JW Insider

You have several recent posts here that would fit right in to the recent topic that Anna started in the closed club. 4J laughs at it, to be sure, but he holds a perspective that reflects his admitted lack of trust for just about anyone and anything. But, I just wanted to say that I suspect you are giving this whole idea a lot of very good and deep thought. Not that I'm the best judge of such things, but it's a matured perspective, too, I'm thinking. I hope you are planning to put it together into a very accessible format to refer to again (like a book/blog/etc). And I should add that I'm glad it's out here in the open for a little more public scrutiny.
I have personally avoided Evan's videos and site(s). But I paid attention for a bit when The Atlantic published something that appears to have come from someone associated with him. There were issues with bias in the article, and outright mistakes of fact. I think this was actually not Evans himself, but it reflected a lot of "bald" hatred of elders and the whole arrangement that supplies them. Like you say, it's as they've tasted something that the rest of us see as good, and they see it all as bad. I lose interest quickly when thinking becomes so black and white that they focus ONLY on the extremes and don't even think about what is generally going on.
Like going to a huge banquet/picnic where hundreds of items of great food are available to choose from, but because someone brought some tainted potato salad, they go around screaming that everything has been poisoned.

I'm not sure what you meant was so special about "since at least 1950" and the remark about "when the Watchtower was in full control." But there were a couple times between 1976 and 1982 when all the various Branch Overseers were flown in to Bethel, for several weeks at a time, and there were special times set aside when many of the Branch Overseers would give talks and give experiences. Some of the local NYC congregations also gave up their Sunday talk, and sometimes a "Book Study" meeting to replace it with talks and experiences from them. Some added a Saturday night meeting. I must have heard at least 40 different Branch speakers, and I even invited a couple of them to a congregation in Queens and once accompanied an overseer and his wife to a meal there. Most of them reminded me of "District Overseers" who had worked their way up from Gilead missionaries to "elders" to "Circuit Overseers." I got a good impression of their humility and love for the brothers in their various countries. I was very impressed with the fact that, even though they were all white American/European, they were clearly involved so closely with the brothers and sisters in their various assignments that they saw themselves not as paternalistic, patronizing "leaders," but humble servants.
But I also never got the impression that any one of them would ever have questioned a doctrine coming from headquarters. I doubt that any would have ever recommended a change to a doctrine. Doctrines were never part of their talks except to highlight how loyal the local brothers always were to any articles about neutrality, etc.
4Jah2me has just reminded us of the mistake Rutherford made about "superior authorities" which was not corrected back to Russell's view until the 1960's. And it made me think that hundreds of brothers, like branch overseers, district overseers, circuit overseers, and elders (whether anointed or not) could easily have known that the teaching was wrong. It seems impossible that any Witness anywhere could read the Bible and not see that this was a mistake. But none of these persons, evidently, had the idea that it would be OK to mention the need to correct this doctrine.

By the way, that first came to my attention from Anna. She supplied the exerpt

I almost wish Bro Jackson would have interjected at this point, “I wish you wouldn’t leave it aside, for it would solve the problem.” It would have looked good in the record. Our best lines invariably occur to us too late. (but maybe it would have got their backs up even more than what did happen)
I kind of like the writing, and the book overall, but it certainly could use a good editing which it will probably never receive, for reasons of time and self-discipline. Even if the book was terrible, I would still think it good because there is nothing else like it. Baran (a non-JW) wrote the book on JW persecution from WWII to her date of publication—2007, I think. Dear Mr. Putin takes it from that point up to the present. There is nothing else exclusive to JWs. 
Much of Part 2 (a defense against the unspoken reasons for persecution in Russia) is in the form of posts first made here and stitched together. Alas, the stitching often shows. I should hoe out about 30-50% from all those chapters. The book is too undisciplined. CSA never once arose as an accusation there, which I pointed out, but I was on a roll and so I stated that it was part of the overall picture, if not there specifically.
The CSA stuff is even more a part of TrueTom vs the Apostates—it may form a good quarter of Part 1 (Part 2 consisted of post from my archives, written years ago, but relevant to opposers in one way or another)—too much, really, but I was just driven by accusations of the day, and that one was (as is) huge. If there is a TrueTom vs the Apostate-Part 2, I won’t make the mistake again.
Is there too much pedo stuff in Dear Mr Putin? Well—maybe. Even I have to concede that I threw in everything but the kitchen sink. But with the opposers pushing for all they are worth their version of things and achieving some success in that regard—say what you will about opposers, they are not lazy—I thought I’d take all their charges and then some and spin them my way—my way is the actual way, I think. 
The speaker last Sunday—a very respected and experienced older man who has long filled in for the CO when needed, made that point about how we want to watch what we put into our minds because it affects us physically—it’s good to take in what calms us,  It’s the same as another recently quoted the verse ‘whatever things are true, of serious concern, righteous, chaste, lovable, well-spoken-of, virtuous, praiseworthy, continue considering these things.’ Doubtless, that is a large unpinning to present counsel not to go there—grumblers always want to drag you in to the morass—don’t let them. 
In any topic of consequence, there will be disagreeable aspects that can be focused on. Focusing on them for reasons of countering argument does help you to kick back at the scoundrels, but it’s not particularly soothing to your own psyche as you do so. Maybe I’ve done it too much. It’s hard to know the balance. There is always something sordid somewhere, and people love to dive into it, supposing that they will supply the true analysis. I have a strong instinct to come to the defense of what is under attack, and I like to spin it as a virtuous strength, but it may be just a habit I picked up because, as a teen, I constantly had to defend my Dad’s choice of automobiles—AMC products—a sure source of ridicule from fellow teens.

I was pretty sure you had already broken into the Watchtower HQ and added the last sentence to a paragraph in a very recent Watchtower we just studied: (November 2019)
*** w19 November p. 17 par. 13 Are You Maintaining Your “Large Shield of Faith”? ***
13 Imagine the scene. A group of soldiers spend the morning training with their swords, but one of their company is missing. That soldier is in town setting up a food shop. In the evening, the soldiers spend time inspecting their armor and sharpening their swords. But the one who owns the shop spends his time preparing food to sell the next day. The next morning, however, an enemy launches a surprise attack. Which soldier is more likely to act appropriately and earn the approval of his commanding officer? And whom would you want standing beside you—a soldier who focused on being prepared or the one who was distracted?

Sorry, but the answer is yes, I have seen most Watchtower leaders practicing love among one another, especially to the flock, and also practicing love to those we might otherwise consider our enemies when it comes to a preaching, and giving of our time to take a message of hope to them.
The kinds of elders or leaders who end up being involved in disfellowshipping those who disagree with doctrine are only working on one part of what they consider to be a Christian duty. I agree that it might show a lack of love with some, but only in that one activity, and not because most of them realize the lack of love. To most it's just a painful job that someone has to do. I know for a fact that elders sometimes cry during and after a judicial meeting. They imagine they are doing an act of sacred service.
(John 16:2) . . .Men will expel YOU from the synagogue. In fact, the hour is coming when everyone that kills YOU will imagine he has rendered a sacred service to God.
But sometimes we must forgive them, for they know not what they do. And other times, perhaps most of the time, they are doing the right thing. They ARE performing an act of sacred service. There is a scriptural basis for different versions of this practice.

Allen (and divergenceKO): JW Insider is not an owner of this forum. I have absolutely nothing to do with the site or the owners here. You are as just as much an owner here as I am. I have no way of knowing for sure that you are not the admin, or The Librarian, or Jack or Witness or JTR.
Of course, you leave no evidence that you are any of those persons I just named but you do leave a lot of  evidence that identifies you as the same person I first encountered on this site when you called yourself Allen Smith, not that I really thought that was your real name either, of course.
But none of that matters. I just wanted you to know that your assumption was wrong.
But you are right that the forum is often not good. I won't participate on Jehovahs-Witness.com because I see too many ridiculers when a serious Bible topic is brought up. I don't claim that my own discussions here are always the right way to go about creating discussions either. I've made several mistakes, and much of what I say, upon review, is stated as if it is more than speculation and opinion. But I can promise you again that, when it comes to Bible topics, whether it sounds right or wrong, strong or weak,  fact or opinion, whether it agrees with the Watchtower or disagrees -- it is still basically just opinion. That's why I'm here: to share opinions. I hope that doesn't confuse anyone.

I love pizza!
Isn’t that what the old hen used to say when she wanted us to stay on topic? Glad she’s on my side.

Thanks for this reminder @Arauna
When I mentioned early in this topic that @Anna had brought up a couple of points/questions that I hadn't really been able to consider fully, this was one of them. It's easy to see what C.T.Russell was thinking when he said that wars, earthquakes and famine and pestilence, etc., were NOT part of the sign, because as he said, Jesus was here just telling us the common experience of mankind for the last 18 centuries.
But it is obvious that the fig tree appears to refer to some kind of sign that people can see is in advance of a season. This appears to counter the idea of Jesus and Paul that the times and seasons are none of our concern, not even the angels, but only the Father.
The current doctrine may have several apparent contradictions with scripture, but I don't want to just jump over to another interpretation that also has contradictions.

Jesus changed everything.  The law was a ' tutor' to christ.   So now we must love our neighbours as he did.  He gave his life for his friends  - we must be able to do the same. 
If I love you in this way and you love me in this way, the world will be a wonderful place. However, most people are not prepared to give up their own ego and their own selfish goals to serve Christ properly -  let alone give their life for someone else. 
If you are prepared to give your life it actually means you value their life  as your own..... giving more than what is expected. 
James 4: 1 "What is the source of the wars and fights among you? Do they not originate from your fleshly desires that carry on a conflict within you"

g=Awake! (g refers to fact that Awake! started out as the Golden Age)
93 is the Year, then 4/8 means month and day. (Awake! in those days came out on the 8th and 22nd of every month)
So it's the April 8, 1993 Awake! magazine, page 31.
w=Watchtower, which works the same way, except that the Watchtower, until very recently, came out on the 1st and 15th of every month.
lv=Keep Yourself In God's Love, a publication that was released in 2014.
You can find the full list on the Watchtower Library "CD" which can be downloaded from jw.org.

It is odd, but not at all inappropriate, and certainly not illegal to yell " CINEMA !! "... in a crowded Fire Station..

I don’t have the book. I could get it, but I haven’t. I once served as an elder, but that was 20 years ago. I know precious few in Bethel and I keep up with nobody there.
An advantage to all this is that I can come across as a regular person. Another reason that I have been slow to leave the open forum for the closed one—and would not if there was more of a range of personalities here—is that I don’t like to be just singing to the choir. I like the challenge of discussing mature Witness topics, such as submission to authority, before people who find the notion very strange because it does not reflect the way the world is today.
Many Witnesses are not much good at speaking with non-Witnesses without going into ‘preaching mode.’ I even had someone shush me upon spotting the RING internet doorbell. “What! Do you think I’m telling dirty jokes here?” I said. “I hope he does hear me talking about regular things because then he will know that I am a regular person.”
I will say, however—and this is only for 4Jah’s consumption—that after I served as a congregation elder I was whisked away to Bethel where I am now such a high-up secretive honcho that even the Bethelites you see on TV do not know me. They sense my presence, of course, at times the force is quite strong, but they can’t quite identify me in my deep state top assignment.
You’ve got it all wrong, CC. I am his father and if he ever successfully completes the assignments I’ve given him—I never saw a pupil drag his feet the way he does!—we will rule together
 

So far, very little has gone on in that club. There were a few discussions of what people liked or didn't like about recent and/or upcoming Watchtower studies. It was probably considered better to discuss such things without every topic being turned into: "Yes that's true but you also have a CSA problem." You might not believe it, but we had a guy here once who could take any topic, even one about how you might pronounce YHWH, and would still find a way to weave in a dig about CSA.

I am fully agree how only this 7 emoji can't present our reactions on something :))

The admin should come up with a new emoji/response that means you have said some very interesting thought-provoking things, and some of them are obviously right, but that there's enough I disagree with that I don't want to give it a full up-vote.

Human life is made of, at least, two aspects (this is limited view, of course): What we want to do and what we doing. 
About producing: spiritual food  (fruit). If Jesus is Source of truthful spiritual food  that is made, presented and spread TODAY through humans as tools, as agents, as means of transmission, then it would be normal to believe how such "fruit" is (have to be) without blame.
About producing: physical and verbal deeds (fruit). If People are imperfect free will individuals who can't do nothing without errors, than we need to give and ask for forgiveness. 
But because nothing is Black and White and nothing about Organized Religion is clear, we shall never have (i am sort of pesimist) nothing that is flawless. 

The admin should come up with a new emoji/response that means you have said some very interesting thought-provoking things, and some of them are obviously right, but that there's enough I disagree with that I don't want to give it a full up-vote.

Jesus is that source of truth, and does not produce bad fruit. We as humans must try to imitate Jesus and follow to the best of our ability. But even a piece of good fruit has flaws when you look at it too closely.
You appear to be interpreting this statement as if it is saying:
(Matthew 5:48) . . .You must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
But this is mitigated by another statement from the same Sermon on the Mount:
(Matthew 6:14-15) . . 14 “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; 15 whereas if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
If everyone must be perfect, and can never produce bad fruit, then what's the point of asking for forgiveness of our trespasses?

You have several recent posts here that would fit right in to the recent topic that Anna started in the closed club. 4J laughs at it, to be sure, but he holds a perspective that reflects his admitted lack of trust for just about anyone and anything. But, I just wanted to say that I suspect you are giving this whole idea a lot of very good and deep thought. Not that I'm the best judge of such things, but it's a matured perspective, too, I'm thinking. I hope you are planning to put it together into a very accessible format to refer to again (like a book/blog/etc). And I should add that I'm glad it's out here in the open for a little more public scrutiny.
I have personally avoided Evan's videos and site(s). But I paid attention for a bit when The Atlantic published something that appears to have come from someone associated with him. There were issues with bias in the article, and outright mistakes of fact. I think this was actually not Evans himself, but it reflected a lot of "bald" hatred of elders and the whole arrangement that supplies them. Like you say, it's as they've tasted something that the rest of us see as good, and they see it all as bad. I lose interest quickly when thinking becomes so black and white that they focus ONLY on the extremes and don't even think about what is generally going on.
Like going to a huge banquet/picnic where hundreds of items of great food are available to choose from, but because someone brought some tainted potato salad, they go around screaming that everything has been poisoned.

The one area where detractors have some validity is in saying that the children of JWs do not make the same choice as did their parents. The parents searched, sometimes for decades. They weighed both paths carefully before choosing the pathway of serving God over the pathway of pursuing the common goals of the world. Their children have never made this search—they were ‘born into the truth’—something we portray as a great asset, and yet something that contains the same drawbacks as being born into wealth. We probably are naive to think that ‘born into the truth’ does not make one vulnerable in some respects. 
The first generation makes the wealth and is thereafter grounded in life. The second generation inherits it, and deprived of that values-forming experience, becomes insufferable, unappreciative, profligate, isolated from the common people—some combination of the foregoing. It doesn’t have to work that way, but it does enough times for the pattern to become a stereotype. 
What’s a wealthy person to do? Cast his son out to live in the refrigerator box until he earns his own wealth? Obviously not. Better to be born into wealth than into poverty. Better to be born into a spiritual paradise than into a spiritual dessert. But the wealthy parent that has any sense makes his son experience what he did himself to the degree possible—makes the kid start on the factory floor as a regular worker, for example—makes the kid earn privileges, doesn’t just hand him things—makes him work his way into his inheritance. 
The Witness parent who simply expects the offspring to ‘make the truth your own’ without allowing him a glimpse into the other side—well, couldn’t that be likened to the wealthy parent who expects his offspring to ‘make the family wealth your own’ without allowing the character-building and adversity-overcoming experiences that formed he himself?
It is a matter of degree as to how that is done—I would not suggest that nobody is doing it—and each family must find its own. Since the beginning of time, parents have endeavored to bring their children up in principles they have convinced themselves are true. Since the Industrial Age at least, general society has tried to pull those children away into its own paths. There certainly is no educational reason that children should be schooled away from their parents at ages as young as 4. It is for societal reasons that compulsory public schooling began. Children ought be separated from the pernicious influence and prejudices of their parents, the thinking went, to make them more compliant to the greater aims of whatever times they live in.
So Witnesses are going to train their children in godly principles—that is only to be expected. It is not the case that if you leave children untrained, they will grow up free, unencumbered, and when of age, with choose their own values from the rich cornucopia of life’s offerings. No. All it means is that someone else will train them. The anti-JW activists are only bellyaching because they want to be the trainers—they do not raise the same protest with regard to the children of anyone else.
 

I don’t follow him as a matter of routine—once in a while I peek—because if I do so I am tempted to respond and if I do that he is nothing but taunting and contemptuous. It is not as though I cannot hold my own & make even inroads but there is hardly any point to it. It is a been there/done that. Besides, I told the elders that I will not do that anymore (not regarding him specifically) and if they ask me again I don’t want to be tempted to lie. Should I cave a time or two, I will readily forgive myself—not to worry on that score—but I would rather not cave by putting the temptation before myself constantly. “Some people just needs ‘Killeen ’” says JTR, but that doesn’t mean you ought be the one to do it. It has a way of sucking out large chunks of time that can better be used elsewhere. There are a few here that I have come to put in the same category as Evans and at most hastily skim their remarks because if I do more than that I am tempted to respond—with the same drawbacks as with he.
Today detractors charge what they do before a worldwide audience—the very people whom we are trying to reach, and they at least can be expected to mull it over because there is nothing to counter it. Granted, there are so many other horrific things to monitor in the world that it is hard for anti-JW activists to put their ‘good news’ on the front burner, but it would be silly to say that it has no effect. It wouldn’t take much to counter it. Even a talk parallel to what Bro Losch just gave at the annual meeting regarding dates that failed to come true might do the trick. Once a matter is spoken or written about once, you can keep referring back to it. 

The idea is not to silence opposers, for that cannot be done. The idea is to give some who may be swayed by them, even some of our own, something to offset their charges. The organization may choose to do that someday. Or maybe not—time will tell. It certainly is not the ‘whatever is righteous, whatever is chaste, true, lovable,’ etc where we like to remain, so that is good reason to avoid it. But there may be some who feel some sort of defense would come in handy.
Opposers will always have limits to their efforts because they have nothing to replace what they would take away, and most people became Witnesses in the first place because they felt exploring the world that is yourself only goes so far as a philosophy of life.  Still, I have seen people gleefully saw off the branch on which they are sitting and laugh with victory as they crashed to the ground, like the Dr. Strangelove cowboy who rides the nuke down to destruction, whooping and waving his hat as he drops, so some generalized pushback might be in order to prevent that whenever possible. Is Lloyd doing what you say, trying to paint Kingdom Halls as dangerous places and JWs as dangerous pedophiles? Good. Nasty people usually overplay their hand and in so doing torpedo their own case—never before their followers, of course, but before anyone of sense, it happens.
I’m not suggesting anyone get into a play-by-play scenario with the ‘good news‘ of those who oppose. I was struck by how, after the first Montana verdict, there were persons who wanted to rub my nose line by line into that first verdict so as to point out how the courts ruled JWs violated law! and then after reversal of that verdict, they said, ‘well, what do you expect? Witnesses follow the law—it’s the law that is not written right.’ People like to follow play-by-play in ongoing court trials these days to the extent that I almost say, ‘Well, send the jury home, then—they don’t want to be there anyway. Put it all on social media and decide the matter by ‘likes’. I never weigh in on developing matters—it is nothing more that common sense modesty to realize that since you can see but 1% of what the judge or jury sees, it is a fool’s mission to go there.
I’m not speaking of anything detailed as a defense, because details will not be constant from one situation to another. They represent non-repeatable human idiosyncrasies, and I have no problem accepting that people can do and say wrong and dumb things. No. Just something like the generalized facts I outlined in the post, so that if anyone wants to research our stand on matters, they will have more to research than a statement that we “abhor child sexual abuse.”
I am usually shouted down when I bring up Anna’s example—the kumbaya site practically chased me out with pitchforks (though not everyone)—but her example strikes me as a very sensible one—to familiarize herself with “apostate” ideas, so that, in the event her teenage son stumbles across them one fine day and is stumbled, she is able to help him. It is only icing on the cake that the kid is now an adult, has apparently never wobbled, and wonders why is mom is blowing so much time with those crazies on the internet. If there were a few resident experts at each Kingdom Hall, people who knew how to keep tabs on what is bad and knew that doIng so you does not require you to watch every Jerry Springer episode on the topic, and you don’t want to because if you immerse yourself in what is sordid in any subject it affects your well-being—you know, balanced people—that it would be a good thing, not a bad thing, because then you might be able to help ones stumbled.. 
You don’t want to encourage people to go there, just like you don’t want to encourage people to go anywhere that toxic people hang out. These days, pop psychologists win approval by telling you do dump friends and even family members who are “toxic” in favor or those who are not. But to all but forbid people to go produces a strange effect of fleeing from the apostate as one would flee from the bogeyman. You have scenarios like that played out in the drama where the Russian brother inquires of his old friend only to hear that the old friend succumbed to reading literature critical of the organization and is no longer serving Jehovah—as though that’s all it takes to derail decades of service to God—read a few brochures and you are toast. It’s ridiculous. Better to say, in my view, ‘go there if you must and be on the lookout for the unforgiving slave, for Demas, for the ones who went out because they are not of our sort, for the one fixated on the straws in others’ eyes, for the slave that buried the talent because his master was harsh, effectively saying ‘You want disciples? Go out and make them yourself! I’ve got things to do!”  Any drama is better, easier to follow, and easier to appreciate, when there are bad guys in the plot.
But won’t some go there and decide the ‘bad guys’ are actually the good guys? Probably. But I suspect no more than when we counsel so strongly not to even glance in a certain direction, and by so doing we appear exactly like a cult to people brought up in its modern definition. Drop down a notch to ‘investigate with caution if you must’ and the perception disappears. Amber Scorah has “her eyes opened” only when she goes into missionary work in China and begins correspondence with an “apostate” for whom it appears that she later dumped her husband In order to run off with? She should have had “her eyes opened” a long time ago, and if she had, that ridiculous phrase would have disappeared from the vocabulary by now. She herself would not be saying that she had her eyes opened—she would be saying that she went off because, like Demas, she prefers the world that JWs have fled—that JWs allowed her to see both plainly, and she chose the pathway that they did not.
The reason that this change of tactics will happen only by small degrees, if it happens at all, is due to what the scriptures say about those taking the lead. They are like the loyal shepherd who sees the wolf climbing the fence and holds the sheep out of harm’s way. They are like the farmer who knows that when you look behind, your plowing goes awry and the rows get all funny. They are like the strategist who says that they will slam you no matter what you do, so ignore them and press the pedal to the metal. They are like the doctor who says to keep away from what will raise your blood pressure and knot your stomach in favor of what is soothing to the soul. They are like the pop psychologist who says you should dump those toxic relationships. They are like the nursing mother who treats the flock tenderly and with protectiveness. They are not like the mom who says, “Alright, lean on that hot stove—see if I care! HA! Burned yourself, ya little snot? That’ll teach ya!” And they certainly are not like the brainwasher who says don’t go there, —‘all the better for me to manipulate you, my dear, hehehe:))))))’ even though that is the only way opposers, and to an increasing respect, the overall world sees it. Why play into their hands? Why go out of our way to prove Jesus’ words that the sons of this system know which way the secular wind blows but the sons of the light wouldn’t even know how to tie the laces of a secular shoe if you gave them one?
 
 

Evidently, so does the US State Department, and CIA entities. Some of the best foreign news sources have their accounts banned due to disagreements with US policies or exposure of falsehoods.

Modern society seems so quick to want to muzzle people. 
Black and White
Label and Kill
No discourse. No dissention.
No tolerance of different ideologies.
The modern large corporations use AI to automatically block people. 
It seems to me society allowed crazy people to lie in 1980. Society dealt with it. 
Nowadays people are "shadow banned" and even doxxed online by evil netizen mobs.
Scary....
 
I started off believing in "Free Speech"..... still do.... I have learned though that you cannot be allowed to yell "fire!" in cinema.
There is a line.... it just seems like the world has moved that line way too close to embracing "Big Brother" mentality.