heard, and go on keeping it. . ." (Revelation 3:3)

As an aside, I would also say that the congregation is a place to inculcate the existing Bible teachings, not a place to find "new" teachings. It's a place to keep our spirits up, and keep our love alive, so that we can endure. Jesus addresses those in the congregations, but ends this section by making a point about how they all would stand to be judged as individuals.

(Revelation 3:19-22) 19 “‘All those for whom I have affection, I reprove and discipline. So be zealous and repent. 20 Look! I am standing at the door and knocking. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into his house and take the evening meal with him and he with me. 21 To the one who conquers I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, just as I conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22 Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations.’”

We're never going to get away from leaders who are imperfect and who will, by human nature, tend to ask us to believe and act only in a certain way. This is useful for some, especially at first. But we should also mature:

(Hebrews 5:14) 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong.

Accidentally saw her on a late show with her daughter hawking a book. (After all, with Hillary, the late show had booked a Hawk.)

Don't mean to start any rumors, but her robotic laughter had been turned up to "11" and made her sound a bit drunk, to me. Also, her daughter answered questions about needing to be protective of her mother because of all the mean things people like Trump were saying about her. It seemed sad and patronizing to poor little Hillary, as if Chelsea was speaking about taking care of a defenseless out-of-touch Alzheimer's patient.

14 hours ago, Anna said:

An associate degree is only for 2 years and is more akin to a trade certificate, it seems neither are viewed as "higher education" by the WT.

In the U.S., an Associates Degree can be akin to a trade certificate, but I think @Arauna is correct in highlighting the difference. It's also my experience that since Associates Degrees are usually given by the same colleges that give 4 year Bachelors Degrees, that most local bodies of elders will not consider them different enough without an explanation. It's possible to focus on a two-year degree geared to a specific trade or profession, and it's true that the latest WT focused on 4 year degrees and higher as the more "dangerous" types of education. This has been the implicit cut-off in prior articles, too. 

From personal experience, even 35+ years ago, I was pioneering after Bethel and had just been recommended to join the local body of elders in my congregation. I told them that I would be going to college to get a 4 year degree for computer programming. This would delay the appointment until I graduated and might be seen as rejecting the appointment altogether if I was not able to continue pioneering as I thought I would be able to do.

Today, by the way, there are many ONE and TWO year certificates one can get in programming which will make you MORE qualified for specific jobs in IT than many four-year degrees. In practice, these are often picked up by persons who already have a FOUR year degree and had trouble getting a job. In fact for a person with a FOUR year degree, they can usually pick up a separate programming certificate for only a few additional weeks of computer programming, or a PMP for project management. There is a still a prejudice at many large companies (like the one I just left) to hire FOUR year degrees for everything, even if the degree was not relevant to the job. They just liked the fact that they were hiring persons who had proved the ability to communicate and expect a certain level of general knowledge and vocabulary. I hired philosophy and English majors many times for programming and IT jobs, as long as the person also had prior experience in a company doing similar IT projects to our company.

When my own children began getting good college offers due to AP classes and high school class standing, I decided I would want them to go to college if they wanted, and they all did. The first two lived at home to attend NY universities, but the youngest lived 150 miles away, on campus. I wouldn't have to give up being an elder for the first two children, but since the newspapers had already made a big deal out of my youngest, (revealing his college choice) I would not be able to remain an elder.

Just now, Anna said:

But who knows what the reason is....new hunting grounds perhaps? 😀

Well, aren't you the cynical one?

37 minutes ago, Anna said:

rumor where I live that 25 elders have been demoted because they wouldn't cooperate with the arrangement.

Don't know if it's related, but I heard of a lawsuit or two where a Hall and property were just recently remodeled and spiffed up to be worth, 3 million, for example, but the Society was so anxious to cover financial expenses that they forced a quick sale for only one million, and now the congregations are separated to various Halls, not-so-nearby. A brother was removed because he wanted to raise this into a financial issue. But there might also be a kind of problem showing up that some get too attached to the properties that they have helped to find and fund. (Like a rich person that donates a lot for a church, or buys a pew to get his name on it.)

As you say, I'm not sure that each of these cases has been handled with proper communication. Also, I'm not sure the term 'financial benefit' is fully appropriate either. In some cases the impression was 'financial necessity.' I heard talk of financial instruments (bank loans) that would have been embarrassing not to be able to meet. The Catholic church is not afraid to announce that they have had a diocese here and there on the verge of bankruptcy, which is sometimes really no more than loan restructuring. But I don't think anyone is ready for terms like this to be used about us, yet I believe that there was a real concern about one such loan. If it becomes public elsewhere, I will post some of the information I base this idea on. If not, consider it just unsubstantiated rumor. Not worth repeating.

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Forgive me, but I cannot read this expression “apostasy spectrum” without thinking of the newfound “autism spectrum” that is all the rage today

That was intended. Also I believe the autism spectrum is very useful in helping to understand autism in its various forms. Math is also all the rage in schools today, but it doesn't mean we should reject it.

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Is not the emphasis on symptoms, whereas it would be both more useful and revealing were it on causes?

For those already suffering, it is much more practical to deal with symptoms. In the long run, yes, it is much more useful and revealing to put the emphasis on causes.

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

So we can talk about the “apostasy spectrum,” and it is all very nice—I do appreciate the insight and work that has gone into writing of it, but it is more helpful to speak of the causes—for there is where one might do something so as to not fall victim to incessant and even bitter complaining.

You might notice that I was just brainstorming about the various "levels" of benign and malignant apostasy so that we would think about the ways we judge others. I think it's revealing, and not necessarily in a bad way, that two persons can spout the same apostate views about the Bible or the Watchtower Society, and only one of them gets disfellowshipped. The other still says the same things but he will often get full association with his Witness family and relatives. I think it shows the desire to have a form of natural affection, which by definition is "natural." (2 Timothy 3:3). I think some of us are here are good Witnesses without many qualms at all about association (online at least) with those who have clearly apostasized.

On the "spectrum," so to speak, I actually spoke a lot about causes, and very little about the symptoms. Of course, I wasn't too specific about either, as I was just trying to come up with some sample categories to show just how the types can be all over the place, and sometimes our own treatment of persons, and the Society's treatment too, is necessarily inconsistent. 

And one of the points is that we have a personal responsibility to watch out for our spirituality, and can't just follow what others tell us to do in every case. Imagine the possibilities if some Witnesses showed a lot more love to persons in the @Witness household, who were not DF'd, and how this might result in a good Witness (no pun intended). Or imagine the possibilities if some Witnesses decided to associate with persons in the @Witness household without any concern to their own spirituality, and became "infected" with thought that resulted in doubt and a lack of faith. The point is that we are sometimes on our own, and must always be careful about anyone and anything that we associate with. Jesus associated with tax collectors, but we are also given a Biblical responsibility to treat some in the congregation as tax collectors, even some who might be called a brother.

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Most discussions on this forum about congregation discipline consider it from the standpoint of human rights. As such, I will concede that some of them make valid points. But they will never make too much headway with the GB

Hard to say. Personally I think there is room for some individual conscience in a lot of areas that are currently matters of "legalism." This does not mean that anyone can expect to depend completely on their own conscience without appropriate counsel when it seems to affect their spirituality. But the GB have given a lot of thought to human rights, and have made a lot of progress in many nations of the world to defend right to assembly, right to our own religious practices, right to preach from door to door, right to "demand" blood alternatives, right to be seen as ministers, or as a legal religion.

To our long-term benefit, GB members have acknowledged human rights more and more in interviews about child abuse, child endangerment, education, corporal punishment (especially seen before judges in custody cases, presentations before the ARC, questions fielded by the "PR"/correspondence departments, etc). In a practical way, some of the practice hasn't caught up with the "human rights" rhetoric yet.

On 11/11/2019 at 5:15 AM, Outta Here said:

"Better use of dedicated funds" is a phrase I hear frequently. Isn't that more appropriate? "Saving" money implies hoarding it up somewhere. I think we are more in the business of using resources aren't we?. Compare Matt.25:24-27 😊

They should definitely be always finding better ways to use dedicated funds. I agree. But I never thought that doing something because it "saves money" implies hoarding money up somewhere. When the GB and accounting offices at Bethel have announced cost-cutting measures, they are saying that it "saves" money to be used elsewhere. When they have announced that money coming in isn't keeping up with money going out, they are definitely not in a position to hoard money.

But I have never had the impression, as Anna has, that they are completely hiding this idea of needing to find new ways to save money. It also seems like a bit of a sacrifice for some of us in more affluent countries is helping to fund new and better Kingdom Halls in countries where the Kingdom Halls are in need of repair. I also think that some funds had been put into several translation offices which has obviously paid good dividends in terms of results.

I don't know if I mentioned it before, but because of my son's work project in Anguilla, I have been going there just about every year for a few years now, and last year spent a week of the time in St. Maarten, where most jets land, because Anguilla's airport is so small. The Kingdom Halls in St. Maarten were still in terrible shape even after some remodeling and rebuilding, and I was surprised at this. I saw one on the French side of the island, too, in bad shape. The brothers told me that it's not good to build something that looks so much nicer than the neighborhood around you. Perhaps Melinda knows if this is typical in the Caribbean.

620 MPH would be amazingly fast.

Currently China's bullet trains only manage about 250 MPH peak, although they are working on a maglev design that would allow a max of 600 KmPH (372 MPH). Their test trains already reach 311 MPH.

 Of course, one difference is that the current bullet train service in China already carries people, not just packages, and already connects all the major cities in China.

Google/Wiki says:

China's 10 Fastest Trains — World Records and Benefits for You. Shanghai Maglev trains are currently the fastest trains commercially operated in the world, with a top commercial speed of 431 kph (268 mph) and a top non-commercial speed of 501 kph (311 mph).

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Well—maybe they just want the perks, not unlike the hordes in government today.

The more typical saying from people in Christendom who learn about the possibility of heaven is something like this: "I don't care if the Lord just wants to use me as a doormat, I just want to be with Lord because I love him."

50 minutes ago, Arauna said:

This idea that one can apostacize from another religion is ludicrous.

This is usually true in the common usage of the term, and in the majority of Bible uses, too. I was only going by the definition, and how it is used in ancient Greek and sometimes in the Bible.

*** it-1 p. 126 Apostasy ***
This term in Greek (a·po·sta·siʹa) comes from the verb a·phiʹste·mi, literally meaning “stand away from.” The noun has the sense of “desertion, abandonment or rebellion.” (Ac 21:21, ftn) In classical Greek the noun was used to refer to political defection, and the verb is evidently employed in this sense at Acts 5:37, concerning Judas the Galilean who “drew off” (a·peʹste·se, form of a·phiʹste·mi) followers. The Greek Septuagint uses the term at Genesis 14:4 with reference to such a rebellion. [(Genesis 14:4) 4 They had served Ched·or·la·oʹmer for 12 years, but they [[apostasized, LXX]] in the 13th year.

However, in the Christian Greek Scriptures it is used primarily with regard to religious defection; a withdrawal or abandonment of the true cause, worship, and service of God, and hence an abandonment of what one has previously professed and a total desertion of principles or faith. The religious leaders of Jerusalem charged Paul with such an apostasy against the Mosaic Law.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

What is the point today? We have understood the scriptures, which refer to the nations on the earth for a 1000 years,  for 84 years.  So this proves that if these scholars had the Spirit of jah they would have understood it too!

I was just remembering how easy it is to criticize, and how it made us feel superior that we could make fun of the beliefs of others. I also remember how it struck me that the Watchtower had been teaching this same thing for about HALF of its existence (50 out of 100 years) when I first learned that Russell had defended another point of view from the Bible. According to you, if Russell had the spirit of Jah he would have understood it, too, but he never did. I don't judge him that harshly.

On 11/10/2019 at 9:43 PM, Witness said:

Because of the act of shunning, wouldn’t you say that all four in our house are considered, “apostates”?

It sounds like a lot of JWs are treating all of you as if you were all apostates.

I've seen situations in households that sounded similar where the persons who were not disfellowshipped were still associated with as a way to continue to keep tabs on other persons. I've see situations where the non-disfellowshipped members had the exact same views as the disfellowshipped but family members continued to associate with the non-disfellowshipped ones as a means to continue having the semblance of some kind of family: especially to see children, grandchildren, etc. Also, I have seen cases, and this includes one of my now deceased uncles, who was baptized young, and disfellowshipped when he left as a teenager. Long before I was born, he would say stupid and terrible things about JWs and Jehovah, just to get a rise out of my mother and grandmother (his sister and mother). But over the years he settled down, got married, raised kids, took good care of his wife and his share of taking care of his mother and other elder aunts and uncles of his. But he couldn't come back to the JWs if he wanted to, because he was now an "affirmed" atheist/agnostic with no interest in religion - but no interest in speaking out against religion, either. By the time I was growing up, we never went out of our way to visit him and his family, but they were often over at my grandmother's house.

So, a disfellowshipped person, who is now an atheist and who doesn't focus on JWs is somewhere near the middle of this spectrum.

Some of the groups on the spectrum therefore include:

• JWs in good standing who apostasized from other religions.
• Former JW's who were not DF'd, but who drift away because they have no interest in speaking out against JWs. These would not really be distinguishable from those who drift into inactivity for unknown reasons.
• Former JW's who were disfellowshipped and or who left because they couldn't live up to moral standards.
• Former JW's who were disfellowshipped for any known reasons but so long ago that a kind of unwritten "statute of limitations" has run out, especially for purposes of associating with family and relatives.
• Former JW's who were "stumbled" by something they saw, or experienced: abuse, 1925, 1975, changed teachings, etc.
• Former JWs who didn't want to be disfellowshipped, but who were "cast out of the synagogue" because they felt a conscientious need to speak out against one or two specific teachings or practices. (Those who did not "push" away but who were "pushed.")
• Former JW's who speak out against specific teachings or practices, but for whom their confusion is chalked up to a mental illness they have no mental capacity to overcome. (I'm talking about an obvious mental illness handicap of some kind, not merely an accusation.)
• Those DF'd for apostasy, but who we never hear from again.
• Those DF'd for apostasy, but who continue to make noise against JWs.
• Those NOT DF'd for apostasy, but who make a lot of noise and accusations specifically against JWs

Then we also have a category, of those who are truly apostate, but who are not found out and remain in full association. Perhaps they find ways to undermine fellow JWs or manipulate, sometimes in a more subtle way, perhaps by a haughty attitude, perhaps by giving them a bad reputation in the way they take advantage of others. Some may find semi-anonymous settings in which to create contentions, and make strong judgments to "curse" others. Some may get away with their own immoral practices and defend themselves in ways that draw in the vulnerable. These are like the rocks/reefs in Jude 1:12:

When these people eat with you in your fellowship meals commemorating the Lord’s love, they are like dangerous reefs that can shipwreck you. They are like shameless shepherds who care only for themselves. They are like clouds blowing over the land without giving any rain. They are like trees in autumn that are doubly dead, for they bear no fruit and have been pulled up by the roots. (New Living Translation)
 

There are some who do speak up and offer false or confusing teachings, or maybe even true teachings but in a way that creates disorder and confusion.

We should remember that there were those who would speak up in the early Christian congregation with a saying or a bit of knowledge or a tongue, or a translation for someone who had been moved to speak in a tongue. Not all of these bits of knowledge would make sense to everyone. Paul knew that. John knew that. Not everything would build up. Sometimes the utterance would be worthless, or worse, might appear to have been from a demonic spirit. These gifts were causing confusion, and Paul wished to bring some order to the congregations. Ultimately, a simple solution was apparently implemented. If it promoted Jesus Christ as Lord, let it stand.

(1 Corinthians 12:1-3) . . .Now concerning the spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed. 2 . . .  3 Now I would have you know that nobody when speaking by God’s spirit says: “Jesus is accursed!” and nobody can say: “Jesus is Lord!” except by holy spirit.

(1 John 4:1, 2) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God,. . .2 This is how you know that the inspired statement is from God: Every inspired statement that acknowledges Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God.

(Revelation 19:10) . . .For the witness concerning Jesus is what inspires prophecy.”

Because of the wide variety of persons both inside and outside the congregation to watch out for, I think a lot of the onus is on individual Christians to decide who is good or bad association for themselves. The apostate may feel himself under no obligation to stand off from us, so we have to "apostasize" from them, especially those who continue to associate. We "mark" them. But if they have not stood away from us, and still want to associate, then technically they might not even be "apostates" and we should not judge them so harshly. But if we feel they are not building us up spiritually, and we seem not to be able to offer them anything, then they can be to us like a man of the nations or a tax collector. We can therefore associate as needed, but always, as with anyone, we keep a view to how this association might build us up or tear us down, and therefore we are very careful of such associations.

When we use the expression, "they went out from us because they were not of our sort," we have to be careful that we are referring to the sort of people we should be. We should be the sort of persons who will continue to show love to all kinds of persons, even our enemies. We have to be careful that we have not become the sort who judge harshly, or who push people away just because we don't understand them, or because we are too haughty to be questioned.

On 11/10/2019 at 9:43 PM, Witness said:

“apostates do not drift away from the truth”

This is an important statement. In actuality many persons are on the "apostate spectrum." Some religions, just like gangs, or the mafia, don't allow one to just drift away. You have to be attacked and in effect, "neutralized."

With religion, it's usually fine to drift away if it highlights that the religion has moral standards that are hard to live up to. Then those who don't come back will sometimes even be seen as a kind of a badge of honor to the religion. (Not individuals, but in general.) But if there is any danger that the person will speak out against the teachings, practices or the basis of organization, then that person must be neutralized in some way so that few persons will listen to them.

Scientologists are famous for going after persons in a threatening way, or through legal means, to keep people from speaking out against their teachings or practices. In the same way, a whistleblower must be fired (by any means necessary) so that they suddenly become no more than a "disgruntled former employee." The Scientologists took over the entire C.A.N. (a huge online Cult Awareness Network forum) after forcing it into bankruptcy, because it was a haven for Scientology apostates.

But back to the benign end of the apostate spectrum.

Apostasy, by original definition, is a "standing away from." When Revelation 16 says to "get out of her, my people," this is a command to become apostates from false ideologies.

Therefore, at the benign end of the apostasy spectrum are those who realize that apostasy can be a good thing, by definition, in that all persons who convert to JWs from another religion, for example, are apostates from that other religion. Also, any who leave JWs because they can't live up to the moral standards or levels of activity expected, are "apostates" but JWs consider them generally harmless. Then there are those who leave because they no longer believe the teachings, but who don't say anything, and plan to keep very quiet about it, because they KNOW they might be seen as "malignant" apostate if they spoke up. Frederick Franz was infamous for trying to get persons declared apostate for even "thinking" that 1914 might be wrong, or some other teaching specific to Witnesses. 

But now, because of the phrase, "apostates do not drift away from the truth," those who "drift away" should not be seen as "apostates." Apostates, for purposes of the warnings in the talk, do not include those who drift away.

16 hours ago, Arauna said:

Hi, there are only a few JWs who believe so - unlike millions - almost 1 Billion Christian's on earth in various denominations whom ALL think they are going to heaven to be with jesus to rule over whom? 

The absurdity of this idea has often been a talking point I would use with Bible Studies.

But I realized that Russell and Rutherford also believed that all Christians went to heaven, not only the 144,000 but even the great crowd of Revelation 7:14. The idea was that they would rule over the 20 billion people or more from "history" would be resurrected to the earth, including the faithful Hebrews of old, and of course the millions of persons then alive who would NOT be part of the great crowd, but who would never die because by 1925, the millennium's resurrection to earth would begin and living "worldly" people would stop getting sick. It was not clear that any Christians would remain with them on earth until the early 1930's.

25 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Doesn’t this correspond with the end of the stable job?

Yes, that has to be a big part of it. But we also have to look at why the stable job ended.

There are a lot of historical factors surrounding the issues. Too many to try to pin it on any one thing, of course. But this was definitely one of the important points.

Ayn Rand and her student, Alan Greenspan, and Ronald Reagan's crew combined during this period to convince "the 99" percent that it really doesn't matter what the rich do, or where they move their factories, or how much pay a CEO needs, or how much greed their decisions can reveal, because "the little dogs will eat the scraps from the rich man's table." (Trickle down economics.) After Ike's tax rates were dismantled, and Kennedy's accepted a Keynesian economic cure-all, Reagan and conservatives like him (Thatcher, too) saw a chance to push an economic agenda that allowed a free-for-all for the lifestyles of the rich, at the expense of the working poor (who had once been candidates for a true middle class) 

A good portion of  middle class and expected-to-be middle class fell for the propaganda, and didn't realize that it was already making the old house-dependent "American Dream" less and less viable. And now, with common sense regulations gone, there was a 1 percenter at the top of every business chain whose new goal was to see how much Americans would give up without really noticing. And after that, how much could they be tricked into giving up, even if they did notice it.

And it wasn't just Reagan, it was Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama, etc. Every one of them did more and more harm to the working poor and middle class.

Owning a house is no longer as important as a component of the American Dream now that it can no longer be seen as an appreciating asset. And the prices are purposely set to be nearly out of reach for most. The same thing happened with the price of a university education, health care, medicine, credit cards, etc. And the wage of the average worker got cut when we average in the number of hours worked, hours available, lay-offs, furloughs, switch from salary to no-benefit part-time, etc.

Well, I seem to be on a rant of sorts. So I'll pick this up later to read other person's comments.

9 hours ago, TheWorldNewsOrg said:

The graph pulled from the article is surprising, in that, while the trend is very real and the reasons given for the trend are real, it's a longstanding trend, not something that is just now surprising the market. It's always presented as if this just came out of the 2008 Great Recession, or the Housing Crisis, or "Millennials," but we can see the roots go a lot farther back into the 1980's.

In the mid 1980's, I was working for the Trump Organization (and various NYC Landlord Organizations: LeFrak, Helmsley) through a consulting firm A.D.Little, (Cambridge) and the basic goal was to use housing data (US Census, DHCR, etc) to defend Reaganomics and simultaneously defend the squeezing of the highest possible percentage of American's disposable income into rent. There were cycles when pushing the envelope on higher rents, actually drove more people back into house/condo/coop purchases. But longevity and generational issues (baby boomers) were another factor.

In a new book called "Homewreckers," (Aaron Glantz) there is a good review of the recent 2006/2007 housing crisis which also shows that most of the exact same precursors are being repeated again in the current market, including the bundling of risky mortgages into hedge funds. Some of the same players who got bailed out by Bush and Obama are back at it, and three of them are in Trump's White House (Cabinet) after Trump gave them all million-dollar tax breaks. And one of them who is not part of Trump's White House, went on 60 minutes last night to present himself as a "boy scout" in all of this.

2 hours ago, Tom Henry said:

Even the apostle Paul understood his limitation to know who God would judge. The keyword here is highlighted. Why would the word “some” be important.

I thought your post made a lot of good points. We know about God's mercy but we don't want to purposely take advantage of it for selfish purposes. (Of course, we can never get into the mind of the person committing suicide to know whether they were motivated by selfishness, even if the person leaves a lucid note. We leave it to Jehovah to read hearts.)

Also, wanted to point out that Paul never used the word "some" (in case anyone would have read your words to imply that). Either way, though, I think your point is still valid. 

9 minutes ago, Tom Henry said:

You must have missed there is a 7 and a 9.

No, not at all. I referenced 8 because this is the version that I also downloaded and use from my desktop.