JW Insider

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The funny thing is I actually have no idea what CC is talking about. It's quite amusing really...

More musing....
Conscience is like an internal scale too but it's one that weighs things in accordance with its own experiences.
I remember one class I took by Dr. Albrecht, a neurology professor whose specialization was in the eye. It was a basic class, but one thing that stood out  that I remember from the class was the rods vs cones of the human visual system. He said our eyes have scales which can weigh elephants and bees wings. The cones weigh elephants and the rods weigh bees wings. It's a simple illustration. There are people like my grandfather who were color blind, lacking any cones whatsoever. It turns out this aided him as a quality control engineer as his eyes were very sensitive to shades, more so than a normal person.
A person's conscience might be like these scales in some way. Some people missing nuance and seeing little difference between one thing and another. "All religions are the same" they might say (and believe). Another person's conscience might see a myriad of differences and perhaps so many differences (that like a character in a Jorge Louis Borges story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funes_the_Memorious I remember who couldn't recognize a dog as the same dog because the angle of attack/reflection of light off the dog and its movement made it perpetually different) he simply can't even recognize a religion. Why? Because everything seems different.
When examining a dog, when does what we call a "dog" stop being a dog?
We have a fingerprint of experiences in our minds which make for "dog".
We do this for all things. So when something troubles our conscience we can do a few things.
We can re-check and remeasure. "Did I remember to turn the stove off?"
Maybe the stove is off. Maybe it was on. But we're glad we checked.
Suppose we go back and the stove is off, but we're still unsettled. Something about the stove is off we think. So perhaps we hire a technician to examine the stove. Is it leaking gas? Is it not heating properly? Does something seem awry? Does anyone else think something might be wrong?
Maybe we go look at someone else's stove. They seem satisfied with their stove, but not you. You sense something awry with their stove as well. Maybe you argue with them about the stove. Maybe they say "I'm happy w/my stove and I'm sticking with it!". You say "Fine. But don't say I didn't warn you." They respond "Warn me about what? I know my stove isn't the best in the world, but it works for me. It cooks my food and that's all I expect out of it. What do you think a stove is supposed to do?"
You move on. Perhaps you start studying "Stoves of the World" and "The History of Stoves" and "The Chronology of Stoves in Ancient Babylon"
You start to think of yourself as an expert in the history of stoves, their genesis and usage throughout time.
But you yourself have decided that no stove is good enough for you.
You're going to eat that turkey raw, because no stove is perfect.
...then you die of food poisoning....
*THE END*
(Again....me musing aloud)

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

What rubbish. Paul was directly commissioned by Christ. Jesus Christ appeared to Paul when Paul was Saul. 
Acts 9 :4
4and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” 5And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” And He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do.” 7The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus. 9And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

Hmmmm.... I wonder if you would have known ANY of this had you not been contacted by Jehovah's Witnesses....

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

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

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

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

Somehow this reminds me of the old riddle:
There are 2 doors: life and death. There are 2 trolls: a lying one and a truth telling one. You have to get through the right door by asking both trolls the same question. (Only one question.)

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

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

Those were exactly my thoughts! 😂
I would obviously die without Google!
P.s. I'm thinking it's one of these very obvious things that you can't get if you think too hard. And then when you hear the answer you have a face palm moment.

Gentile parents teach their gentile children about own morals and standards, with or without "Christian" ethics. And they, parents and children, decide in mutual interactions what sort of conscience they will have and grow. How do you explain, where is the place/position and influence of "nature" spoken in Romans 2:14 in that process? And how do you explain that Romans 2:14 speaking in favour, very positive about them, gentile people, in comparison to Roman congregation to which Paul directed those chapters?  
Verse 15 continue with:
They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.
Which and whose requirements was written on their hearts? When and how? Because their parents was "gentile" distanced(??) from "Christian" moral, standards and ethics.
I agree with some of your thoughts how there are unknown and invisible processes around all this. 

I don't like it when people are banned.
I especially don't like that they lose the continuity of the good points and arguments that they have been making. When a person loses their temper or says something that sounds threatening, they aren't really hurting anyone, in my opinion. I think it's appropriate to publicly criticize and even remove certain types of abusive content like spamming, porn, gore, bullying against specific groups/individuals, overt racism, and deliberately threatening or inflammatory content -- but not to completely ban individuals who merely lose their temper or use harsh words. We should be adults here. We can expect some harsh words here and there. There are very few "child-safe" places on the Internet.
And on a religiously charged forum, we should also realize that "attacks" on our views are not usually meant personally. If Allen Smith attacked my views, he might have appeared to be attacking me, but I present myself almost anonymously here. So what does it really mean to attack me personally? I certainly don't feel it that way. I'm sure the intent is to attack the views themselves, and usually with the full backing of the Watchtower's current views. This is easily understood. I also see it as a means of him trying to warn others who might be influenced by evidence that goes against the Watchtower's current views on certain specific topics. This means that he may very well be a Witness, but just very frustrated at the difficulty in mounting counter-evidence. Different people will handle that situation in their own way. Frustration for some means cursing and threatening, name-calling and judging. For others it will present as child-like tantrums. For some it will be grasping at straws or non-sensible counter-arguments. And for some, they will very seriously study the issue and find real counter-arguments.
So, the various types of responses can actually say something about the strength of the original arguments and evidence, and even the cursing and the tantrums and the name-calling will often inadvertently speak to the validity of the original evidence. In these cases, especially, it's much better to keep all those uncomfortable words and exchanges on the forum. Along with negative responses to them. The same effort it takes for an admin/moderator to evaluate someone's words as supposedly worthy of banning, is about the same amount of work it takes to merely flag the questionable comment and write up a quick explanation of why the forum owners/admins/moderators don't like the comment.
Banning removes the entire continuation of argument/evidence and counter-argument/counter-evidence. I still don't like banning anyone. I haven't seen anyone here whose posts rose to that level. For my own comfort level, there have been a few curse-words I would have "asterisked" (mostly from another Alan) but that can be usually be set automatically in software.
 

You are able to come up with some logical reasoning, but then you let go of reason and start assuming things that aren't true. JW do not worship the org. because all know that worship belongs to God only.
You pull out the Roman scripture (subjection to superior authorities) as proof that the org. is bad. You expect the annointed never to draw the wrong conclusion. You expect them to be either perfect, and sinless or led by holy spirit to the point where they do not have their own thoughts but are more like robots. 
Then you pull out the CSA as proof that the org. is bad, again insinuating that every JW should be perfect and without sin. 
Well I hate to break it to you again but that's not what the Bible says about Christians. Time and time again examples of faithful men and women who made mistakes were pointed out to you, but you ignore it...and then of course there are some that were bad and had to be thrown out.
 

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