JW Insider

Yes, customs are quite different in different countries.
In Ireland weddings and funerals are usually accompanied by 5 days of very heavy drinking Irish whiskey.
The difference between an Irish Wedding, and an Irish Funeral is ....
(wait for it ...)
.... one less drunk.

When I was visited by two elders because of my association with an adult child who no longer was professing to be a Witness and whose life choices meant she would have been disfellowshipped if only they could contact her, I asked, "When I am old and need help will you be over here taking care of me?  Because I know my daughter will."
The subject was never brought up again.  And I'm still in good standing, but then my congregation elders have never been hardliners. 
 

I think you are saying that the Watchtower's research here is already beyond impressive. I agree that on this topic the Watchtower's research is especially impressive. We have excellent explanations for the reasons the NWT contains God's Name so many times, and numerous examples and manuscript facsimiles to help us understand the LXX examples which have informed the decisions made for adding "Jehovah" to the Greek Scriptures. I think you are also saying that we shouldn't think of a single scholar's work as impressive, or at least we shouldn't think of Gertoux's work as impressive. This is just a statement, however, unless you are ready to counter the lines of evidence used or his conclusions. But again, I hope that this topic does not turn into a debate about whether a particular person or his research is "impressive." I hope that we can look at the evidence itself without reference to what we think of the people behind it. It will always happen to some extent but let's deal with evidence, not with general statements that supposedly allow us to be dismissive of someone's work.
Yes, I agree that this isn't impressive either, just as you imply since it's not so different than just another form of Yahweh, which is already known and accepted. Of course, I'd also like to see a link evidencing this "new interpretation" by the Pope.
Absolutely.
I didn't see any examples or evidence that they have done a poor job, or not. I hope to avoid empty claims. I might offer some of these myself because we all bring our opinions to the table. I hope someone will point out the places where I do the same. There will be times when some of us can agree with each other that something appears to be true by consensus or "common sense" and we can move on without going to the trouble of finding evidence to back up our opinions. But when it comes to merely denigrating the qualifications of a person or group, I hope we can back up such claims with evidence if asked.
The work of Wilkinson seems like it's another useful resource which I would be willing to discuss as "another place to start" for exactly the same reasons that I thought Gertoux's work would be a good "place to start." I hope you will feel free to explain what you think he brings to the table that might be useful.

I have downloaded several that I never read. His papers on specific Bible-related chronology issues are interesting but I haven't completed them, and he keeps more papers coming.
A quick word on my own personal bias here. As I told the author: "I am very much aligned with your work on the topic. Naturally there are a few specific things I question, even if I end up with an overall conclusion that is generally like yours."
I think that when I bring up questions, just as I have on several issues coming from the WTS or GB, there are always a few persons who believe this is highly disrespectful, and they make it clear that to question the GB is tantamount to questioning God. Of course, I not only consider it our Christian obligation to question, it also serves the purpose of refining. Even the questioning by various sects helped refine Christian truth according to Paul.
(1 Corinthians 11:19) For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. This fits the idea in Greek that testing is the same as refining.
(1 Peter 1:7) 7 in order that the tested quality of your faith, of much greater value than gold that perishes despite its being tested by fire,. . . The NWT in the footnote here says that "tested" could be translated as "refined."
So I propose we should put any argument through the fire. It's not a sign of disrespect for the author. (Abraham didn't think it was such a bad thing to question God!) It can mean just the opposite, that we are treating someone's words the way we would treat nuggets of newly found gold . . . to refine them and make sure that what holds up is pure. Mostly, however, I think we should question and test and put all ideas through the fire so that we can have a better understanding ourselves, and thus be better prepared to defend what we believe. (1 Peter 3:15)

I am quoting here from that long sentence that begins the essay found here: http://areopage.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Gertoux_UseNameEarlyChristians.pdf (which contains copyrighted material).
Gertoux packs a lot into this sentence, and this is just the first part of it. To begin, Matthew 15:3 says:
In reply he said to them: “Why do you overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition? And then Jesus goes on to say in verses 9-11:
9 It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’” 10 With that he called the crowd near and said to them: “Listen and get the sense of it: 11 It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.” The natural instinct is to think that since Jesus had just given an example of what the hypocrites do to dishonor their mother and father, that this applies even more so when we think of ways in which we can honor our heavenly Father. And one of those ways would be to call him by his personal name in the way that the Hebrew nation had done for  1,000 years, since Moses around 1500 BCE, or even since Abraham, more than 500 years before that!
But, for the sake of argument, we might also want to put ourselves in the shoes of the Jewish nation and try to figure out why this idea of not pronouncing God's name ever caught on so widely in the first place. There is very good information in the Insight book on this topic under "Jehovah" but it admits that we don't know the reason for sure.
*** it-2 p. 5 Jehovah ***
When did the superstition take hold? Just as the reason or reasons originally advanced for discontinuing the use of the divine name are uncertain, so, too, there is much uncertainty as to when this superstitious view really took hold.

I take it from your "HaHa" and "Confused" icon responses @alvi languore insanabili to some of the posts in this thread that you don't think Gertoux's research is much worth considering. That's fine, of course. But I was hoping that we could avoid making claims about anyone's research in this particular thread without some form of reference or consensus based on some evidence. I don't know anything in particular about whether it conforms to peer review, but Gerard Gertoux (by email) had mentioned that a reading committee for University Press of America had already evaluated the full version of his book:  https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780761822042
As you know the Watchtower has often made claims that do not conform to critical peer review, and most often, we just give them the benefit of the doubt (myself included). The exceptions for me are usually only in the areas where the Watchtower itself has no longer agreed with the Watchtower, and has therefore made many updates and changes for those many times when things don't make as much sense for them any more.
True. From the beginning the NWT committee has consistently held that "Yahweh" is preferable from a scholarly standpoint, but "Jehovah" is preferable for a modern-language, recognizable equivalent. But there are a couple different lines of evidence that something like J Eh-'Ow-'Uah is another possibility. I think that Gertoux picks up on this possibility as a way to show that the WTS may have made an even BETTER choice than they may have understood at first. And I also think that there are several pieces of evidence that he picks up on that we can learn from.
For what it's worth. I'm very happy with the choice of Jehovah, and of course it doesn't bother me at all to see Yahweh or a near equivalent like Jahve (NJT) in a translation. None of them seem as natural in an English translation, but that's probably just what I'm used to.
Also, not that it matters what I think, but I think the WTS and the NWT committee has done the right thing in adding a YHWH equivalent (Jehovah, for example) back into the Greek text where it was a quote from the OT, because this is obviously a place where even "Lord" had been used as an equivalent for "YHWH." I don't agree with some of the places where it was added, if those places were not quotations, although a footnote could explain some reasonable exceptions.

I am quoting here from that long sentence that begins the essay found here: http://areopage.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Gertoux_UseNameEarlyChristians.pdf (which contains copyrighted material).
Gertoux packs a lot into this sentence, and this is just the first part of it. To begin, Matthew 15:3 says:
In reply he said to them: “Why do you overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition? And then Jesus goes on to say in verses 9-11:
9 It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’” 10 With that he called the crowd near and said to them: “Listen and get the sense of it: 11 It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.” The natural instinct is to think that since Jesus had just given an example of what the hypocrites do to dishonor their mother and father, that this applies even more so when we think of ways in which we can honor our heavenly Father. And one of those ways would be to call him by his personal name in the way that the Hebrew nation had done for  1,000 years, since Moses around 1500 BCE, or even since Abraham, more than 500 years before that!
But, for the sake of argument, we might also want to put ourselves in the shoes of the Jewish nation and try to figure out why this idea of not pronouncing God's name ever caught on so widely in the first place. There is very good information in the Insight book on this topic under "Jehovah" but it admits that we don't know the reason for sure.
*** it-2 p. 5 Jehovah ***
When did the superstition take hold? Just as the reason or reasons originally advanced for discontinuing the use of the divine name are uncertain, so, too, there is much uncertainty as to when this superstitious view really took hold.

I have downloaded several that I never read. His papers on specific Bible-related chronology issues are interesting but I haven't completed them, and he keeps more papers coming.
A quick word on my own personal bias here. As I told the author: "I am very much aligned with your work on the topic. Naturally there are a few specific things I question, even if I end up with an overall conclusion that is generally like yours."
I think that when I bring up questions, just as I have on several issues coming from the WTS or GB, there are always a few persons who believe this is highly disrespectful, and they make it clear that to question the GB is tantamount to questioning God. Of course, I not only consider it our Christian obligation to question, it also serves the purpose of refining. Even the questioning by various sects helped refine Christian truth according to Paul.
(1 Corinthians 11:19) For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. This fits the idea in Greek that testing is the same as refining.
(1 Peter 1:7) 7 in order that the tested quality of your faith, of much greater value than gold that perishes despite its being tested by fire,. . . The NWT in the footnote here says that "tested" could be translated as "refined."
So I propose we should put any argument through the fire. It's not a sign of disrespect for the author. (Abraham didn't think it was such a bad thing to question God!) It can mean just the opposite, that we are treating someone's words the way we would treat nuggets of newly found gold . . . to refine them and make sure that what holds up is pure. Mostly, however, I think we should question and test and put all ideas through the fire so that we can have a better understanding ourselves, and thus be better prepared to defend what we believe. (1 Peter 3:15)

Just to get the discussion going, I'll quote only one sentences from the areopage.net site and the entire initial "abstract" paragraph from the academia.edu site. The first quote is a response a question about whether Jesus pronounced the divine name:
In the first place, as he strongly denounced human traditions which annulled divine dictates (Mt 15:3), it seems unlikely that he complied with this unbiblical custom of not pronouncing the Name, which appeared only around 130-160 CE, according to the Talmud (Sanhedrin 101a 10:1), with Rabbi Abba Saul who prohibited the pronunciation of the tetragram (YHWH in Hebrew יהוה ) according to its letters2, warning that those transgressing this command would forfeit their portion in the world to come.  
Abstract. The understanding of God's name YHWH is so controversial that it is eventually the controversy of controversies, or the ultimate controversy. Indeed, why most of competent Hebrew scholars propagate patently false explanations about God's name? Why do the Jews refuse to read God's name as it is written and read Adonay "my Lord" (a plural of majesty) instead of it? Why God's name is usually punctuated e, a (shewa, qamats) by the Masoretes what makes its reading impossible, because the 4 consonants of the name YHWH must have at least 3 vowels (long or short) to be read, like the words [Adonay and Elohim] "God" (a plural of majesty), which have 4 consonants and 3 vowels? At last,why the obvious reading "Yehowah", according to theophoric names, which all begin by Yeho-, without exception, is so despised, and why the simple biblical meaning, "He will be" from Exodus 3:14, is rejected.

I have recently, just today, communicated again with Gerard Gertoux requesting permission to quote extensive long passages from his book on this topic as a basis for a more in-depth forum discussion. The Amazon link to his book is here:
The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is pronounced as it is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah
A subset of that same material is also found here:
http://areopage.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Gertoux_UseNameEarlyChristians.pdf
Gerard Gertoux has responded that it would be better to use  https://www.academia.edu/14029315 as it is a free version that all of us can download, and it has no copyright.
Since this topic comes up now and then, under various topic headings, I hope that some might find it useful to understand the basics of his argument. He assumes a lot of background and expertise that many do not have, but the material is accessible enough so that we can all learn a lot about the topic and even about the related background material at the same time.
Out of respect for the author's wishes, let's not make extensive quotes from the book or the "areopage.net" link above except where fair use might allow. And even the "academia.edu" content should only be quoted in reasonable portions to the extent that it is needed for discussion. I have also mentioned to the author that I will do my best to keep the topic from devolving into a discussion of the Trinity. I will try to keep the discussion on topic, which also means that it should not become a free-for-all with critiques of the New World Translation or the persons who may have worked on it.
The topic will not revolve only around Gerard Gertoux's writing, but it's a good place to start. Feel free to bring in evidence from other authors and researchers if it is related to the questions. As a reminder the evidence we discuss should focus especially on the following questions:
Did Jesus and the apostles and disciples of the first century use the Divine Name? Did they read it aloud when they came to it in the OT Scriptures? Did they include it (and therefore expect it to be used aloud) in the writings of the NT? [And, of course, feel free to use the terms OT and NT as abbreviations for "Hebrew Scriptures" and "Christian Greek Scriptures" respectively.]

I am quoting here from that long sentence that begins the essay found here: http://areopage.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Gertoux_UseNameEarlyChristians.pdf (which contains copyrighted material).
Gertoux packs a lot into this sentence, and this is just the first part of it. To begin, Matthew 15:3 says:
In reply he said to them: “Why do you overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition? And then Jesus goes on to say in verses 9-11:
9 It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’” 10 With that he called the crowd near and said to them: “Listen and get the sense of it: 11 It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.” The natural instinct is to think that since Jesus had just given an example of what the hypocrites do to dishonor their mother and father, that this applies even more so when we think of ways in which we can honor our heavenly Father. And one of those ways would be to call him by his personal name in the way that the Hebrew nation had done for  1,000 years, since Moses around 1500 BCE, or even since Abraham, more than 500 years before that!
But, for the sake of argument, we might also want to put ourselves in the shoes of the Jewish nation and try to figure out why this idea of not pronouncing God's name ever caught on so widely in the first place. There is very good information in the Insight book on this topic under "Jehovah" but it admits that we don't know the reason for sure.
*** it-2 p. 5 Jehovah ***
When did the superstition take hold? Just as the reason or reasons originally advanced for discontinuing the use of the divine name are uncertain, so, too, there is much uncertainty as to when this superstitious view really took hold.

I have downloaded several that I never read. His papers on specific Bible-related chronology issues are interesting but I haven't completed them, and he keeps more papers coming.
A quick word on my own personal bias here. As I told the author: "I am very much aligned with your work on the topic. Naturally there are a few specific things I question, even if I end up with an overall conclusion that is generally like yours."
I think that when I bring up questions, just as I have on several issues coming from the WTS or GB, there are always a few persons who believe this is highly disrespectful, and they make it clear that to question the GB is tantamount to questioning God. Of course, I not only consider it our Christian obligation to question, it also serves the purpose of refining. Even the questioning by various sects helped refine Christian truth according to Paul.
(1 Corinthians 11:19) For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. This fits the idea in Greek that testing is the same as refining.
(1 Peter 1:7) 7 in order that the tested quality of your faith, of much greater value than gold that perishes despite its being tested by fire,. . . The NWT in the footnote here says that "tested" could be translated as "refined."
So I propose we should put any argument through the fire. It's not a sign of disrespect for the author. (Abraham didn't think it was such a bad thing to question God!) It can mean just the opposite, that we are treating someone's words the way we would treat nuggets of newly found gold . . . to refine them and make sure that what holds up is pure. Mostly, however, I think we should question and test and put all ideas through the fire so that we can have a better understanding ourselves, and thus be better prepared to defend what we believe. (1 Peter 3:15)

This is exactly what the resource (from whence the question comes) is claiming:
https://www.scribd.com/document/30060328/117-J-W-s-The-Trinity-the-Watchtower
13. Psalm 110:1 ‘The Lord (YHWH3068) said to my Lord (Adonai136) sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.’ Watchtower teaching: JWs say that since Jehovah is speaking in this verse and since the ‘Lord’ is a distinct person from Jehovah, then Jesus must not be Jehovah God Almighty. In Matthew 22:41-45 Jesus claims that He Himself is the ‘Lord’ referred to by David in this Psalm. They therefore conclude that Jesus is not Jehovah, but the one Jehovah speaks to. . . . The JW claim that Jesus cannot be God because Jehovah spoke to Him, is faulty because we who are from the finite earthly realm cannot assume that God who is of infinite heavenly realms must fit into our earthly logic patterns with which we are familiar. God’s ways are greatly above our ways. For example, in Genesis 18:1-3 Abraham addressed the three visitors as ‘Jehovah’. The two who left to visit Sodom, Lot called them ‘Jehovah’ (19:18), yet the one who remained, Abraham continued to address Him as ‘Jehovah’ (18:22,26,27,30,31,32,33). Note: JWs often mockingly ask the question when Jesus prays to Father: ‘Does God talk to Himself?’ Yes He does, as in Genesis 18:17-19 where God asks Himself a question: ‘And Jehovah said, Am I keeping covered from Abraham what I am doing?’ Later in v. 22 Jehovah separates. Hence the Father can talk to the Son, with the Son still being 100% God. Ask: If you reject the Trinity because you can’t understand it, then how do you explain how a brown cow by eating green grass gives white milk?

I have recently, just today, communicated again with Gerard Gertoux requesting permission to quote extensive long passages from his book on this topic as a basis for a more in-depth forum discussion. The Amazon link to his book is here:
The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is pronounced as it is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah
A subset of that same material is also found here:
http://areopage.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Gertoux_UseNameEarlyChristians.pdf
Gerard Gertoux has responded that it would be better to use  https://www.academia.edu/14029315 as it is a free version that all of us can download, and it has no copyright.
Since this topic comes up now and then, under various topic headings, I hope that some might find it useful to understand the basics of his argument. He assumes a lot of background and expertise that many do not have, but the material is accessible enough so that we can all learn a lot about the topic and even about the related background material at the same time.
Out of respect for the author's wishes, let's not make extensive quotes from the book or the "areopage.net" link above except where fair use might allow. And even the "academia.edu" content should only be quoted in reasonable portions to the extent that it is needed for discussion. I have also mentioned to the author that I will do my best to keep the topic from devolving into a discussion of the Trinity. I will try to keep the discussion on topic, which also means that it should not become a free-for-all with critiques of the New World Translation or the persons who may have worked on it.
The topic will not revolve only around Gerard Gertoux's writing, but it's a good place to start. Feel free to bring in evidence from other authors and researchers if it is related to the questions. As a reminder the evidence we discuss should focus especially on the following questions:
Did Jesus and the apostles and disciples of the first century use the Divine Name? Did they read it aloud when they came to it in the OT Scriptures? Did they include it (and therefore expect it to be used aloud) in the writings of the NT? [And, of course, feel free to use the terms OT and NT as abbreviations for "Hebrew Scriptures" and "Christian Greek Scriptures" respectively.]

I have downloaded several that I never read. His papers on specific Bible-related chronology issues are interesting but I haven't completed them, and he keeps more papers coming.
A quick word on my own personal bias here. As I told the author: "I am very much aligned with your work on the topic. Naturally there are a few specific things I question, even if I end up with an overall conclusion that is generally like yours."
I think that when I bring up questions, just as I have on several issues coming from the WTS or GB, there are always a few persons who believe this is highly disrespectful, and they make it clear that to question the GB is tantamount to questioning God. Of course, I not only consider it our Christian obligation to question, it also serves the purpose of refining. Even the questioning by various sects helped refine Christian truth according to Paul.
(1 Corinthians 11:19) For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. This fits the idea in Greek that testing is the same as refining.
(1 Peter 1:7) 7 in order that the tested quality of your faith, of much greater value than gold that perishes despite its being tested by fire,. . . The NWT in the footnote here says that "tested" could be translated as "refined."
So I propose we should put any argument through the fire. It's not a sign of disrespect for the author. (Abraham didn't think it was such a bad thing to question God!) It can mean just the opposite, that we are treating someone's words the way we would treat nuggets of newly found gold . . . to refine them and make sure that what holds up is pure. Mostly, however, I think we should question and test and put all ideas through the fire so that we can have a better understanding ourselves, and thus be better prepared to defend what we believe. (1 Peter 3:15)

I have downloaded several that I never read. His papers on specific Bible-related chronology issues are interesting but I haven't completed them, and he keeps more papers coming.
A quick word on my own personal bias here. As I told the author: "I am very much aligned with your work on the topic. Naturally there are a few specific things I question, even if I end up with an overall conclusion that is generally like yours."
I think that when I bring up questions, just as I have on several issues coming from the WTS or GB, there are always a few persons who believe this is highly disrespectful, and they make it clear that to question the GB is tantamount to questioning God. Of course, I not only consider it our Christian obligation to question, it also serves the purpose of refining. Even the questioning by various sects helped refine Christian truth according to Paul.
(1 Corinthians 11:19) For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. This fits the idea in Greek that testing is the same as refining.
(1 Peter 1:7) 7 in order that the tested quality of your faith, of much greater value than gold that perishes despite its being tested by fire,. . . The NWT in the footnote here says that "tested" could be translated as "refined."
So I propose we should put any argument through the fire. It's not a sign of disrespect for the author. (Abraham didn't think it was such a bad thing to question God!) It can mean just the opposite, that we are treating someone's words the way we would treat nuggets of newly found gold . . . to refine them and make sure that what holds up is pure. Mostly, however, I think we should question and test and put all ideas through the fire so that we can have a better understanding ourselves, and thus be better prepared to defend what we believe. (1 Peter 3:15)

Did you know that Adonai (Lord) used of Jesus in Psalm 110:1 is also used of the Father in Exodus 23:17, Deuteronomy 10:17, Joshua 3:11?
 And Abraham: Genesis 18:12; Esau: Genesis 32:4; Joseph: Genesis 42:10; Boaz: Ruth 2:13 Saul: 1Samuel 4:28 An angel: Daniel 10:16 and many more. As Paul said, there are "many lords" .
Good job "the LORD" who said to "my lord" has given His name in scripture so we do not have to rely on just the capitals. Although, like the scribes, (as shown below Is. 3:16) many still  have problems deciding on this matter don't they?

Anyway,  the Catholic Living Bible seems to have got it right...this time:

Because it makes sense and is considerate. Some people have come from afar. Some are in no shape to cook. I don't think it is unique to Witnesses. I think it is more common than otherwise.
In cases of family, I remember in my youth people lamenting that the only time the whole family got together was for funerals., as though love itself would not suffice, but only an obligation. I finally decided to run with it. It is what it is. Death in this system of things is a natural course of life. Use it as a metronome, to reliably bring everyone together from time to time. 
Kill two birds with one stone. Bring everyone together and use the power of family to help the bereaved one heal. Stay the course, and the time will come when there is no death.
 
 

Not sure how large the lunch would be, but there are some quite basic reasons in the case of a reception hosted by bereaved Jehovah's Witnesses ion the occasion of a funeral of a loved one who has served Jehovah faithfully.
"A good name is better than good oil, and the day of death is better than the day of birth." Ecc7:1. The remembrance of a live well-lived in faithfulness is entirely appropriate.
"Moreover, brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who are sleeping in death, so that you may not sorrow as the rest do who have no hope." 1Thess. 4:13. It is a time to comfort one another with the wonderful resurrection hope and forms part of the healing of the sting death causes.
"But sanctify the Christ as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have, but doing so with a mild temper and deep respect." 1Pet.3:15. It is an opportunity to share discreetly the hope of the deceased with unbeleiving friends and relatives of the deceased, where tasteful and appropriate. On occasion, this is an express wish of the deceased.
"Follow the course of hospitality". Rom12:13. Funerals are lengthy and stressful affairs for a variety of reasons. People travel considerable distances to attend at short notice as death does not come by appointment. The provision of hospitality is virtually incumbent.
At the very least, hospitality arrangements that follow the principle expressed by Jesus at Luke 10:42: "A few things, though, are needed, or just one" are quite appropriate in connection with Jehovah's Witness funerals, regardless of the status of the deceased

Thanks @JW Insider, it should be a good discussion. I have already got a few of Gerard's papers downloaded from the academia website when we were discussing the controversial "desolation of Jerusalem 587/607" subject. But that's another topic.....
I will take a look at this paper

Jack. I think you are trying to say that experience is bogus because it doesn't make complete sense to you. And it appears like a contradiction when we consider those famous persons who have been associated either as Witnesses or those who may have identified as JWs due to the influence of their Witness parents or family members.
I understand the cynicism about some of the experiences. I have previously shared my own discomfort when I watched  a committee of brothers enhance the experiences of Witnesses who provided experiences for the special Bethel "Family Night" gatherings. It smacked of dishonesty to me, but there was always a grain of truth in what they were enhancing, and they were usually quite careful with the wording so that it was not technically or legally an untruth. But for "Family Night" I watched the committee edit the person's own story and his own recollections with facts not in evidence just to make it sound better, and it was clearly to enhance the reputation of the WTS, and to change something just slightly so that it would not detract from that same reputation. At Bethel, I had also learned how the resume of Fred Franz' educational background had been enhanced in ways that were never corrected until the Proclaimers book came out.
But I don't know that this story in particular is enhanced. I see some potential problems, and a wise person will not simply believe everything he hears. I think the story might be perfectly true. "She was asked to take part in the Winter Olympics . . ." There is nothing unbelievable about this. Many very talented people have been on their way toward stardom and have given it up for religion or ideology or rethinking what it would mean to their life. But notice that no one is claiming that this person was invited to participate as an athlete to represent her country. It may have been that a coach wanted her there to watch. Perhaps, she showed promise as a skier, and it was a parent who asked her to go on to another few years of training to be able to take part in the Winter Olympics. This could be construed to create the statement that she was asked to take part.
Or perhaps she had already trained, and was ready, and was considered a viable competitor, but was also completing her studies with the Witnesses and was preparing for baptism. A single statement from the person studying with her might have made her change her mind. The statement in the WT above may be perfectly legitimate and not enhanced at all. I'm sure you see this as a possibility, too, even if you disagree with the decision she made.
There are non-JW experiences like this too. I remember hearing about a professional basketball player named Robinson, I think, whose mother told him he had to graduate a four-year college even though he had been asked to sign on professionally right after high school. He was offered a multi-million dollar contract, and had to give it up, and who knows what change of direction his life might have taken during that four years. He could have lost his contract, he probably cut four years of his earning potential away, but he did it for his mother, or for his agreement with her particular ideology about life and priorities. Others look at this and say B*S* because he could have played for 4 years, made millions and then gone to college if the basketball "gig" didn't work out, right? But younger people often don't know how to handle fame and money, and there are countless bodies of evidence, sometimes dead bodies, in support of this fact.
On the other hand, what is the overall point of the experience? It's the same point that should be pointed out to any who wish for fame when there are other more important things that could bring potentially more satisfaction. There is also the drive for fame and money that many young people are not realistic about. They could end up spinning their wheels for a lifetime in pursuit of something that was not really attainable. Or even if it was attainable, it may be much more transitory than they realized.
One of my daughter's good friends from high school was  a young model who was asked to work on a soap opera. She did this for two years, and did commercials, and photo layouts for fashion, and was on a billboard for years in the NY diamond district. But it only lasted for about 5 years. Although she can be proud of her work, she is today ... get this @James Thomas Rook Jr. . . .a shoe salesperson. Literally. She works in London selling Louboutin shoes, making good money, and she seems happy. Only her parents and siblings still push for her to try to get back into acting and modelling as if it were some pinnacle of achievement. (On a side note, my wife and I are in Paris right now, with my daughter, and we expect to see this same friend of hers next weekend.)
What about being the ability to be both satisfied and happy with something different than fame or money? Something that is better for oneself and others in both the short run and the long run?

With regard to the April 25th story, ‘Silent Witnesses,’ about Jehovah’s Witnesses and child sexual abuse: Some significant facts are omitted, and some background facts that are included are misrepresented, leading to condemnation of a religion that otherwise has a reputation for fine works and conduct.
“Overall, they’re nice, sincere people” says vehement critic Barbara Anderson, referring to the “rank and file.” The video of Jared Kushner, from before campaign days, speaking of the Witnesses from whom he would buy their Brooklyn buildings is almost unheard of in its praise—Witnesses are persons of “high integrity” with whom “a handshake deal means something,” he says. How can this be if the leadership is as vile as the reporter represents them? Plainly, something is missing.
No topic is more incendiary than child sexual abuse. In no other area is a person’s viewpoint so determined by experience. Few evils are more widespread. The organization InvisibleChildren.org reports that, in the United States, 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys will be sexually abused before they turn 18 years old—despite years of emphasis on punishing perpetrators.
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ relationship to the pandemic can be viewed through a different lens than the Inquirer views it. The Watchtower organization was proactive at a time when few others were, investigating reports of this and other forms of wrongdoing within their ranks, and it is through this policy of vigilance that they come to be identified with this moral crime. In fact, any group professing that their beliefs contribute to better conduct should take measures to see that that is in fact the case. The Book of Romans says “You, the one preaching, “Do not steal,” do you steal? You, the one saying, “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery?’ Few, if any, other than Jehovah’s Witnesses followed through on this obviously necessary self-examination.
Lucy Delap, writing for History and Policy, states that “clear guidelines for best [child protective] practice were not established until the 1990s,” during or even after most of the JW abuse cases under review. Thus, the Witness organization walked in largely uncharted territory, for the purpose of identifying this most pernicious group so as to apply discipline, often expulsion, to safeguard other congregation members, and to ensure that pedophiles could not slip unnoticed from one congregation into another (as they could anywhere else). To some extent, condemnation of the Watchtower for this proactive policy is a prime example of the cynicism: “No good deed goes unpunished.”
The fourteen persons that Mr. Gambacorta interviewed appear to be from a Reddit forum “devoted exclusively to ex-Witnesses,” who “discuss the absurdity of their experiences.” I have no reason to challenge the experiences the fourteen relate, and whether their perspective on what they report is the final word, I am in no position to say. However, it is inexcusable for the Inquirer article to link to an ex-Witness forum of 20,000 members, and not also to a Watchtower downloadable child-protection policy packet plainly showing that most its insinuations are untrue:
https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal-resources/information/packet-jw-scripturally-based-position-child-protection/
To be fair, this latest update is released at about the same time as the article, but no mention is made of it by the reporter in subsequent material. Instead, he returns to the Reddit forum where he promises participants further incendiary reports.
I am a 45-year member of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I have authored three books about the faith, in digital format. The latest, ‘Dear Mr. Putin – Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia,’ is freely available, as it is primarily about the religious organization’s ban in Russia, which brings hardship to persons dear to me. Part 2 of the book considers the many accusations made against Witnesses, and chapter 12 of that section is entitled ‘Pedophiles.’ It is a 9,000+ word examination of that topic that includes the ARC investigation.
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/815620
Case Study 54 of the ARC mentions reports of abuse from the JW community within the period extending from the ARC’s initial investigation to its final report. It is possible to work out ratios, compare them to the non-Witness community, and conclude that the Witness organization’s vigilance has paid off, perhaps by as much as a factor of six. It is fine to handle a case of child sexual abuse properly. But it is far finer if the abuse does not happen in the first place. It is similar to calling in the grief counselors in the wake of a school shooting. Of course, it is a good thing to call them in, but how much better to not need them at all. A case of child sexual abuse ‘properly handled’ does not mean that it did not occur, and the child is only somewhat less damaged than if the case was properly handled. Thus, a story on this topic should never omit the overall relative success of the Witness organization in prevention of this evil.
Stories of Jehovah’s Witnesses and child sexual abuse are certainly not nothing, and it is easy to see why a journalist might go there. However, by being so selective in what he reports, the Inquirer maligns a faith whose overall record of producing fine people of integrity has already been mentioned, by a harsh critic, no less. You owe it to your readers to publish this letter, as prominently as you published the article trashing the Witnesses. I have no doubt that the reporter behind ‘Silent Witness,’ is overall a fine journalist. In this instance, however, he has proven far too biased in the anti-Witness material he relies upon and relates without any counterbalance.
Respectfully,
Tom Harley
 

Jack. I think you are trying to say that experience is bogus because it doesn't make complete sense to you. And it appears like a contradiction when we consider those famous persons who have been associated either as Witnesses or those who may have identified as JWs due to the influence of their Witness parents or family members.
I understand the cynicism about some of the experiences. I have previously shared my own discomfort when I watched  a committee of brothers enhance the experiences of Witnesses who provided experiences for the special Bethel "Family Night" gatherings. It smacked of dishonesty to me, but there was always a grain of truth in what they were enhancing, and they were usually quite careful with the wording so that it was not technically or legally an untruth. But for "Family Night" I watched the committee edit the person's own story and his own recollections with facts not in evidence just to make it sound better, and it was clearly to enhance the reputation of the WTS, and to change something just slightly so that it would not detract from that same reputation. At Bethel, I had also learned how the resume of Fred Franz' educational background had been enhanced in ways that were never corrected until the Proclaimers book came out.
But I don't know that this story in particular is enhanced. I see some potential problems, and a wise person will not simply believe everything he hears. I think the story might be perfectly true. "She was asked to take part in the Winter Olympics . . ." There is nothing unbelievable about this. Many very talented people have been on their way toward stardom and have given it up for religion or ideology or rethinking what it would mean to their life. But notice that no one is claiming that this person was invited to participate as an athlete to represent her country. It may have been that a coach wanted her there to watch. Perhaps, she showed promise as a skier, and it was a parent who asked her to go on to another few years of training to be able to take part in the Winter Olympics. This could be construed to create the statement that she was asked to take part.
Or perhaps she had already trained, and was ready, and was considered a viable competitor, but was also completing her studies with the Witnesses and was preparing for baptism. A single statement from the person studying with her might have made her change her mind. The statement in the WT above may be perfectly legitimate and not enhanced at all. I'm sure you see this as a possibility, too, even if you disagree with the decision she made.
There are non-JW experiences like this too. I remember hearing about a professional basketball player named Robinson, I think, whose mother told him he had to graduate a four-year college even though he had been asked to sign on professionally right after high school. He was offered a multi-million dollar contract, and had to give it up, and who knows what change of direction his life might have taken during that four years. He could have lost his contract, he probably cut four years of his earning potential away, but he did it for his mother, or for his agreement with her particular ideology about life and priorities. Others look at this and say B*S* because he could have played for 4 years, made millions and then gone to college if the basketball "gig" didn't work out, right? But younger people often don't know how to handle fame and money, and there are countless bodies of evidence, sometimes dead bodies, in support of this fact.
On the other hand, what is the overall point of the experience? It's the same point that should be pointed out to any who wish for fame when there are other more important things that could bring potentially more satisfaction. There is also the drive for fame and money that many young people are not realistic about. They could end up spinning their wheels for a lifetime in pursuit of something that was not really attainable. Or even if it was attainable, it may be much more transitory than they realized.
One of my daughter's good friends from high school was  a young model who was asked to work on a soap opera. She did this for two years, and did commercials, and photo layouts for fashion, and was on a billboard for years in the NY diamond district. But it only lasted for about 5 years. Although she can be proud of her work, she is today ... get this @James Thomas Rook Jr. . . .a shoe salesperson. Literally. She works in London selling Louboutin shoes, making good money, and she seems happy. Only her parents and siblings still push for her to try to get back into acting and modelling as if it were some pinnacle of achievement. (On a side note, my wife and I are in Paris right now, with my daughter, and we expect to see this same friend of hers next weekend.)
What about being the ability to be both satisfied and happy with something different than fame or money? Something that is better for oneself and others in both the short run and the long run?

This is made to sound in the newspaper article as if ALL notes on a judicial matter are destroyed. An official copy of the proceeding is to be kept no matter what. What they want to avoid is the inclusion of multiple notes taken by all the elders that include personal comments, sometimes questions going through their heads to ask or get answered before a decision. Sometimes these, since they weren't meant to be critiqued, can appear to be contradictory or incriminating to one side or another even if they were not intended that way.
Also, it is very misleading to say that the rules require a sexual assault victim to go out and find two witnesses. It shows that they are ignorant of the fact that the victim himself (or herself) is already a witness to the crime. Without a confession of course the idea of a second witness is still very unlikely, but circumstantial evidence will be heard from a second witness, and a second witness can be another victim of the same crime from same abuser.

This doesn't appear to be a problem? I don't let people take my details without permission so ........Good ? What else can you say?