JW Insider

You were able to get right to the point in the way you worded the question. I tried the same question once with "Witness" because I also know someone else who has all kinds of problems with various doctrines and practices of the WTS, but who also expends so much energy on those problems. He is so negative that I have come very close to asking him why he hangs in there. He believes, of course, there is something special about the Witnesses, and believes that Jehovah is still using them. He expects "something very significant" to happen soon, centered around the WTS.
This appears to be similar to the thinking of "Witness" in that she believes that true anointed persons will be attracted to the WTS, where they will be tested because Jehovah has allowed a distortion to occur within the WTS organization. So she has this idea that it is, to some extent, an organization used by Jehovah, but only up to the point of attracting truly anointed persons to go through a test. But this implies that Jehovah tests in a way that entices persons into a trap, which I think is impossible, according to James:
(James 1:12, 13) . . .on becoming approved he will receive the crown of life, which Jehovah promised to those who continue loving Him. 13 When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone.
The other (ex-elder) I know has hinted at an idea in his case that perhaps Jehovah might use him personally as a means to correct things. And he writes to the WTS regularly. I think putting oneself personally into such an equation is the most problematic part. I haven't heard anything directly from "Witness" that implies she thinks she has a personal responsibility in this regard or if she thinks it might be true of a "prophetess" named "Pearl" whom she often quotes.
I guess it would be hypocritical to condemn on this idea alone, since all of us feel a personal responsibility to copy the example of Ezekiel as a "watchman." In that example, the person who feels they need to share a scriptural warning should feel a personal responsibility to share it.
There is a person on a site who calls himself the "Watchman" (or is it e-Watchman), and I think this is their own argument about Watchtower criticisms. In any case, they all must think there is something very special about the WTS so that their energy goes against it instead of being equally shared among the problems of Mormons, Catholics, Scientologists, etc. 
There was another "Ezekiel Watchman" who regularly wrote to Fred Rusk at Bethel in the 1970's. Fred Rusk was the primary Watchtower magazine editor during those years, and although he laughed at most of the "Ezekiel Watchman" rants, he took them seriously enough to read through them before tossing them. He even shared one of the 10-page papers with me once. (We worked near each other, and he gave half of my wedding talk.)
I don't have the impression that anyone at WTS HQ reads this site. But, who knows?

You were able to get right to the point in the way you worded the question. I tried the same question once with "Witness" because I also know someone else who has all kinds of problems with various doctrines and practices of the WTS, but who also expends so much energy on those problems. He is so negative that I have come very close to asking him why he hangs in there. He believes, of course, there is something special about the Witnesses, and believes that Jehovah is still using them. He expects "something very significant" to happen soon, centered around the WTS.
This appears to be similar to the thinking of "Witness" in that she believes that true anointed persons will be attracted to the WTS, where they will be tested because Jehovah has allowed a distortion to occur within the WTS organization. So she has this idea that it is, to some extent, an organization used by Jehovah, but only up to the point of attracting truly anointed persons to go through a test. But this implies that Jehovah tests in a way that entices persons into a trap, which I think is impossible, according to James:
(James 1:12, 13) . . .on becoming approved he will receive the crown of life, which Jehovah promised to those who continue loving Him. 13 When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone.
The other (ex-elder) I know has hinted at an idea in his case that perhaps Jehovah might use him personally as a means to correct things. And he writes to the WTS regularly. I think putting oneself personally into such an equation is the most problematic part. I haven't heard anything directly from "Witness" that implies she thinks she has a personal responsibility in this regard or if she thinks it might be true of a "prophetess" named "Pearl" whom she often quotes.
I guess it would be hypocritical to condemn on this idea alone, since all of us feel a personal responsibility to copy the example of Ezekiel as a "watchman." In that example, the person who feels they need to share a scriptural warning should feel a personal responsibility to share it.
There is a person on a site who calls himself the "Watchman" (or is it e-Watchman), and I think this is their own argument about Watchtower criticisms. In any case, they all must think there is something very special about the WTS so that their energy goes against it instead of being equally shared among the problems of Mormons, Catholics, Scientologists, etc. 
There was another "Ezekiel Watchman" who regularly wrote to Fred Rusk at Bethel in the 1970's. Fred Rusk was the primary Watchtower magazine editor during those years, and although he laughed at most of the "Ezekiel Watchman" rants, he took them seriously enough to read through them before tossing them. He even shared one of the 10-page papers with me once. (We worked near each other, and he gave half of my wedding talk.)
I don't have the impression that anyone at WTS HQ reads this site. But, who knows?

You were able to get right to the point in the way you worded the question. I tried the same question once with "Witness" because I also know someone else who has all kinds of problems with various doctrines and practices of the WTS, but who also expends so much energy on those problems. He is so negative that I have come very close to asking him why he hangs in there. He believes, of course, there is something special about the Witnesses, and believes that Jehovah is still using them. He expects "something very significant" to happen soon, centered around the WTS.
This appears to be similar to the thinking of "Witness" in that she believes that true anointed persons will be attracted to the WTS, where they will be tested because Jehovah has allowed a distortion to occur within the WTS organization. So she has this idea that it is, to some extent, an organization used by Jehovah, but only up to the point of attracting truly anointed persons to go through a test. But this implies that Jehovah tests in a way that entices persons into a trap, which I think is impossible, according to James:
(James 1:12, 13) . . .on becoming approved he will receive the crown of life, which Jehovah promised to those who continue loving Him. 13 When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone.
The other (ex-elder) I know has hinted at an idea in his case that perhaps Jehovah might use him personally as a means to correct things. And he writes to the WTS regularly. I think putting oneself personally into such an equation is the most problematic part. I haven't heard anything directly from "Witness" that implies she thinks she has a personal responsibility in this regard or if she thinks it might be true of a "prophetess" named "Pearl" whom she often quotes.
I guess it would be hypocritical to condemn on this idea alone, since all of us feel a personal responsibility to copy the example of Ezekiel as a "watchman." In that example, the person who feels they need to share a scriptural warning should feel a personal responsibility to share it.
There is a person on a site who calls himself the "Watchman" (or is it e-Watchman), and I think this is their own argument about Watchtower criticisms. In any case, they all must think there is something very special about the WTS so that their energy goes against it instead of being equally shared among the problems of Mormons, Catholics, Scientologists, etc. 
There was another "Ezekiel Watchman" who regularly wrote to Fred Rusk at Bethel in the 1970's. Fred Rusk was the primary Watchtower magazine editor during those years, and although he laughed at most of the "Ezekiel Watchman" rants, he took them seriously enough to read through them before tossing them. He even shared one of the 10-page papers with me once. (We worked near each other, and he gave half of my wedding talk.)
I don't have the impression that anyone at WTS HQ reads this site. But, who knows?

Telemarketers will eat you alive in my neck of the woods. I never answer a call from an unrecognized number so am spared this sort of nonsense. They can leave messages.
It probably has interfered with my participation in phone witnessing. When someone answers the phone, I think “What! Are you crazy?!”

yes - they call you for your opinion and people do not realize it is a political poll. Thank goodness Jehovah is not as harsh as you are.  People all over act in ignorance and they want to sound as though they are fair to others.
Especially if they ask if LGBTQ can have their rights..... Most people who care for others will agree that they should have their rights.  They have the right to choose the lifestyle they want BUT it does not mean we approve of it.... as the questions above proves.
Most witnesses do not understand these new laws..... that it will be detrimental to our future. They have already passed draconian measures in Australia.   
Do not judge the JWs .... Remember the scripture where it says ....... if it is mistakes you only look at Jehovah - who can stand before you?
Mistakes are very different to deliberate sin - like choosing to back a political party or stance.

Sometimes, it's just a matter of how the question is asked. For example, take a question like this:
"Even if your religious beliefs do not condone or support homosexuality (and/or LGBTQ+), do you think that homosexual (and/or LGBTQ+) persons should be discriminated against in the areas of jobs and housing?"
Depending on the exact wording of the question, you could potentially get 100% of any religious group to "support" such a bill. Remember that they are not directly asking if you support some particular bill, per se, but asking about support of some of the measures which might be found in it. The fact that such a bill might be in the works is not necessarily even brought up. Or even if it is brought up as a proposed bill, the survey could overcome prejudice against the political party sponsoring the bill, or religious feelings by using questions like:
Would you oppose any bill that tried to remove discrimination against LGBTQ+ persons?
A Witness would not say they opposed such a bill, because they are generally neutral regarding political bills.
Also, these are not simple yes or no questions in most surveys. They are often multiple choice such as the following, where the intro to the question can produce an implied meaning [in brackets] that may not even be in the "supported" bill:
Question: This is about hiring and firing LGBTQ+ persons from jobs, or landlords being able to not rent to, or kick out LGBTQ+ persons from their buildings or homes.
So . . . . are you:
A. Highly in favor of discriminating against LGBTQ+  [i.e., immediately fire them - immediately make homeless]
B. Somewhat in favor of discriminating against them [i.e., give them some advance notice before firing them from their jobs - or putting them out on the street]
C. Somewhat in favor of not discriminating against them [i.e., allowing them to keep their jobs, apartments, homes in most cases]
D. Highly in favor of of not discriminating [i.e., allowing them to keep their jobs, apartments, homes in all cases]
 
If you interview about 1000 people, and 17 identify as JWs, then only 9 of them need to choose C, and 8 can choose A or B, and that would be the 53% (9 of 17) who supposedly "support" the bill, even if they knew nothing about the bill itself. I think all of us know Witnesses who would answer C to the question.

If you're happy with your decisions, then I hope it goes well with you and one would wish the same for anyone who is choosing their path. If any JW's feel they are on the wrong path, they will choose as they will. One thing I've learned from decades of pioneering is that I've changed very few people's minds by arguing with them, but I have changed myself from wearing myself out in the attempt. I don't do this any more. If someone wants to speak with me and has something positive to share them I'm more than willing to listen, however chasing after someone else w/whom one disagrees with is usually a toxic behavior. You may imagine the person/persons holding these ideas to be snakes w/whom you've been bitten, however chasing the snakes simply drives the poison to the heart.

Sometimes, it's just a matter of how the question is asked. For example, take a question like this:
"Even if your religious beliefs do not condone or support homosexuality (and/or LGBTQ+), do you think that homosexual (and/or LGBTQ+) persons should be discriminated against in the areas of jobs and housing?"
Depending on the exact wording of the question, you could potentially get 100% of any religious group to "support" such a bill. Remember that they are not directly asking if you support some particular bill, per se, but asking about support of some of the measures which might be found in it. The fact that such a bill might be in the works is not necessarily even brought up. Or even if it is brought up as a proposed bill, the survey could overcome prejudice against the political party sponsoring the bill, or religious feelings by using questions like:
Would you oppose any bill that tried to remove discrimination against LGBTQ+ persons?
A Witness would not say they opposed such a bill, because they are generally neutral regarding political bills.
Also, these are not simple yes or no questions in most surveys. They are often multiple choice such as the following, where the intro to the question can produce an implied meaning [in brackets] that may not even be in the "supported" bill:
Question: This is about hiring and firing LGBTQ+ persons from jobs, or landlords being able to not rent to, or kick out LGBTQ+ persons from their buildings or homes.
So . . . . are you:
A. Highly in favor of discriminating against LGBTQ+  [i.e., immediately fire them - immediately make homeless]
B. Somewhat in favor of discriminating against them [i.e., give them some advance notice before firing them from their jobs - or putting them out on the street]
C. Somewhat in favor of not discriminating against them [i.e., allowing them to keep their jobs, apartments, homes in most cases]
D. Highly in favor of of not discriminating [i.e., allowing them to keep their jobs, apartments, homes in all cases]
 
If you interview about 1000 people, and 17 identify as JWs, then only 9 of them need to choose C, and 8 can choose A or B, and that would be the 53% (9 of 17) who supposedly "support" the bill, even if they knew nothing about the bill itself. I think all of us know Witnesses who would answer C to the question.

Sometimes, it's just a matter of how the question is asked. For example, take a question like this:
"Even if your religious beliefs do not condone or support homosexuality (and/or LGBTQ+), do you think that homosexual (and/or LGBTQ+) persons should be discriminated against in the areas of jobs and housing?"
Depending on the exact wording of the question, you could potentially get 100% of any religious group to "support" such a bill. Remember that they are not directly asking if you support some particular bill, per se, but asking about support of some of the measures which might be found in it. The fact that such a bill might be in the works is not necessarily even brought up. Or even if it is brought up as a proposed bill, the survey could overcome prejudice against the political party sponsoring the bill, or religious feelings by using questions like:
Would you oppose any bill that tried to remove discrimination against LGBTQ+ persons?
A Witness would not say they opposed such a bill, because they are generally neutral regarding political bills.
Also, these are not simple yes or no questions in most surveys. They are often multiple choice such as the following, where the intro to the question can produce an implied meaning [in brackets] that may not even be in the "supported" bill:
Question: This is about hiring and firing LGBTQ+ persons from jobs, or landlords being able to not rent to, or kick out LGBTQ+ persons from their buildings or homes.
So . . . . are you:
A. Highly in favor of discriminating against LGBTQ+  [i.e., immediately fire them - immediately make homeless]
B. Somewhat in favor of discriminating against them [i.e., give them some advance notice before firing them from their jobs - or putting them out on the street]
C. Somewhat in favor of not discriminating against them [i.e., allowing them to keep their jobs, apartments, homes in most cases]
D. Highly in favor of of not discriminating [i.e., allowing them to keep their jobs, apartments, homes in all cases]
 
If you interview about 1000 people, and 17 identify as JWs, then only 9 of them need to choose C, and 8 can choose A or B, and that would be the 53% (9 of 17) who supposedly "support" the bill, even if they knew nothing about the bill itself. I think all of us know Witnesses who would answer C to the question.

Whenever I get a pang of conscience, I think; it's ok, Tom's on here! 😂🥳🤪💃

I don't think you're a bad example. I find your posts encouraging and I'm sure a lot of other people here do. I think some of the "complainers" may just be working out their own demons, or I hope they are. Jehovah knows we cause most of our problems just fine all by ourselves.

Exactly. People almost never change. In all the time I have been here, I have seen only one possibly do that, after which he participated no more. But he had other things going on as well that may have been more significant.
Just so you know, I stay here & have become one of the key players, because I fancy myself a writer. I’ve said before, but not lately, that a writer needs more than a muse. He needs a villain. Here there are villains galore. 
In most cases I’ve probed a little at first to see how the “villains” came to be as they are. I’m under no illusion of changing anyone, and what I do not do, because I think it is wrong, is discuss spiritual things with them as I would with persons in good standing with Jehovah and his earthly organization—in other words, my attempt at abiding by counsel to leave blind guides be.
It is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe some people do think I chat happily away with them.  I don’t frequent anywhere else but here. I do worry about setting a bad example.

Yes that is true, but it doesn't mean someone can't raise a question regarding something that appears not as serious as those things you mention. I think it is a fair question though since the Bible clearly condems gluttony. I merely gave my opinion. Now I have found this article in a Question from readers in the 2004 WT:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20041101/Questions-From-Readers/

None. You do realize that the Terminator reference was to Alan, though, I trust.
No. All good points.
Sometimes, probably not often enough, I write out a comment and then sit on it for awhile, even to next day. If I still feel it good to go, I let fly. Sometimes I think the remark is better canned or put elsewhere.

Well I hope you don’t get banned..I don’t see why you would..probably for the reason you have quoted above..
Yes I liked JRT...for a number of reasons of which I won’t go into here...but yes I also winced as some of his phrases.... but I got him...
As to abusive  language..well I tend to be surrounded by it normally...so what you and some others here class as abusive probably wouldn’t bother me too much..
personally if I’m honest I dont really know who’s who..or who’s what..here...
But I would object strongly if you were banned...

Alas, this fine thread has devolved into a cat fight. But I’ll bring it back on topic, thus redeeming myself in CC’s eyes. I’m not entirely sure how I fell from his good graces.
This is pretty much the standard in the land in which they live. They by no means are out of place. I think one reason no one gets too serious about clamping down on “fatties” is that the causes are difficult to quantify. 
I have known people to eat like hogs. It’s no surprise when they get fat. But I’ve also known people to eat sparingly and still put on weight. Moreover, cutting food does not necessarily make them lose weight. You would think it would but it doesn’t.
There is an acronym of SAD, “Standard American Diet,” which is sad in that it virtually assures packing on the pounds. Look at any TV show of 50+ years ago and note how rail thin the backdrop characters are as opposed to today. The processed foods, meat and potatoes, high carb, high sugar diet is conducive to overweight even without overeating, even with moderate exercise. Add a sedentary lifestyle, which comes with the job for some of these guys, and the waistlines start to swell. 
Alas, there is chicanery in the food industry. Fast food will make you bigger than a house. But even regular sold food will point one that way... Google and you can find how that campaign to go low-fat was actually started by the sugar industry in order to deflect damage from their own offerings onto someone else and sell more stuff. Starchy, sugary food is very addicting yet is not on the list of what anyone would call gluttonous. Everything is high sugar, even things you would not suspect, such as ketchup.
I think some weight campaigners cease being such when they reach a certain age and find that, even though they eat no more, even though they were once thin, they start to pack on the pounds with the same diet as before. 
 

What do you mean they never even mentioned page 9, you idiot? It was studied paragraph by paragraph.
See how @xerosays he has been comparing many different sources for Revelation interpretations? Ask him if he has found one with the preface: “This is probably a load of manure, but I’m putting it out there anyway. I have nothing else to do with my time.”

Sometimes what people call twisting words, is simply a clarification.
So you agree that it's absolutely wrong for people to go to a church/kingdom hall/synagogue/mosque to worship. Instead they should go it alone?
What about the scripture which says "He that is isolating himself seeks his own selfish longing..."?
What about not forsaking the gathering together as some have the custom?
It would seem that you're encouraging both.
If you don't want that, you should at least start a meetup group to consider your spiritual interests with others on a regular basis.

Brilliant advice!

It has become the thing. I would love to see a national breakdown of it. Is it evenly spread among all of Jehovah’s people or is it focused in a few nations of similar attributes.? I’d bet a fairly large sum that it is the latter.
Though i would not bet in the presence of “cowboy” elders. We all know some of them have existed, and in their wake there is a certain amount of damage? What if you knew another in that same congregation?
 
In fact I am. When you have a gift, you bring it to the altar. You don’t diss everyone else for not having it. You see if (hopefully) they may have another gift.
This is all starting to come together. The music is rising to heart-bending finale.
I have not noticed this with my mutt but I am keeping a close eye on him. He is known to do anything he can to get extra treats. You should see how it wolfs down peanut butter on carrot.

Every man and his dog on line now claims to be anointed....it’s hard to take any of them serious...why on earth would he or any one be jealous of them??...I’ve had my differences with JWI here..but I will stand up for him..on this..I think he’s  got a lot more guts and backbone ..than you give him credit.

I think you would have removed several of the apostles from this designation if you had lived in the first century. When Jesus failed to perform any significant miracles in his hometown (Mark 6:5) I can just see you saying: "Well, it's not him, we still have to wait for a True Anointed. Maybe in 5 to 10 years."

I think you would have removed several of the apostles from this designation if you had lived in the first century. When Jesus failed to perform any significant miracles in his hometown (Mark 6:5) I can just see you saying: "Well, it's not him, we still have to wait for a True Anointed. Maybe in 5 to 10 years."

I think you would have removed several of the apostles from this designation if you had lived in the first century. When Jesus failed to perform any significant miracles in his hometown (Mark 6:5) I can just see you saying: "Well, it's not him, we still have to wait for a True Anointed. Maybe in 5 to 10 years."

I think you would have removed several of the apostles from this designation if you had lived in the first century. When Jesus failed to perform any significant miracles in his hometown (Mark 6:5) I can just see you saying: "Well, it's not him, we still have to wait for a True Anointed. Maybe in 5 to 10 years."