JW Insider

I just read here that Moses was born circumcised, so it must be true. It's on the Internet:
https://hekint.org/2017/01/27/divine-birth-the-birth-of-moses/
 
Divine birth: The birth of Moses
 Moses was born in the year 2377 after the creation of the world. He was born circumcised, and was able to walk immediately after his birth; but according to another story he was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth. A peculiar and glorious light filled the entire house at his birth, indicating that he was worthy of the gift of prophecy. He spoke with his father and mother on the day of his birth, and prophesied at the age of three. His mother kept his birth secret for three months, when Pharaoh was informed that she had borne a son. The mother put the child into a casket, which she hid among the reeds of the sea before the king’s officers came to her. For seven days his mother went at night to nurse him, his sister Miriam protecting him from the birds by day. --------- It had a long tradition in Egypt, and Wikipedia reports this in an article on the subject: Herodotus, writing in the 5th century BCE, wrote that the Egyptians "practise circumcision for the sake of cleanliness, considering it better to be cleanly than comely."[22] David Gollaher[23] considered circumcision in ancient Egypt to be a mark of passage from childhood to adulthood. He mentions that the alteration of the body and ritual of circumcision were supposed to give access to ancient mysteries reserved solely for the initiated. (See also Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 1.15) The content of those mysteries are unclear but are likely to be myths, prayers, and incantations central to Egyptian religion. The Egyptian Book of the Dead, for example, tells of the sun god Ra cutting himself, the blood creating two minor guardian deities. The Egyptologist Emmanuel vicomte de Rougé interpreted this as an act of circumcision.[24] Circumcisions were performed by priests in a public ceremony, using a stone blade. It is thought to have been more popular among the upper echelons of the society, although it was not universal and those lower down the social order are known to have had the procedure done.[25] The Egyptian hieroglyph for "penis" depicts either a circumcised or an erect organ.

  Depiction of circumcision in Ancient Egypt.
Circumcision was also adopted by some Semitic peoples living in or around Egypt. Herodotus reported that circumcision is only practiced by the Egyptians, Colchians, Ethiopians, Phoenicians, the 'Syrians of Palestine', and "the Syrians who dwell about the rivers Thermodon and Parthenius, as well as their neighbours the Macronians and Macrones". He also reports, however, that "the Phoenicians, when they come to have commerce with the Greeks, cease to follow the Egyptians in this custom, and allow their children to remain uncircumcised."[22]

I studied with an African-American college student who was later baptized. We studied just before the Thursday meeting and I drove him straight from the study. He had all these skin bumps on his neck from shaving "in-grown" hairs and he would quickly shave just before the meeting. He often had to switch shirts at the last minute because of the mess of blood that came from those freshly shaved bumps. If he tried shaving like that just before getting married he would have been a "bridegroom of blood."

I get it w/some blacks, but white guys? It's all moot at this point, but to me the more I see social signaling done w/clothes, or hair or anything other than just trying to be clean and functional bugs me. You see it in hipsters where they all look the same. or the blue-haired tatted obese who drink their latte's at the nihilist cafe.
I sort of appreciate it, because it lets me know who they are.
Reminds me of:
“May those who love us, love us;
And for those who don't love us,
May God turn their hearts;
And if He doesn't turn their hearts,
May He turn their ankles,
So we will know them by their limping.”
 

FYI - If you ever have a loved one get hospitalized for some cardiac situation and the cardiologist prescribes colchicine to reduce fluid buildup around the pericardium, be aware of side effects the doctor's themselves may not be aware of.
Colchicine has been used for hundreds of years for gout and recently has been used to reduce cardiac inflammation. It may also do other things if the patient stays on it too long.
In my case my wife was on it for a few months, but in that time and unbeknownst to me because of her polymyalgia rheumatica situation I didn't realize it was damaging her nerves, her muscles and her brain. She lost thirty pounds in this time, couldn't eat, would vomit, became weak and incontinent, was in deep muscle pain and neither the rheumatologist nor the primary care physician made the connection. In fact it was ignored when I mentioned it to her primary care physician.
So rather than watch my wife die, I took her off the colchicine and to deal with the pain I gave her 500 mg of acetominophen w/600 mg of N-Acetyl-Cysteine (3 x a Day) (an amino acid given to counter the potential liver damage from the acetominophen). I suspected the colchicine was the culprit. True the symptoms didn't come on quickly, but colchicine can build up in a person's system. She couldn't sit up in bed, I had to help her get on and off the commode and wipe her. I had to shower her. She didn't know at times what day of the week it was.
After a week and a half off the colchicine, the muscle pain went away, but the extreme weakness and all the other things associated w/colchicine poisoning existed.  I googled and tried to pack in every possible supplement associated w/assisting people w/alzheimers or traumatic brain injury or nerve damage.
Alpha-GPC, CDP-choline, Co-Q10, NAD+, Vinpocetine, Phenylpiracetam, Noopept, Acetyl-L-Carnitine, L-Carnosine, Fish Oil, Sulbuitamine (just to list a few). I shelled all these and packed them into a protein shake (w/creatine, and hmb) and argued w/her to drink at least this once a day. I used red light therapy on her head as well.
It's three months now and she's back to better than normal. (Although as soon as she really started to improve dramatically, her hair started to fall out - apparently hair will go dormant under stress and when the stress is gone, it sheds....right now she has "zombie-hair" but we can see it's growing back in.
She's not taking everything that I packed into her shake every day now, but now I can actually leave the house w/o worry. Before this I couldn't leave 20 minutes w/o worrying that I'd find her on the bathroom floor.
 
Anyway, just know that no one is as interested in your health or the health of your loved ones as you are. You're ultimately responsible. Doctors aren't necessarily geniuses.

Reminds me of the time I came to a door that had two no soliciting signs. I rang the doorbell and asked them if they'd like to buy another no soliciting sign. The guy laughed and took the magazines.

Yes. His general goal is always to minimize any negative press about NRMs. He lists "Mostly Against [Their Own] Members" as one of those minimizing factors. This is why I said:
If in politics, for example, a dictator were to bomb or gas a part of their own population, the world would point out how terrible it was that "he gassed his own people." It would not be considered a factor that minimizes guilt.

It’s like trying to stop Jehovah’s Witnesses with a “Never Mind the Dog. Beware of the Owner” sign. Oftern works. But not always.

I did too. But it was neither stretchable nor transparent enough for him to do a good job cleaning my teeth. And an even bigger mess ensued when he told me rinse out.

Yes. His general goal is always to minimize any negative press about NRMs. He lists "Mostly Against [Their Own] Members" as one of those minimizing factors. This is why I said:
If in politics, for example, a dictator were to bomb or gas a part of their own population, the world would point out how terrible it was that "he gassed his own people." It would not be considered a factor that minimizes guilt.

Just a quick follow-up on the above Cesnur/Introvigne source: https://www.cesnur.org/2019/turin_introvigne_scientology.pdf
I don't like it that when there is violence perpetrated by NRMs, he is quick to grasp at a straw that effectively says: "Well this isn't so bad because it's usually only members of the NRM who are killed."
His contradiction is clear in the following arguments:
However, it was recognized that hate speech, i.e. advocating physical violence and inciting others to commit violent acts, is also a real form of violence
He usually uses this argument as a very one-sided point to say that the NRMs are nearly always victims. But note some of the following statements, such as the one that appears right next to it. Note the word "most" which I highlighted:
Above: Japan’s Shoko Asahara(1955-2018) ordered the murder of opponents of his group Aum Shinrikyo before organizing a deadly gas attack with sarin gas in the Tokyo subway in 1995, although most members of his movements ignored his criminal activities.
And elsewhere, this lame and strained "defense:"
when devotees of Osho Rajneesh (1931–1990) infected with salmonella the salad bars of local restaurants in Oregon’s Wasco County, where they had established their commune, Rajneeshpuram. Rather than mystical, the purpose was mundane, as it was aimed at preventing local voters from participating in the election, so that the commune’s own candidates would win
At least he admits the occurrences but I still find his following argument embarrassing:
Mostly Against Members
While groups such as Synanon or Aum Shinrikyo carried out murderous attacks against their opponents or society at large, looking at the number of casualties overwhelmingly the violence of certain NRMs targeted their own members
With few exceptions, members of the respective movements rather than outsiders died in the suicides and homicides involving the Peoples Temple (Jonestown, Guyana, 1978), the Order of the Solar Temple (Switzerland, France, and Quebec, Canada, 1994–1997), Heaven’s Gate (Rancho Santa Fe, California, 1997), and the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God (Uganda 2000)
... [removed the picture]...
Above: Charred remains of members of the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, a Ugandan NRM that self-destroyed itself in 2000 in a frenzy of homicides and suicides, which made more than 700 victims
 

Yes. His general goal is always to minimize any negative press about NRMs. He lists "Mostly Against [Their Own] Members" as one of those minimizing factors. This is why I said:
If in politics, for example, a dictator were to bomb or gas a part of their own population, the world would point out how terrible it was that "he gassed his own people." It would not be considered a factor that minimizes guilt.

Yes. His general goal is always to minimize any negative press about NRMs. He lists "Mostly Against [Their Own] Members" as one of those minimizing factors. This is why I said:
If in politics, for example, a dictator were to bomb or gas a part of their own population, the world would point out how terrible it was that "he gassed his own people." It would not be considered a factor that minimizes guilt.

I did too. But it was neither stretchable nor transparent enough for him to do a good job cleaning my teeth. And an even bigger mess ensued when he told me rinse out.

Yes. His general goal is always to minimize any negative press about NRMs. He lists "Mostly Against [Their Own] Members" as one of those minimizing factors. This is why I said:
If in politics, for example, a dictator were to bomb or gas a part of their own population, the world would point out how terrible it was that "he gassed his own people." It would not be considered a factor that minimizes guilt.

A month after my 2nd vaccination of Pfizer and I am now starting to no longer wear the mask when entering public places. People sometimes stare or take a 2nd look but so far haven't said anything.
(I did however wear one to my recent dentist appt.)

Yes. His general goal is always to minimize any negative press about NRMs. He lists "Mostly Against [Their Own] Members" as one of those minimizing factors. This is why I said:
If in politics, for example, a dictator were to bomb or gas a part of their own population, the world would point out how terrible it was that "he gassed his own people." It would not be considered a factor that minimizes guilt.

Just a quick follow-up on the above Cesnur/Introvigne source: https://www.cesnur.org/2019/turin_introvigne_scientology.pdf
I don't like it that when there is violence perpetrated by NRMs, he is quick to grasp at a straw that effectively says: "Well this isn't so bad because it's usually only members of the NRM who are killed."
His contradiction is clear in the following arguments:
However, it was recognized that hate speech, i.e. advocating physical violence and inciting others to commit violent acts, is also a real form of violence
He usually uses this argument as a very one-sided point to say that the NRMs are nearly always victims. But note some of the following statements, such as the one that appears right next to it. Note the word "most" which I highlighted:
Above: Japan’s Shoko Asahara(1955-2018) ordered the murder of opponents of his group Aum Shinrikyo before organizing a deadly gas attack with sarin gas in the Tokyo subway in 1995, although most members of his movements ignored his criminal activities.
And elsewhere, this lame and strained "defense:"
when devotees of Osho Rajneesh (1931–1990) infected with salmonella the salad bars of local restaurants in Oregon’s Wasco County, where they had established their commune, Rajneeshpuram. Rather than mystical, the purpose was mundane, as it was aimed at preventing local voters from participating in the election, so that the commune’s own candidates would win
At least he admits the occurrences but I still find his following argument embarrassing:
Mostly Against Members
While groups such as Synanon or Aum Shinrikyo carried out murderous attacks against their opponents or society at large, looking at the number of casualties overwhelmingly the violence of certain NRMs targeted their own members
With few exceptions, members of the respective movements rather than outsiders died in the suicides and homicides involving the Peoples Temple (Jonestown, Guyana, 1978), the Order of the Solar Temple (Switzerland, France, and Quebec, Canada, 1994–1997), Heaven’s Gate (Rancho Santa Fe, California, 1997), and the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God (Uganda 2000)
... [removed the picture]...
Above: Charred remains of members of the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, a Ugandan NRM that self-destroyed itself in 2000 in a frenzy of homicides and suicides, which made more than 700 victims
 

I think he is generally right about the Witnesses and we will continue to benefit for as long as he is successful in his attempts to promote a more balanced view of NRMs. (And you are right, of course, that he rarely considers specific doctrines, except to tone down the more radical-sounding ones, such as "space alien" beliefs by the Scientologists to put them in a more palatable light.)
But he tends to pigeonhole all news items through the same formula or filter without considering possible contradictions. Here is an example below from the topic of "Violence and NRMs" but which he applies analogously to fake or highly biased news stories, negative news stories, propaganda against NRMs, etc. 
With respect to violence for example, he usually itemizes like this:
1. Violence perpetrated by NRMs against outsiders and their own members (and this includes sexual violence, such as by pedophile priests in non-NRMs).
2. Violence falsely ascribed to NRMs.
3. Violence against NRM's, often fueled by hate speech, which can result in both individual cases of violence against them, violence by other groups, and even state-sponsored persecution, "economic violence," etc.
Of course, #1 is always downplayed of course as the fault of individuals, not the NRM, and often compared to a greater frequency in traditional religions. #2 is always up-played, even at times when his own evidence is questionable. And #3 is usually true, but he is too anxious to accept any and all news items that fit #3 unquestioningly.
When he tries to argue that there is more violence in traditional religions, he regularly points to Islamic extremists and terrorism. But he misses a point here which is common to Westerners who love to hate Islam as a religion altogether. Hate speech against Islam as if it were some homogeneous whole is even common in American and Western media outlets.
The problem or contradiction here is expressed on a site that uses one example of Islamic extremists [emphasis mine]: https://www.radicalisationresearch.org/research/shterin-2011-reconsidering/
Secondly, in addition to the above case-study, by scholars who know the region and language well, this paper uses the above example to show how the path to violent radical behaviour cannot be explained through simplistic labelling of groups as ‘extremist’, ‘radical’, ‘Salafi’, ‘Islamist’, ‘Wahhabi’ or other similar terms which were used by the Russian government and media at the time (and indeed still are in many countries). The authors point to the need to understand the local context in which radical beliefs are developed and expressed, and the benefits of comparative studies of these details to better understand the significance of causal elements.
Thirdly, and perhaps of most interest to readers not seeking to learn more about this region of the Northern Caucasus, is how the authors demonstrate this comparative approach in practice. Drawing on a range of academic literature about New Religious Movements (NRMs) they argue that the KBJ should not be seen as indicative of ‘Radical Islam’, but rather as an example of an NRM. The authors argue that the contemporary focus on ‘radicalisation’ tends to delegitimise non-violent radical beliefs, proscribing social and political behaviour which “have long been part and parcel of the youthful desire to make a difference” in liberal democracies. The authors point to NRM studies that show that frequently members of NRMS are not victims of, but actually pro-active participants in, these movements who join out of their own choice. NRM studies also shed light on how NRMs can potentially move to violence through a cycle of reciprocal mistrust and hostile actions with the surrounding society and authorities. For such groups, violence is a relational and processual development, and understanding the context of that development could help prevent their repeat in future cases.
The authors showed that the KBJ continuously interpreted their beliefs in reaction to the experiences within the group and between it and the wider society.
Similarly, he appears to fall into his own prejudices by not considering the potential propaganda and fake news stories often promoted by the NRMs themselves. I believe that several of these have been promoted by Scientology. Personally, I believe that many politically ideological "NRMs" in many countries are exactly the same as religious NRMs, and can result in violence in the same manner, and fake news defense of that violence in the same manner. In the United States the "cult of Trump" also resulted in some violence and defense of the same.

As an aside, I found an interesting page on CESNUR:
https://www.cesnur.org/2019/turin_introvigne_scientology.pdf
... raids against NRMs are often conducted with unnecessary real and symbolic violence even in democratic countries –and Scientology is the most raided NRM on an international scale
...
Russia is another country persecuting some NRMs, including Scientology. In 2018, Western media reported that in St Petersburg, lawyers of incarcerated members of the Church of Scientology were given materials of the criminal investigation that included comments by the FSB investigator. The comments included: “He knows a lot, but keeps quiet –reinterrogate with an electric aid to memory.” There is no evidence that actual torture occurred, but the fact it was contemplated as a possibility is disturbing, also in view of allegations of torture by Russian Jehovah’s Witnesses

Is this when Bro Brumley was photographed at a conference and opponents made a big fuss about it because Scientologists were there, too? 
“Relax, he keyed their cars in the parking lot,” I replied to one of them.

Let us take this sneering remark seriously for a moment.
In the greater scheme of things, what really was Voltaire? A brief point of relative light, but also a bridge connecting one train wreck to another.
The train wreck of religious intolerance he battled all his life, and to a significant degree, he won that battle.
But in a very short time, even during his lifetime, atheists usurped his work to provide underpinnings of their own rising movement—another train wreck. Voltaire was an initial hero of the French Revolution, but in short order, as inferior atheistic thinkers took over, he was downgraded as too moderate. Many of his own followers (Voltaire himself was dead by then) fell victim to the guillotine themselves when they resisted the fanatical excesses of those atheists.
Meanwhile, the light that he offered was but relative, in that he refused any revelatory look at God, and thus missed out on solving the problem of evil, since that is only solved through such searching. He may even have represented “one step forward, two steps back.” The step forward is to win against intolerance. The step back is to repudiate the means though which God gives explanation of himself AND to smoothe the way for atheism. Maybe even three steps back, for in declaring the issue of evil insoluble after grappling with it the best part of his life, he plants the notion in the educated people that adore him that it actually is. 
So is he required reading for JW members? No. He is an elective. Read him if you will. It will be beneficial if you do. But by no means is he indispensable to having one’s head on straight. Make him the centerpiece of your education, and it all but guarantees you will not have your head on straight. The JW organization will never recommend that members read Voltaire. Nor will they ever disparage him, at least no more than I have done above. They would have members direct their primary focus on what does deliver with regard to life’s more important things.
 

In the 1970's it was common for Bethelites to order Bible commentaries like Matthew Henry's and Barnes' Notes on the NT and various Bible translations. Later, they also allowed orders for Jay Green's Hebrew Interlinear and William Whiston's Josephus. Bethelites paid for them, but the price was fairly low because all requests were ordered through a one of Dean Songer's assistants.
Then there was a meeting in 1979, and all such books became impossible to order, and anyone who already had them in their rooms (except for Bible translations) would be looked at suspiciously. In 1980, housekeepers would report to their overseers if these types of books were found, and many Bethelites who owned them would be questioned by an interrogation committee. Within a matter of months, they moved the entire Bethel Library out of reach of all Bethelites by moving the entire Writing Department --along with the library-- out of 124 CH and onto a locked floor down at 25 CH.
Also, even before it moved, no Bethel tours allowed visitors to see the Bethel Library beyond a quick peek from the doorway to the "facing" shelves which were almost all WT material along with a couple sets of encyclopedias and dictionaries. All commentaries and books from other religions were were kept in the rows of shelves behind the first "facing" shelves, and could not be seen. Even the tours at Patterson in the 2000's only allowed a doorway glimpse of a small corner of the Library from the main hallway, about 40 feet from the nearest book.
I remember once when Brother Klein railed against commentaries one morning at breakfast. And he was one of the GB members in the Writing Department. At another meeting he said that using them was "sucking at the teat of Christendom." Now, of course, there is a much more reasonable approach, and I think that most of the brothers are at least partially aware that this is where most of the information in the Insight book comes from. They might be less aware that this is also where we get many of the spiritual gems and treasures in the meeting workbooks, and of course the footnotes in the Study Bible, all those interesting comments about Hebrew and Greek words, etc.

Scandinavian countries have IKEAs, too?

Many communities in the US have websites where one only needs to type in a name and address and if you are a registered voter it tells you where to vote and displays some information about your registration. No one else but the voter is supposed to use this information. In the US, it should be very unusual for elders to "know" that someone in the congregation is a registered voter without misusing data.

Which means, when translated:
Apostates invariably end up where they belong - in the gutter
[I guess it's not as funny if you have to explain it.]