JW Insider

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

Interesting. I like Zoom meetings across the board for many reasons. But no KH? I can see KH and Zoom or some other video platform, but no KH from our end sounds a bit odd. Circumstantial imposition like Russia I can see as time goes on, but voluntarily? That would be a game changer.

I don't think I wish to be responsible for transporting people, for several reasons, so that would suit me, but I would like to see other members in person from time to time.

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

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

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

My vision is that the G.B. Please note that the format that we have followed for decades is not the only one. I mean: since there were 3 big annual meetings in Israel, we had three big meetings -assemblies-.
Kissing, hugging, touching, "sniffing" us is biblical and appropriate. But during the week the meeting ends late, the children have to go to school early, they have to have dinner ... Well, why not the meeting during the week for zoom, and the face-to-face weekend, at the k.h.?
Large assemblies could be made voluntary. Brothers eager to meet others, to meet, to embrace, to take photos, to meet potential future spouses... These meetings could be prepared and voluntarily attended (as now international ones)
But those of us who want to listen, learn, those of us who do not have much money, or many children, or sick family members, and who attend an assembly lasting several days involves a great effort and small returns (in terms of learning), because we could have those assemblies in the zoom format, for several weekends, like lately.
It follows from the above that all assembly halls could be sold. Send home hundreds of brothers who are employed to support them. Save thousands of hours of volunteer work preparing assemblies worldwide, save money ...
To keep it short: we would use the best of both worlds. Face-to-face + zoom.
(Sometimes I ask Jehovah to "enlighten the C.G. on this - sure, but I suppose that many, many factors escape me ,,,)

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

I had to point out that a painting of the oracle of delphi wasn't appropriate at a kingdom hall.

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

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

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

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

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

This final sentence should have ended with a question mark but did not. 
I’m stumbled.

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

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

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

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

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

Like Elmer Woodley.

Your browser does not support the HTML5 audio tag.

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

Eden phase: eating only plants
Phase after the Flood: eating meat (animals), no matter which
Law phase: eating only allowed types of meat (animals)
Phase after Jesus: eat what you want, if you want, but watch the conscience of the other
The first phase came naturally, and that is the creative act that determines the choice of food. There is no need for law or conscience to participate in food choices.
The second phase supports the general freedom of food choice, which is determined only by the place where one lives and the availability of animals to be used for food.
The third phase deals with the paragraphs that undo the two previous phases.
The fourth stage introduces a new order and involves conscience. But several thousand years have passed and conscience is determined by social and geographical rules of conduct.
 
 

Delivery trucks in major cities were more commonly electric than gas. Short distance, low speed and heavy hauling. The frequent idling during stops made gas more expensive to run. Also quieter operation during night time and early morning deliveries. Think milkman at 5:00AM.

Exactly! And if we feel our conscience is weak, or has made us react too strongly or strictly, we can improve our conscience through association with a collective group (congregation/brotherhood) of serious persons who continually train their conscience with Bible principles.