JW Insider

Personally I am not comfortable with some of the comments the GB have made regarding faith in the organization, apparently putting it on the same level as faith in God. I do have a problem with that. On the other hand, if this reasoning is made in good faith, and has the effect of unifying the brothers, then as mentioned previously, that is the opposite of fragmenting, and fragmenting has been blamed as the cause of disunity and an excuse for Christendom.
A few broadcasts ago, (March?) one of the GB members in his talk, implored the friends to "trust the Governing Body". I thought to myself, well why not? You've got to trust someone right?  Of course, first and foremost we trust God, but because we trust God, we also trust that as long as we, as individuals, stick to Bible principles, he (Jehovah) will make sure we will be OK spiritually. On top of that, surely the GB know that trust has to be earned. You cannot trust someone if they have given you a reason not to in the past. I have not had such an experience to date. There are things I do not agree with, but they are not fundamental. I would like to see more transparency, but at least I have seen glimpses of improvement on that front. 
No we didn't, but as I explained, there was nowhere for them to gather. They were on their own. Stuck in their denomination, but usually they either fought against it, disagreed with it, or left it. By that, we judge they must have been the wheat.
Who is to say that Jehovah ever stopped finding wheat among the denominations and gathering them together with the other wheat within the confines of a physically defined denomination? I would assume that once true worship was restored, (or maybe at some point during the restoration) that was the point at which the wheat started to be gathered together into a group ..
and the Governing Body know that too.
I will address your other point about the glass of water later....

No, he doesn't. How can anyone be so naive (or deceitful)?
Anybody can pretend to be anyone on the internet. I, for example, have about ten personas on this forum and @James Thomas Rook Jr. falls for every one of them.
If a Governing Body member were to be on social media, it would be a huge change in method of communication. He would not do so without abundant notice given beforehand on trusted channels.
 

I have suffered from both types of liars, too. But I don't think Stephen Lett is either. He was a District Overseer that included my present circuit. I've seen him up close in front of a congregation and at assemblies, although I can't say I have seen him interact closely with elders or other individuals. But he was known to be a man full of a lot of love and concern for others.
When it comes to defending something he loves -- and he loves the organization -- he is prone to the same kinds of mistakes that all humans make. They will often "spin" and exaggerate and filter out negative details to try to put the thing they love in the best light possible. Most people do this naturally when it come to speaking about their children, their spouses, and other loved ones. If you listen closely to what he said, it was also obvious that it was calculated to be a true statement. He didn't say that we have no trouble with such crimes, or that we are better than other religions. He said that we don't protect sexual predators and a claim that we protect predators is a lie that finds its source in apostate lies.
It turns out that he was trying to generalize, and probably spoke from a belief he holds to be true.
I believe he is wrong in some serious ways, but I don't know that he knew he was wrong. I think he thought he was right. I do have direct evidence that we have upheld policies that have protected criminals more than we have protected the victims of these criminals. This may have even protected criminal elders more than others persons in congregations where such crimes have been committed. I think that even now there are policies and procedures that tend to protect criminals more than they protect children, but the written policy is almost as good as it can be made under the restrictions of the two-witness policy (as we currently think we must apply it).

I've shared my opinion that many of us (hopefully) associate with Jehovah's Witnesses, not because we think it's an automatic ticket to salvation, but because it provides an environment that best matches (as far as we know) what we would expect the first century congregation to look like in the twenty-first century. It provides the environment to do good for one another, spiritually encourage one another, give materially to one another, preach and teach people about God's kingdom, raise the spirits of the broken-hearted both inside and outside the congregation, live a moral life based on the principles of the Bible that provides a "witness" to the Bible's value and usefulness even in this modern age. It provides a social circle that allows our Christianity to flourish, but also allows us to see the warnings and pitfalls of our human condition. We see brothers and sister that we love dearly for their humility, talents, love of truth, love of God, and love of neighbor. We see brothers and sisters that we are concerned about for their contentiousness, presumptuousness, haughtiness, legalism. But all this is also what the first century saw: a range of qualities.
Many Witnesses associate because they think that associating really is the "ark of salvation" and that it is therefore an automatic ticket to salvation as long as they don't stray too far and can rush back under this "wing of protection" in case they are slacking off at the time that the "Peace and Security" cry gets convincingly loud enough. (Or some analogous announcement that seems like it's a last-minute sign to straighten up and fly right.) I've talked to enough young brothers and sisters, and my grown children have talked to enough brothers and sisters, that I know I can use the word "many" when I speak of those who think like this.
As far as Biblical reasons can help us see whether there is only one true religion, we know that there is only one true religion. But the Bible never says that there is one physical organization that embodies that one true religion. The true religion is looking after orphans and widows in their tribulation. The true religion is prioritizing love, justice, and mercy over rules of conduct, and rules of organizations. The true religion is the humble, loving attitude of our heart toward Jehovah and our neighbors, even our enemies. It has nothing to do with a showy display of prayer and process or an audience. Organizations require specific works; the true religion requires loving motivation based on faith.
Ideally, there could be a human organization, directed by God's spirit, that attracts all the people who practice that "one true religion." We believe we have found something close to that which is why we both associate with the same organization. But if we don't also clearly see the flaws, then we will begin to think of that organization as our salvation, which is blasphemy and idolatry.
Jesus himself said that if they are not against us they are for us. There are other senses in which those who are not for us are against us, but this does not negate that we should find the true meaning of the former. Jesus also said that wheat and weeds (tares) would be indistinguishable until the very end, judgment day. Jesus also (in Revelation 2 and 3) does not speak of a central governing committee that makes decisions about what is acceptable in a Christian congregation and what is not. Jesus speaks of holding each congregation separately accountable for the actions they take for and against various teachings and practices. And of course we have the example of Paul in Galatians 1 and 2, where he appears to demolish the entire idea of one central body of elders as the governors of their faith. In about the year 49 C.E. when most apostles were still alive and several of them still evidently operating out of one congregation in Jerusalem, it would have been very tempting to think of them as some kind of single governing body whose word and decisions would become the "rule" in all the worldwide brotherhood. But Paul indicated that this was a "foolish" mistake.

It is rather a sloppy article but the subject is so visceral that such things are overlooked.
All is told from the point of view of the wronged girl. I don't claim she speaks untruthfully. It is simply that, humans being what they are, we are inclined to remember things the way we remember them...embellish certain points and downplay or forget others. For example, when the judge recalled certain things in a matter-of-fact way, the victim says that's not how she recalled it, and the reporter at that point forgets all about the judge and runs with the victim. I suspect that the judge recollects it more accurately, because he has not carried the emotional baggage for two decades.
When Lett, many years later, speaks of 'apostate lies,' the reporter presents it as though he is calling his old friend a liar. Of course, he is not. No one says that what happened is a lie; it is the spin that enemies (which now seem to include the Inquirer) put on it that is the lie.
I answered at some length the Inquirer's first story and emailed it two two editors and the reporter. It was never acknowledged in any way. Instead, the reporter followed through on remarks he had made on the Reddit forum, that he had more material in the hopper that he considered damning to the Witnesses. Of course, this story that Witness is so thrilled about is what he had in mind.
I take it as evidence that the Philadelphia Inqurer wants this story told one and only one way. If there is anything to mitigate a damning verdict, they do not want to hear it. Of course, they have a story. No one would say that they do not. It is a variation of the "If it bleeds it leads" theme - familiar and not so terrible in itself, but the refusal to consider or even acknowledge a different lens through which the topic might be viewed, is to paint it, imo, as a not very good newspaper. Adding to this perception is that the paper does not seem to have a comment section for its online articles.
Comment sections are not necessarily great, as they attract many a moron, especially on 'hot' topics. But they have become ubiquitous and the fact that the Inquirer does not have one seems but another indicator that they will breach no dissent on what stories they report.
It is the religious version of the shabby journalism that has become the norm today. Reporters of the right or left hype up their view to the point of hysteria, and refuse to look at things that in any way confound their conclusions.
 

If you have already elaborated on this, I missed it. I have appreciated some of your views that include political references because they are much more astute than those of any average U.S. or Western-allied citizen who is dependent on corporate media such as FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, etc., which have very little truth value. Of course, not that it matters whether I agree with you, but you have a very interesting take on Bible prophecy. I don't believe "predictions" based on Bible knowledge hardly ever come true. I believe that events will reveal Bible truth in time, of course, but I don't believe that anyone who points to a future fulfillment tied to "the times and seasons" will ever be right except by coincidence.
So, because I am a complete skeptic, you can probably see through my motive. I would like you to explain what you mean by "such an enemy will rear its ugly head in Texas during the Fall"? If I am still participating on this forum in the Winter, I'd be happy to discuss what had likely gone wrong with your prediction about the Fall. Because it will likely prove Jesus correct again when he states that the times and seasons are in the Father's jurisdiction. Of course, I'm not picking on you. I believe such predictions from ANYONE ( @Brother Rando, @Israeli Bar Avaddhon, The Watchtower, or from anywhere else) are "wrong" for Biblical reasons.
If you are willing to provide a few more specifics, it will make this discussion easier sometime after December 22, 2018. I want to make sure that "during the Fall" refers to 2018, and doesn't mean during the Fall of Babylon.

I have suffered from both types of liars, too. But I don't think Stephen Lett is either. He was a District Overseer that included my present circuit. I've seen him up close in front of a congregation and at assemblies, although I can't say I have seen him interact closely with elders or other individuals. But he was known to be a man full of a lot of love and concern for others.
When it comes to defending something he loves -- and he loves the organization -- he is prone to the same kinds of mistakes that all humans make. They will often "spin" and exaggerate and filter out negative details to try to put the thing they love in the best light possible. Most people do this naturally when it come to speaking about their children, their spouses, and other loved ones. If you listen closely to what he said, it was also obvious that it was calculated to be a true statement. He didn't say that we have no trouble with such crimes, or that we are better than other religions. He said that we don't protect sexual predators and a claim that we protect predators is a lie that finds its source in apostate lies.
It turns out that he was trying to generalize, and probably spoke from a belief he holds to be true.
I believe he is wrong in some serious ways, but I don't know that he knew he was wrong. I think he thought he was right. I do have direct evidence that we have upheld policies that have protected criminals more than we have protected the victims of these criminals. This may have even protected criminal elders more than others persons in congregations where such crimes have been committed. I think that even now there are policies and procedures that tend to protect criminals more than they protect children, but the written policy is almost as good as it can be made under the restrictions of the two-witness policy (as we currently think we must apply it).

My 1991 Flock book has notes in the margins expressing the instructor's warnings about the danger of media contact. And, of course, it contains exactly the same text handwritten on the blank page 143 that every elder at the time was asked to write in their own Flock book.
I'll type out my handwritten notes as dictated during "school" with respect to what goes on an S77 or S79 form. I think it's easy to see from this (and comments from the instructor(s)) that protecting the reputation of the WTS is always considered very important.
I see much value in many of the points that were added. I think most people would be able to read this idea of "protecting the Society" between the lines, even if they didn't hear the words and attitude of the instructor. Here are my handwritten notes:
Avoid expressions on these forms:     S77, S79 form
1) "anything alluding or naming one of the Society's attorneys"
2) any mention of the legal dept
3) any comments referring to the direction from the Society
4) any comments mentioning anyone other than the committee itself as a possible influence in the decision reached
5) any comment that might suggest to someone with a critical eye that the committee did not reach its decision on its own but, instead, somehow yielded to the influence of an outside party
6) any comments indicating that the elders mishandled the case, or committed any error in the investigation of the judicial committee process.
Every time these forms are mentioned in the Flock book, the reference to the "blank" page 143 was to be written in the margin as a reminder. Still, as just one example, page 114 (or 115) in most "schooled" Flock books will also have a marginal handwritten note as stated by the instructor that says (with respect to reinstatements, especially):
"It would be best to check with Branch Office before making the exception."
I should add that the above information we were to write on page 143 comes after several chapters of very specific direction from the Society about various ins and outs of the judicial process, exactly how to judge the difference in "levels" of sexual immorality, porneia, and other types of wrongdoing, repentance, etc. And it comes immediately on the blank page just before the chapter called "Jehovah's People Theocratically Organized for His Name." The purpose of the chapter is to strengthen the idea that all this direction properly comes from the Society which is already somewhat contradictory in spirit to points 3, 4, and 5 above.
The text of the chapter includes many of the following points which are basically correct, but they also add greatly to the sense that Jehovah's Name must be protected through protecting the name (or reputation) of the organization:
Today, this involves a "stewardship from God," an arrangement administered through a "faithful and discreet slave." Local congregations throughout the earth are not organized according to democratic principles but are under God-governed, theocratic control. We must recognize and submit to this theocratic rulership. The anointed remnant has been entrusted with all of the Master's belongings. Overseers serve as earthly representatives under the direction of the steward class. Theocratic submission requires recognition of this orderly arrangement. God's laws are based on righteous principles, and they are enforceable by an organization or an agency.

When it comes to anything biblical I am critical, this goes for anything as well as false claims, false information or anyone's means to twist scripture and or the very bible canons itself. Anyone who is familiar with my posts here and how Christians operate at CSE, they'll know that when it comes to anything of the like - the responer is and will always be, critical, at the same time confutes any accusations and or claims big or small, should said claim is false or in error.
The community in question is here: [1] https://christianity.stackexchange.com [2] https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com both of which that are connected and should you do the same there as you do here, I can say you will be met with serious criticism, an they do not take religion/Christian Infighting lightly and will point that out if need be.
I understood what you wrote also,but it does not shield the claims and accusations that are stitched into some of the comments of yours.
No worries, as long as everything is readable, you are fine.
NATO is US backed, they are among the list of US allies that will help them in a warmongering conquest. The thing is, Russia does not want war, period, but the actions of the United Nations and the Deep State, is pushing the US and allies to seek war with Syria, and Russia, and their allies, even among the UN, do not want this, and are open to defend Bashar Al-Assad, of whom the US blamed for him for chemical attacks, mind you, Assad was not the man who attacked his own people, let alone killed the Christians int he country, it was the actions of Jayish Al-Islam, the very enemy of Assad of whom the US and allies is supporting, said group, if part of Al-Quedina, you can see the details of the information in my post down below:
If that isn't enough for you, one of my sources made it very clear of who the US an their allies, even the UN, is supporting against Syria, Russia and the like. Mind you the video is a bit graphic, even though some parts are blurred.
 
As for the Harlot, Babylon the Great, she is not just the current Israel alone, she is all over the place, even in America, etc. When the Nations start to dwell within the realm of religion to the point they begin to stamp out other faiths, you'll know what time it will be, and for some, it will be way too late. Russia and their allies are not so cool either, but they are the pieces on the chess board, in turn, still part of Babylon the Great, an example would be, they allowed Satanist to mess around with Jehovah's Witnesses before banning them, elsewhere all people who oppose the RoC will be met with serious, serious consequence, no matter what age you are, regarding US and Israel allies, the ones they supported, they shot up and killed a Christian family, dumbing their bodies in a single well of which the village gets their water from, the very reasons why Christians, right now in Syria, have sided with Bashar Al-Assad because enough was enough, and US is marked as an enemy, while Israel and Saudi Arabia will attack with sheer brutality should Iran congregated in Syria - after all, Israel was the one who jumped the gun on the April attack.
There is no doubt something big will happen, but God himself will take action at a specific time of which he had chosen, which is unknown to all of us, for we do not know when the Father will speak on the day of Judgement to start, people can guess, people can wait, but they will not know what the Father knows.
But should it interest you, there has been a lot of talk about religious unity, something is to happen in Texas in a couple of months, Babylon's view of religion, as it was done in 2016, will be done in Texas in the month of October, if you live in the US, I suggested you not go to such an event, despite how peaceful they try to make it.
Ok, but now you are contradicting yourself with what you said before, a claim that still has no source or answer to. Other than that, H'armageddon is already know and before it does happen, times brutal tribulations will ensue, as far as I know, people have already made bunkers. It may be on point like those old dystopian future based movies, but more realistic and difficult.
Well then, if you think as such, I suggest you give proof and a source to these claims of yours:
 Moreover it has been said that Jehovah will not allow a third world war because otherwise "no one would survive".  
You made this comment, if you want to proof yourself as not false - give proof to a source to such a claim.
I do not know what you think but the WT has said that "all the prophecies have been fulfilled and that we are waiting only for the cry of peace and security and therefore the attack on false religion". Moreover it has been said that Jehovah will not allow a third world war because otherwise "no one would survive". The Same can be said about this one, you said this and I confuted, as did with the other claims.
As for the false accusations, anyone who is families with my comments will not the things you have said directed to me - is indeed, false.
Other then that, you can prove yourself right now to give detailed proof to the 2 items mentioned above, otherwise, 1 John 4:1 is applied here, thus making these things, these claims of yours - as false, therefore, your spirit has been tested without much of an effort.
If you know who I am by means of my history on this forum, I am someone who does not like dishonesty, and I know dishonesty when I see it, even in the smallest error.
I told you, I believe twice to post such in detail, which you have not, that is why my older comment was more inline with what 1 John 4:1 is really about, I even took the time to cited my source and proof of the claim in regards to this verse, if you missed it, it was the colorful one not to far up: 
 
But you make it religious by using scripture against a religious group, The Jehovah's Witnesses, this act is called Christian Infighting, or in another term, Christians Persecuting Other Christians, not on doctrine mind you, but on the belief itself.
Other then that, it was not a debate, per-say, it was more of a correcting of the wrong, for knowing me, leaving something that is in error going unchecked will only cause more damage later on - and error does not sit well with me or anyone else, mainly if a claim is coined with no proof.
And I'll say it again, it is outlandish for a man to love a religion over the bible, for this claim makes no sense, I even posted the definition of religion, but I do not think you have read it, this time I will link:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion I hope you never make that claim to someone in person, for if you do, they will critique you on what the word Religion even means, which in itself speaks more than the claim you are bringing up right now.
Religion basically mean the practice of a faith = Christian/Christianity = teachings = adhere to God's Spoken Word and the practices of His Son, and examples left by us by the followers = She Being Part of us, She meaning The Church, of which the Christ is the Head of.
If in your eyes people love a religion, they we should all be guilty of being Christian, regardless of denomination, we can take it a bit further, all Religions of all branches are guilty, but the false ones and the true ones. See? Does not make any sense, hence why I linked you the definition.
Advantage of wisdom
Being Awake and making supplication in regards to the Luke verse.
Isaiah 28:18 is regarding the death and the grave. And no it is not because of my faith, it is because I study the bible day in and day out. And due to biblical studies, discernment to root out error and falsehood as well as dishonesty.
It would seem you have no learned from making false accusations, yet you want to play that card again, we can go about that as soon as you post proof to 2 of your claims, otherwise, the table would have turned twice for you.
Who are these men you speak of? If you read any of my history here, I tend to keep God's Word as number 1, that is why I always mention this word hermeneutics, which means the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts.
Can you cite a source for one who "adore one's own religion"? This is the first time I ever heard such a claim in regards to someone of a faith. I hope you do have a source for this one, so this brings the count to 3.
Then next time pick your words wisely, and your claims, otherwise they will be confuted.
So how what is true about God and World War 3 comment from you? What about the false claims whereas everyone here knows how I respond and yet you make a false claim against me? How I this true?
Just as Jesus had did, I stand and confute those who make such error and dishonesty, regardless of who that is a Muslim, a JW, Unitarian, Black Israelite, etc.
If someone makes an error, a twist in scripture, infighting and outlandish claims, and the like - they will be confuted, and they will be met with actual criticism to their false claims, therefore, such ones have their spirits tested, and will be rooted out for their error, no matter who it is.
Cite your  sources and perhaps things would be different. This I still await, otherwise, those claims, like the false accusations, are deemed a lie, therefore, is false.
modus operandi does not change God's Word and what His Word means, let alone His laws.
It may be a novel to you, but I give detail of what is true and nothing but truth as well as pointing out error, such as the ones you claim and it is clear as day to all here who reads on this very thread. Next time you want to make claims, make sure it is true, this was the case with 2 others on this forum who have been exposed for their error, count that, it is 3, for there was whereas I gave a history of Christians banning something.
Also if you are going to make a false claim, make sure it is not in the sight of those who are real Bereans who can act upon their discernment and defend what is true no matter what, even if it means rooting out the lies painted on others, which you have done, and the error on your part about God and World War 3 comment.
I won't be having a good time, like a Christian, I will be vigilant,and enduring, no matter what, and doing what the early Christians and our fathers have been doing, teaching the real truth of the gospel and defending it, as well as rooting out falsehood of those who try to push their mainstream Christianity over the truth.
As for the claims, you can either say nothing, so we know the conclusion, or you can attempt, but will result in the same outcome, unless what you had said is indeed true, then it would be different, other then that I suggest you read up more on what is going, mainly about the nations and religions perhaps you will wonder why a specific faith is declining all over the world, hence why they side with those in government.
Other then that, you are indeed smart, but it seems you are still blind for the errors you spouted out in your comments, but the more you read, the more out of the blindness you dissolve.
The truth will set you free, do what you will with it, should you choose it.
PS: before you wanna take shots again in regards to my beliefs, I suggest you do some homework on how I am, which is very easy to see by means of my profile history.

Jesus healed the leper and specifically told him to keep a lid on it. Show yourself to the priests, thank God, and go about your business.   What did the fellow do? He shouted it out everywhere. He messed up the Lord! Jesus wanted to keep visiting the city. He no longer could do it. He had to hole up out in the wilderness!   What could he do? Apart from divinely muzzling the guy or handing him back his leprosy, he was stymied! The Lord!   He adapted, though. The cured fellow raised such a ruckus that everyone had to go out in the wilderness to check Jesus out. Maybe it even worked out better this way; they had to do something.   I think there’s a lesson for us. You want your companions in service to be discreet and to behave in a certain way, and they don’t. You want them to be like the silhouetted fellow in the videos and they are the exact opposite. It’s enough to drive a guy crazy. It was enough to drive Jesus crazy, too, yet he didn’t go crazy. He just adjusted tactics and it turned out okay. And maybe at a later date he even ran across the fellow and said: “You know, you really should have kept your mouth shut. But it all worked out.”  

Back in the days that I call when "each one did what was right in his own eyes," (late 70s or early 80s) there was an one-day special assembly in Niagara Falls, NY. Apparantly, local brothers, if they had the wherewithall, could put together whatever program they liked if they could assemble the speakers.
It is at that gathering that Victor Blackwell spoke and I picked up afterwards his excellent book "O'ar the Ramparts They Watched," which I frequently quote in my own writing.
David McClure also spoke, a circuit overseer, the son of Lucy McClure., who figured in the reversal of Gobitis. He told the story as it would have been seen through a child's eyes. He spoke of regularly getting beaten up walking to and from school. As only Dave McClure could do, he made getting beaten up sound almost like fun.
The third speaker was a brother who essentially spoke about health, the sort of thing that would never be done today. "If you feel good, stay away from them," he said about doctors. He also spoke a lot about nutrution. Dave McClure was sitting not too far from me. Following that 'health talk' he said loudly: "Well, I guess I'm going to go down and get myself a hot dog!"

KM School (for elders) up until 1974/5 included training for elders on medical issues (blood/pregnancy/transplants/psychology) especially when it was taught by Brother Schroeder in Pittsburgh. But Bert Schroeder also had some crazy ideas about medical/health issues which have since been dropped from the Watchtower, such as claiming that a heart transplant (or blood) from a criminal could make you a criminal, that the heart is the physical seat of emotion, etc. (Some were just personal ideas that never would have been put in the Watchtower anyway, such as believing that people who changed from left-handed to right-handed when they were younger would become hypoglycemic in later years.)
Most medical issues have been dropped from elder training, and the expression that Jack Ryan quoted is considered all-encompassing:
There are groups of elders in the HLC who are trained to know that this isn't true, such as with blood issues, so that would not be embarrassed if they were to make such a claim in front of hospital professionals. But most elders, and therefore most Witnesses who learn from them, have a feeling, for example, that there are never occasions when people really need to die from lack of a blood transfusion or from allowing a life-threatening pregnancy to continue. These Witnesses, including non-HLC elders, will believe it is the fault of the medical professionals if things go wrong. This is why there have been more malpractice suits brought by JWs against doctors and hospitals that are actually discouraged by the WTS and those with more medical training.

This is from the March 15, 1975 issue of The Watchtower:
"Similarly, in some cases a fertilized ovum implants and begins to grow in the fallopian tube instead of the uterus. Such a tubal ectopic pregnancy cannot develop fully in this small tube; in time it will terminate with the rupture of the tube and the death of the embryo. If this condition is detected in advance, doctors usually treat it by removing the affected fallopian tube before it ruptures. A Christian woman with a tubal pregnancy can decide whether to accept this operation. Normally she undoubtedly would be willing to face any risks of pregnancy so that her child could live. But with a tubal pregnancy she faces a grave risk while there is no possibility that the embryo can continue to live and a child be born."

This is so true. It shouldn't, but it still surprises me to hear about famous people like Mike Wallace (CBS:"60 Minutes") attempting suicide, Anthony Bourdain (CNN:"Places Unknown") committing suicide, among others.. Most of the cases of suicide appear to be related to long-term clinical depression, which famous personalities will naturally hide for as long as possible.
Even when a person appears to have committed suicide over a specific incident it is often true that they have battled depression for a long time and considered suicide more often than people know. A specific incident such as a financial loss, scandal, or loss of a loved one might just be the "final straw." Reports from psychiatrists have sometimes confirmed that even the old "romantic" notion of an elderly man or woman who dies within weeks or months of the death of an elderly spouse is often merely a form of depression where the surviving spouse stops caring for themselves, stops medications, etc. 
This is no doubt true, but it can be misleading. While I was at Bethel for just 4 years, there were two suicides and one attempted suicide. All were persons who appeared to be serving Jehovah whole-heartedly. Not long after I left Bethel, a well-known brother who had served at Bethel at very high levels of responsibility for decades jumped to his death. He had threatened suicide over an incident concerning Brother Knorr some 50 years earlier. A Gilead graduate (a sister) committed suicide during Knorr's time.
I don't know anything about the truth of the claim, but psychiatrists have reported on their general findings about treatment of Jehovah's Witnesses. From what I can tell, there is no evidence that Witnesses suffer depression any less than any other group of people.  The highest groups are often reported as ex-soldiers, dentists, doctors.
I think we also need to remember that those who leave Jehovah's Witnesses over scandal or moral failings, in my experience, are very often anxious to return to the organization as soon as possible. But those who leave over doctrinal differences or "conscientious objectors" to the Witnesses are not allowed to come back because they reject one or more doctrines. Because they are therefore "apostates" they are usually treated much more harshly by their families and have therefore suffered the loss of ALL their loved ones, not just a spouse or child.
I notice that @Jack Ryan has often pointed out the problem of the Witnesses' treatment of such ex-JWs: grandparents who reject their grandchildren, parents who reject their children, grandchildren who reject their grandparents, etc.
I do believe that Jack Ryan is an "apostate" but I think he also does us a favor in bringing these things up. It's less likely, but even an average person at the door who is not an apostate could bring them up, too, and we would not be prepared to defend our position on shunning. Sometimes when the media have brought up this question to responsible persons in the organization, their answers have even misled the press by claiming that we don't shun. This is a false statement, and shows that they were not prepared to defend the Biblical position.
Watchtowers in the 1980's made it clear that we should shun our loved ones even if they still [claim to] love Jehovah and believe the Bible. But when Jack Ryan brings it up, I think he makes us think about what it means to be "having no natural affection" (2 Timothy 3:3).
So yes, there is always a danger that we are "associating" with "apostates" on forums like this. I think it's a matter of one's own conscience whether we treat this as association in the sense of joining and supporting the sinful conduct of a person. I personally appreciate the opportunity it gives us to ask our own questions more honestly and follow the Biblical instruction:
(1 Peter 3:15) . . .always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason. . . "Everyone" could include apostates, media, posers, even Satan himself. Michael disputed with Satan long after he had become apostate, and was still very "civil" with him. (Just as the remainder of the verse above in 1 Peter reminds us for "everyone . . . doing so with a mild temper and deep respect.")
(Jude 9) . . .But when Miʹcha·el the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms. . .  

That was very interesting. Of course, the real idea behind not believing in an immortal soul is that we don't believe there is a part of the person that goes on living as a separate entity (or life force) of some kind that can have its own memories of itself, and which can obtain and maintain new memories of things like suffering in eternal torment or heavenly bliss (or anything at all).
None of those ideas fit your idea that Witnesses believe in an immortal soul. But we do believe that something "like" what some people call "soul" is encompassed in the set of memories/personality/qualities/traits that make up a person and which can be remembered by Jehovah and recreated in a new body for either a heavenly or earthly environment. This can be summed up in the idea of "spirit" or "soul" but there is still quite a difference between the Witness belief and what most people think of when they hear those words.

touché

I didn't watch the video. I might have but for some reason the sound wasn't very loud and I was in a noisy place. I just wanted to say that I thought that it was good that you expressed your opinion about it. Jack Ryan is not a JW and I assume he put it here for JWs to discuss. It might have been to try to embarrass JWs and/or it might have been to get JWs to think about policies that might be dangerous. I am getting a sense (after hearing about a recent rally of ex-JWs) that perhaps the suicide rate for ex-JWs really is much higher than the normal population, and it doesn't really surprise me that much. It also doesn't surprise me that the suicide rate for ex-soldiers is very high, but for different reasons.

I heard he carved it into the bark of a Norway Spruce. If only such a tree could survive the Flood!

That was very interesting. Of course, the real idea behind not believing in an immortal soul is that we don't believe there is a part of the person that goes on living as a separate entity (or life force) of some kind that can have its own memories of itself, and which can obtain and maintain new memories of things like suffering in eternal torment or heavenly bliss (or anything at all).
None of those ideas fit your idea that Witnesses believe in an immortal soul. But we do believe that something "like" what some people call "soul" is encompassed in the set of memories/personality/qualities/traits that make up a person and which can be remembered by Jehovah and recreated in a new body for either a heavenly or earthly environment. This can be summed up in the idea of "spirit" or "soul" but there is still quite a difference between the Witness belief and what most people think of when they hear those words.

@JW Insider Alright cool, whatever works.

If I get a chance later today or tomorrow, I might move the conversation that was especially between @Space Merchant and @Jesus.defender under another topic. This way it will be easier to find later and will not bog down this particular topic: "Will only JWs be saved?" If either of you have a good title in mind for the topic after it is moved, just respond here and I'll keep it in mind when naming the moved topic.

This is so true. It shouldn't, but it still surprises me to hear about famous people like Mike Wallace (CBS:"60 Minutes") attempting suicide, Anthony Bourdain (CNN:"Places Unknown") committing suicide, among others.. Most of the cases of suicide appear to be related to long-term clinical depression, which famous personalities will naturally hide for as long as possible.
Even when a person appears to have committed suicide over a specific incident it is often true that they have battled depression for a long time and considered suicide more often than people know. A specific incident such as a financial loss, scandal, or loss of a loved one might just be the "final straw." Reports from psychiatrists have sometimes confirmed that even the old "romantic" notion of an elderly man or woman who dies within weeks or months of the death of an elderly spouse is often merely a form of depression where the surviving spouse stops caring for themselves, stops medications, etc. 
This is no doubt true, but it can be misleading. While I was at Bethel for just 4 years, there were two suicides and one attempted suicide. All were persons who appeared to be serving Jehovah whole-heartedly. Not long after I left Bethel, a well-known brother who had served at Bethel at very high levels of responsibility for decades jumped to his death. He had threatened suicide over an incident concerning Brother Knorr some 50 years earlier. A Gilead graduate (a sister) committed suicide during Knorr's time.
I don't know anything about the truth of the claim, but psychiatrists have reported on their general findings about treatment of Jehovah's Witnesses. From what I can tell, there is no evidence that Witnesses suffer depression any less than any other group of people.  The highest groups are often reported as ex-soldiers, dentists, doctors.
I think we also need to remember that those who leave Jehovah's Witnesses over scandal or moral failings, in my experience, are very often anxious to return to the organization as soon as possible. But those who leave over doctrinal differences or "conscientious objectors" to the Witnesses are not allowed to come back because they reject one or more doctrines. Because they are therefore "apostates" they are usually treated much more harshly by their families and have therefore suffered the loss of ALL their loved ones, not just a spouse or child.
I notice that @Jack Ryan has often pointed out the problem of the Witnesses' treatment of such ex-JWs: grandparents who reject their grandchildren, parents who reject their children, grandchildren who reject their grandparents, etc.
I do believe that Jack Ryan is an "apostate" but I think he also does us a favor in bringing these things up. It's less likely, but even an average person at the door who is not an apostate could bring them up, too, and we would not be prepared to defend our position on shunning. Sometimes when the media have brought up this question to responsible persons in the organization, their answers have even misled the press by claiming that we don't shun. This is a false statement, and shows that they were not prepared to defend the Biblical position.
Watchtowers in the 1980's made it clear that we should shun our loved ones even if they still [claim to] love Jehovah and believe the Bible. But when Jack Ryan brings it up, I think he makes us think about what it means to be "having no natural affection" (2 Timothy 3:3).
So yes, there is always a danger that we are "associating" with "apostates" on forums like this. I think it's a matter of one's own conscience whether we treat this as association in the sense of joining and supporting the sinful conduct of a person. I personally appreciate the opportunity it gives us to ask our own questions more honestly and follow the Biblical instruction:
(1 Peter 3:15) . . .always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason. . . "Everyone" could include apostates, media, posers, even Satan himself. Michael disputed with Satan long after he had become apostate, and was still very "civil" with him. (Just as the remainder of the verse above in 1 Peter reminds us for "everyone . . . doing so with a mild temper and deep respect.")
(Jude 9) . . .But when Miʹcha·el the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms. . .  

“Comfort all that mourn.” Isa 61:2

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

As you read this.... remember PERCEPTION is 90% of everything. Sometimes it even trumps the truth itself for centuries. It is that important.

I suspect we should consider that most businesses no longer require suits (business casual and clean is now ok for most jobs)

I try to not bring my electronic devices to my business meetings. It sends the wrong message I think.  What is wrong with the Bible and songbook (actual books)?

Let's also consider what a Kingdom Hall full of Mercedes and Audis appears like to the public.

I remember how I felt as a regular pioneer showing up in California one day at a KH with all their expensive cars. WRONG MESSAGE!!!

Remember what Jesus said about the RICH?

Just some random thoughts when I saw this on Facebook.

Any ideas?
View the full article

Yes that is probably correct. Just as a similar number likely feel that even if others were to abandon their faith under test, they never will!
I, for one, am a Jehovah's Witness. That is what I put on official forms that ask what religious denomination do I belong to. But I for one do not believe that only those religiously designated as a "Jehovah's Witnesses" will survive Armageddon. Carrying the name of a religious group of people in this 21st Century does effect how I am viewed. For example, being termed "Jehovah's Witness" on, let's say, a variety of databases will have an effect on the way maybe medical professionals handle the management of my case, in some places. It will also have an entirely different effect on the way I am viewed and likely treated in a political/religious context in some other parts of the world.
But as for surviving the end of this system of things when Armageddon takes place, regardless of its timing or absence of expectation on my part? Well, I do not think what is written on my (so-called) "Blood card" is going to be any more relevant to my survival than the name and address tag on my pet dog's collar.
My survival of the coming cataclysmic end of this system of things will really depend on:
1. That I am actually alive when it occurs.
2. Whether the" judge of all the earth" and the "man who he has appointed" evaluate that I actually fit the symbolic criteria outlined at Rev. 7:14-15:" “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. That is why they are before the throne of God, and they are rendering him sacred service day and night in his temple;" " I do not see a modern day religious designation written there.
So, with regard to the religious designation of "Jehovah's Witness", adopted by a group of people seeking to distance themselves from the corrupt mass of Christian-flavoured religious slurry manufactured by Satans masterpiece of apostasy, Babylon the Great, it is just what it is, a religious designation.
However, I believe that those who will experience salvation through the end of this system will fall into the category of "witness" as described by the apostle Paul in Hebrews 11-12, in company with the one termed as the "faithful and true witness" at Rev. 3:14.
Now, I have made a judgement call that true witnesses of the potential calibre described above are indeed grouping together in association with those who are collectively termed "Jehovah's Witness" in this 21st century. There will be no need to identify a religious organisation in this way after Armageddon, but at present, if I want to continue developing the the spiritual identity as described symbolically at Rev.7:14-15, which will give me at least a shot at survival, then I am sticking with this easily identifiable group. And anyone I come in contact with I am advising to do the same. As for the outcome for those who are yet unaware of God's purposes with regard to this earth, then I will happily leave their prospects in the hands of one who "does not desire anyone to be destroyed, but desires all to attain to repentance." (2Pet3:9).
It is really, after all, due to a succession of miracles that any of us have come to know about Jehovah at all after the combined attempts of mighty forces to suppress the truth of God's Word for centuries. It would not be amiss for the Creator of heaven and earth to unleash a few more of these miracles before He finally calls time on this wicked and smugly selfish system of things.