JW Insider

Yes, that's why I thought it wasn't a bad article overall, but as you pointed out "but the article also stretches the truth. Just enough to make you question and doubt". That's if the reader isn't really paying attention to the author's agenda. This is one those types of articles that I think are useful if you can separate the bias from the facts it presents. I liked that it admits that Malone did have a hand in inventing the mRNA and supports this with the reference to Rein Verbeke's seminal work in the field of gene transfer in his article a 2019 history of mRNA-vaccine development. It is then up to the reader to decide whether it was fair for other articles to say in broad statements that hundreds of scientists had a hand in this. Which is true of course, but someone had to pioneer this and it was evidently Dr. Malone and his team back in 1989. This was the one area I was trying to find some facts about and this article helped in that. It drives me nuts when I see obvious bias of someone trying to discredit someone else with these kind of broad statements and it's great when you can go back in time and read facts that were written years before the issue was raised. Which makes me think that there is so much more out there and hopefully eventually the truth will be evident. He (Dr. Malone) did mention towards the end (around the 2hr 50 mark) that these are unprecedented crazy times in many respects. This does give further support to the Bible's end times. And by the way the video has been taken down on YouTube. Grrrr...I had wanted to download it before this happened.
Edit: I found it on spotify, yay!

You are right. The Atlantic readers are already primed to think of anyone who questions anything about the safety of the vaccines as an anti-vaxxer. This term is so often misused that it's a perfect pejorative. Because then they can also be classed with right wing conspiracy nuts, and then the media can seek out the small minority of persons with crazy beliefs that the vaccine magnetizes their arm, or that each vaccine includes a tiny microchip. (Of course, in Sweden there really is a micro-chip that thousands of Swedes wear under their skin. https://www.npr.org/2018/10/22/658808705/thousands-of-swedes-are-inserting-microchips-under-their-skin)
Therefore the question in the title of their article only needs to be rhetorical; it doesn't need to be answered. It makes Malone "crazy" just for the juxtaposition. It's curious that a fellow scientist says that he's hurting his chances to win a Nobel prize for his close and unique involvement with the invention of mRNA vaccines, and his related patents. Nobel himself (a Swede) is credited for inventing dynamite 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean he was happy with all the ways it was being used. Would The Atlantic have run an article "Alfred Nobel claims to have invented dynamite. Why is he trying so hard to undermine its use?"
Whether Nobel himself personally had such specific reservations I don't really know. Albert Einstein thought he knew when he said:
The problem of the inventor’s and scientist’s social responsibility was taken up by Albert Einstein in a speech in 1945, after the atom bombs were dropped over Japan in August of that year. Einstein pointed out that the physicists in 1945 were in a situation which much resembled that in which Alfred Nobel once found himself. Einstein drew his conclusion from this: “Alfred Nobel invented an explosive more powerful than any then known — an exceedingly effective means of destruction. To atone for this ‘accomplishment’ and to relieve his conscience, he instituted his award for the promotion of peace.” https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/alfred-nobels-thoughts-about-war-and-peace/
I wouldn't expect a scientist to have always said the right thing in speeches or on social media. Obviously there is ego and pride at play here, too. But most of his credentials are admitted by the article.
But the article also stretches the truth. Just enough to make you question and doubt. It claims he is known for lucid explanations but faults him for those comments about his positions that are made by others (YouTubers or Twitter followers). It faults him for having money. It faults his wife for using all caps in a response that defends him. It faults him for giving interviews to the only people who will grant such interviews. There seems to be a need to bend over backward to find fault. And a couple of false statements thrown in there, too. Such as when he was temporarily deplatformed from LinkedIn. The article says it was for false statements, when it was directly the result of verifiably true statements and questions. (Like questioning whether someone being on the board of both Pfizer and Reuters could result in a conflict of interest.) LinkedIn apologized to him and restored his account.
And of course, Dr. Malone is still not an anti-vaxxer. He got the vaccine himself. He still works on vaccines. He believes the vaccine has its place for the vulnerable, but is potentially dangerous and not studied fully enough for risking it on children and persons less at risk from Covid itself. And of course he is very well aware that the vaccine will NOT always keep one from getting the infection, and it will not keep one from spreading the infection. And he actually agrees with the point made in the Atlantic article, that the good appears to outweigh the risks for those who have the vulnerability factors already mentioned. 
At least the article doesn't do what so many have done in other media outlets (and social media, of course) which is to just simply lie about what a person has said or done in order to make them look less credible.

(Proverbs 26:17) . . .Like someone grabbing hold of a dog’s ears Is the one passing by who becomes furious about a quarrel that is not his.
When I was a kid back in the 1960's, this verse never made me think of Internet discussion forums. Yet, the style of a certain participant here, who will not be named (though he has had dozens), is always the first thing that comes to mind.
[edited to add: But, of course, I also know that it isn't fair to focus on only one example, when there are many others, including myself who just can't pass up a good discussion, even if not the least bit furious about it.]

(Proverbs 26:17) . . .Like someone grabbing hold of a dog’s ears Is the one passing by who becomes furious about a quarrel that is not his.
When I was a kid back in the 1960's, this verse never made me think of Internet discussion forums. Yet, the style of a certain participant here, who will not be named (though he has had dozens), is always the first thing that comes to mind.
[edited to add: But, of course, I also know that it isn't fair to focus on only one example, when there are many others, including myself who just can't pass up a good discussion, even if not the least bit furious about it.]

You are right. The Atlantic readers are already primed to think of anyone who questions anything about the safety of the vaccines as an anti-vaxxer. This term is so often misused that it's a perfect pejorative. Because then they can also be classed with right wing conspiracy nuts, and then the media can seek out the small minority of persons with crazy beliefs that the vaccine magnetizes their arm, or that each vaccine includes a tiny microchip. (Of course, in Sweden there really is a micro-chip that thousands of Swedes wear under their skin. https://www.npr.org/2018/10/22/658808705/thousands-of-swedes-are-inserting-microchips-under-their-skin)
Therefore the question in the title of their article only needs to be rhetorical; it doesn't need to be answered. It makes Malone "crazy" just for the juxtaposition. It's curious that a fellow scientist says that he's hurting his chances to win a Nobel prize for his close and unique involvement with the invention of mRNA vaccines, and his related patents. Nobel himself (a Swede) is credited for inventing dynamite 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean he was happy with all the ways it was being used. Would The Atlantic have run an article "Alfred Nobel claims to have invented dynamite. Why is he trying so hard to undermine its use?"
Whether Nobel himself personally had such specific reservations I don't really know. Albert Einstein thought he knew when he said:
The problem of the inventor’s and scientist’s social responsibility was taken up by Albert Einstein in a speech in 1945, after the atom bombs were dropped over Japan in August of that year. Einstein pointed out that the physicists in 1945 were in a situation which much resembled that in which Alfred Nobel once found himself. Einstein drew his conclusion from this: “Alfred Nobel invented an explosive more powerful than any then known — an exceedingly effective means of destruction. To atone for this ‘accomplishment’ and to relieve his conscience, he instituted his award for the promotion of peace.” https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/alfred-nobels-thoughts-about-war-and-peace/
I wouldn't expect a scientist to have always said the right thing in speeches or on social media. Obviously there is ego and pride at play here, too. But most of his credentials are admitted by the article.
But the article also stretches the truth. Just enough to make you question and doubt. It claims he is known for lucid explanations but faults him for those comments about his positions that are made by others (YouTubers or Twitter followers). It faults him for having money. It faults his wife for using all caps in a response that defends him. It faults him for giving interviews to the only people who will grant such interviews. There seems to be a need to bend over backward to find fault. And a couple of false statements thrown in there, too. Such as when he was temporarily deplatformed from LinkedIn. The article says it was for false statements, when it was directly the result of verifiably true statements and questions. (Like questioning whether someone being on the board of both Pfizer and Reuters could result in a conflict of interest.) LinkedIn apologized to him and restored his account.
And of course, Dr. Malone is still not an anti-vaxxer. He got the vaccine himself. He still works on vaccines. He believes the vaccine has its place for the vulnerable, but is potentially dangerous and not studied fully enough for risking it on children and persons less at risk from Covid itself. And of course he is very well aware that the vaccine will NOT always keep one from getting the infection, and it will not keep one from spreading the infection. And he actually agrees with the point made in the Atlantic article, that the good appears to outweigh the risks for those who have the vulnerability factors already mentioned. 
At least the article doesn't do what so many have done in other media outlets (and social media, of course) which is to just simply lie about what a person has said or done in order to make them look less credible.

You are right. The Atlantic readers are already primed to think of anyone who questions anything about the safety of the vaccines as an anti-vaxxer. This term is so often misused that it's a perfect pejorative. Because then they can also be classed with right wing conspiracy nuts, and then the media can seek out the small minority of persons with crazy beliefs that the vaccine magnetizes their arm, or that each vaccine includes a tiny microchip. (Of course, in Sweden there really is a micro-chip that thousands of Swedes wear under their skin. https://www.npr.org/2018/10/22/658808705/thousands-of-swedes-are-inserting-microchips-under-their-skin)
Therefore the question in the title of their article only needs to be rhetorical; it doesn't need to be answered. It makes Malone "crazy" just for the juxtaposition. It's curious that a fellow scientist says that he's hurting his chances to win a Nobel prize for his close and unique involvement with the invention of mRNA vaccines, and his related patents. Nobel himself (a Swede) is credited for inventing dynamite 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean he was happy with all the ways it was being used. Would The Atlantic have run an article "Alfred Nobel claims to have invented dynamite. Why is he trying so hard to undermine its use?"
Whether Nobel himself personally had such specific reservations I don't really know. Albert Einstein thought he knew when he said:
The problem of the inventor’s and scientist’s social responsibility was taken up by Albert Einstein in a speech in 1945, after the atom bombs were dropped over Japan in August of that year. Einstein pointed out that the physicists in 1945 were in a situation which much resembled that in which Alfred Nobel once found himself. Einstein drew his conclusion from this: “Alfred Nobel invented an explosive more powerful than any then known — an exceedingly effective means of destruction. To atone for this ‘accomplishment’ and to relieve his conscience, he instituted his award for the promotion of peace.” https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/alfred-nobels-thoughts-about-war-and-peace/
I wouldn't expect a scientist to have always said the right thing in speeches or on social media. Obviously there is ego and pride at play here, too. But most of his credentials are admitted by the article.
But the article also stretches the truth. Just enough to make you question and doubt. It claims he is known for lucid explanations but faults him for those comments about his positions that are made by others (YouTubers or Twitter followers). It faults him for having money. It faults his wife for using all caps in a response that defends him. It faults him for giving interviews to the only people who will grant such interviews. There seems to be a need to bend over backward to find fault. And a couple of false statements thrown in there, too. Such as when he was temporarily deplatformed from LinkedIn. The article says it was for false statements, when it was directly the result of verifiably true statements and questions. (Like questioning whether someone being on the board of both Pfizer and Reuters could result in a conflict of interest.) LinkedIn apologized to him and restored his account.
And of course, Dr. Malone is still not an anti-vaxxer. He got the vaccine himself. He still works on vaccines. He believes the vaccine has its place for the vulnerable, but is potentially dangerous and not studied fully enough for risking it on children and persons less at risk from Covid itself. And of course he is very well aware that the vaccine will NOT always keep one from getting the infection, and it will not keep one from spreading the infection. And he actually agrees with the point made in the Atlantic article, that the good appears to outweigh the risks for those who have the vulnerability factors already mentioned. 
At least the article doesn't do what so many have done in other media outlets (and social media, of course) which is to just simply lie about what a person has said or done in order to make them look less credible.

Here is an article, which isn’t bad overall, and includes some useful references, but unfortunately uses some loaded language which in my mind unnecessarily detracts from the facts it’s trying to present. Without the ad hominem attacks on Dr. Malone it would have been much better. The impression it created of Dr. Malone is that he is this disgruntled underappreciated scientist kicking and screaming in desperation to draw attention to himself instead of really answering the question it (the article) poses : “Robert Malone claims to have invented mRNA technology. Why is he trying so hard to undermine its use?”
It is a very pertinent question and surely there must be a deeper answer than merely being an attention seeking ploy...
There is only a short mention that "His objections to the Pfizer and Moderna shots have to do mostly with their expedited approval process and with the government’s system for tracking adverse reactions" .
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-malone-vaccine-inventor-vaccine-skeptic/619734/

(Proverbs 26:17) . . .Like someone grabbing hold of a dog’s ears Is the one passing by who becomes furious about a quarrel that is not his.
When I was a kid back in the 1960's, this verse never made me think of Internet discussion forums. Yet, the style of a certain participant here, who will not be named (though he has had dozens), is always the first thing that comes to mind.
[edited to add: But, of course, I also know that it isn't fair to focus on only one example, when there are many others, including myself who just can't pass up a good discussion, even if not the least bit furious about it.]

(Proverbs 26:17) . . .Like someone grabbing hold of a dog’s ears Is the one passing by who becomes furious about a quarrel that is not his.
When I was a kid back in the 1960's, this verse never made me think of Internet discussion forums. Yet, the style of a certain participant here, who will not be named (though he has had dozens), is always the first thing that comes to mind.
[edited to add: But, of course, I also know that it isn't fair to focus on only one example, when there are many others, including myself who just can't pass up a good discussion, even if not the least bit furious about it.]

I am not an anti-vaxxer. I believe that almost all the current vaccine types intended for Covid-19 have been proven, at least in the short term, to do more good than harm for a select group of individuals who have not previously had the virus itself, and/or who have the typically identified comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes, advanced age, cancer, prior respiratory issues, etc.
However, because these vaccines really can produce better outcomes for some, many people apparently do not understand why there should be any limitations on its use. The NYT has finally included some dissenting opinions about the efficacy of the vaccines (without ridiculing them) in a recent discussion among Israeli doctors and an ex-health minister. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/world/middleeast/israel-vaccine-4th-dose.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
It admits that several scientists have claimed that boosters may make it more difficult to fight the virus.
But that's not the news I refer to here. It's the 3-hour interview (below) that Joe Rogan had with Dr. Malone, who was the man who invented (got several patents for) the mrna technology on which many of the vaccines are based. If anyone has spent any time at all discussing the virus or the vaccines, or spent any time listening to news reports about them, then this could easily be the most important information ever presented about these topics.
It's here:
Dr. Robert Malone interviewed by Joe Rogan
  I think everyone ought to at least give it an hour, especially considering the many hours that other news sources that we will be exposed to.

I'll make a call tomorrow (or at least later in the week) to another person, still at Bethel, who knew him well.
Can you tell me how you knew him?

So true. It's hard to imagine what kind of "spirituality" can live alongside certain kinds of sin and certain kinds of personalities.
Most people go into the various Bethel branches, at about age 19 and 20, rather naively, and usually just a few short years after their baptism and with an average of more than a year of pioneering.  The statistics favored those who were 'raised in the truth' rather than recent converts. One of the first things we were told, jokingly by Brother Couch and Brother Sydlik in the "welcome speech' is that Bethelites were divided into two groups, "Newbies" and "BAs" (those with a "Bad Attitude). Then we were reminded that this wasn't a joke by Bethelites who had already been there a year or two. The direct implication was that it didn't take long before we would all become jaded.
I went in on the cusp of a changeover from a 4-year commitment to just a 1-year commitment. Those who were serving out the last year or so of a 4-year commitment were supposed to be the worst BAs (although with the changeover, there was no stigma to a 2 or 3 year Bethelite leaving early, as there had been previously). If you went home early prior to that, it was considered the same as a dishonorable discharge from the army. And worse than that, there had just been a dismissal of 50 or more (all at one time) who had been accused of homosexuality. It was right after that that the 1-year commitment was offered, but no one wanted to leave early in the midst of that, for fear of what the congregation back home might think.
On the first day I got to Bethel, my temporary roommate stole a couple hundred dollars from me, as he was just going back home after 4 years. On my last day of Bethel, I discovered that my storage locker, unused for several years, had been broken into and my valuables had been stolen. I never thought to check my storage locker even though Brother Knorr made at least a weekly announcement of Bethelites dismissed for theft over a period of several months.
But all this was very easy to ignore, by just putting your nose to the grindstone and staying busy. As TTH reminds us, it's dirt among diamonds. I found diamonds by the dozen, and would have never focused on the dirt. And of course every diamond itself has imperfections, too. I could not have asked for better assignments at Bethel. I didn't deserve any of them, and I loved it every single day. Even those dark days of 1980 that seemed surreal, didn't change my resolve to continue to just try to be the kind of person who was like those whom I liked to be around. 
As I got a little older I realized that part of helping others stay grounded is to stop keeping everything to myself, and just admit the faults we've lived through. And I think that we can help others even by admitting the specifics (up to a point). The reason is that others who have gone through something unexpected might never guess that others have gone through something similar. It might give them a bit of relief that they are not going crazy or being singled out for mistreatment or just to know that others really can sympathize.
There is always an element of concern over the fact that some are stumbled by dirty laundry, but that's why I've mentioned before that a semi-anonymous discussion forum (for me) is a much better choice than trying to sympathize in the congregation setting. Many of those who are hurt by mistreatment from those they trusted have clearly turned to discussion forums like this one. (Actually, I saw several of that sort on a bigger discussion forum and was terrified for them that they were being eaten alive by a a lot of unruly ex-JWs, proud to call themselves "apostates.")
Rather than fight the noise on that larger forum, I ran across this one, and think, so far, that it has a fair balance, and that even ex-JW and non-JW "opposing" voices are fairly good at self-moderating here. Someday, this forum will probably no longer meet the same standards it meets now and I'll either go back to silence, or go looking around for another outlet. Many won't agree, but I think that sharing openly and honestly is a loving thing to do for those who might be looking for a sympathetic or empathetic ear. That goes for those concerned about issues of justice and issues of doctrine and healthful teaching. I think this is why the Bible reveals the flaws, even of people at the highest levels of responsibility. (Noah, Moses, Jephthah, Saul, David, Solomon, . . . Paul, Peter, James, and John).
I'm sure some are annoyed that not everyone here spends 100% of their time encouraging loyalty to all the long-standing traditions, and bureaucratic processes. Some apparently only want to encourage complete obedience to any and all suggestions from the Governing Body and apparently think anything less is some kind of apostasy. We have congregations for that kind of encouragement. We have meetings where we specifically study the current thinking of the Governing Body and support it through prepared questions and answers and reading of published material. The congregation is no place for open questioning of current doctrines and procedures.
Well put! 

It's on YouTube, I just want to download it to my computer in case it disappears.

He never used to be. But then he got COVID-19, took the drugs that are officially worthless, and promptly got better. It changed his was of looking at things.
You needn’t worry though. I’m told a few weeks ago he interviewed Sanjay Gupta, the doc from CNN, who would be the left-wing counterpart, or at least represents the official view on COVID.

A quick aside:
The reason that the NYT article I mentioned above included questions about the vaccine from Israel can easily be guessed. Israel is just about the most vaccinated country in the world, already beginning on the 4th jab. But due to Israeli apartheid, Palestine, right next door, has had great difficulty reaching "adequate" vaccination levels. Yet, Palestine is doing better than Israel with Covid-19. For those who read Hebrew and pick up some of the more obscure sources in the Israeli press, you can even find a sinister side to some Israeli expectations. Some had concluded that keeping it difficult for Palestinians to get the vaccine might result in greater deaths of Palestinians. This is not a bad outcome for Israelis who will privately share a Hebrew expression that states: "To kill an Arab is a blessing." 
[The university at which I studied Hebrew for 3.5 years has a high American-Jewish population, and although these are Americans who often have a strong prejudice against Israelis, there were also Israelis in the Hebrew classes, who joked about that same expression above. Also, separately, when I had joined a study group at the home of a Jewish family (where we studied physics) the home-owner (father of one student) learned that I spoke Hebrew, and his first question to me was. So now you know how to say: "To kill an Arab is a blessing."?]

I am not an anti-vaxxer. I believe that almost all the current vaccine types intended for Covid-19 have been proven, at least in the short term, to do more good than harm for a select group of individuals who have not previously had the virus itself, and/or who have the typically identified comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes, advanced age, cancer, prior respiratory issues, etc.
However, because these vaccines really can produce better outcomes for some, many people apparently do not understand why there should be any limitations on its use. The NYT has finally included some dissenting opinions about the efficacy of the vaccines (without ridiculing them) in a recent discussion among Israeli doctors and an ex-health minister. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/world/middleeast/israel-vaccine-4th-dose.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
It admits that several scientists have claimed that boosters may make it more difficult to fight the virus.
But that's not the news I refer to here. It's the 3-hour interview (below) that Joe Rogan had with Dr. Malone, who was the man who invented (got several patents for) the mrna technology on which many of the vaccines are based. If anyone has spent any time at all discussing the virus or the vaccines, or spent any time listening to news reports about them, then this could easily be the most important information ever presented about these topics.
It's here:
Dr. Robert Malone interviewed by Joe Rogan
  I think everyone ought to at least give it an hour, especially considering the many hours that other news sources that we will be exposed to.

I am not an anti-vaxxer. I believe that almost all the current vaccine types intended for Covid-19 have been proven, at least in the short term, to do more good than harm for a select group of individuals who have not previously had the virus itself, and/or who have the typically identified comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes, advanced age, cancer, prior respiratory issues, etc.
However, because these vaccines really can produce better outcomes for some, many people apparently do not understand why there should be any limitations on its use. The NYT has finally included some dissenting opinions about the efficacy of the vaccines (without ridiculing them) in a recent discussion among Israeli doctors and an ex-health minister. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/world/middleeast/israel-vaccine-4th-dose.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
It admits that several scientists have claimed that boosters may make it more difficult to fight the virus.
But that's not the news I refer to here. It's the 3-hour interview (below) that Joe Rogan had with Dr. Malone, who was the man who invented (got several patents for) the mrna technology on which many of the vaccines are based. If anyone has spent any time at all discussing the virus or the vaccines, or spent any time listening to news reports about them, then this could easily be the most important information ever presented about these topics.
It's here:
Dr. Robert Malone interviewed by Joe Rogan
  I think everyone ought to at least give it an hour, especially considering the many hours that other news sources that we will be exposed to.

A quick aside:
The reason that the NYT article I mentioned above included questions about the vaccine from Israel can easily be guessed. Israel is just about the most vaccinated country in the world, already beginning on the 4th jab. But due to Israeli apartheid, Palestine, right next door, has had great difficulty reaching "adequate" vaccination levels. Yet, Palestine is doing better than Israel with Covid-19. For those who read Hebrew and pick up some of the more obscure sources in the Israeli press, you can even find a sinister side to some Israeli expectations. Some had concluded that keeping it difficult for Palestinians to get the vaccine might result in greater deaths of Palestinians. This is not a bad outcome for Israelis who will privately share a Hebrew expression that states: "To kill an Arab is a blessing." 
[The university at which I studied Hebrew for 3.5 years has a high American-Jewish population, and although these are Americans who often have a strong prejudice against Israelis, there were also Israelis in the Hebrew classes, who joked about that same expression above. Also, separately, when I had joined a study group at the home of a Jewish family (where we studied physics) the home-owner (father of one student) learned that I spoke Hebrew, and his first question to me was. So now you know how to say: "To kill an Arab is a blessing."?]

I am not an anti-vaxxer. I believe that almost all the current vaccine types intended for Covid-19 have been proven, at least in the short term, to do more good than harm for a select group of individuals who have not previously had the virus itself, and/or who have the typically identified comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes, advanced age, cancer, prior respiratory issues, etc.
However, because these vaccines really can produce better outcomes for some, many people apparently do not understand why there should be any limitations on its use. The NYT has finally included some dissenting opinions about the efficacy of the vaccines (without ridiculing them) in a recent discussion among Israeli doctors and an ex-health minister. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/world/middleeast/israel-vaccine-4th-dose.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
It admits that several scientists have claimed that boosters may make it more difficult to fight the virus.
But that's not the news I refer to here. It's the 3-hour interview (below) that Joe Rogan had with Dr. Malone, who was the man who invented (got several patents for) the mrna technology on which many of the vaccines are based. If anyone has spent any time at all discussing the virus or the vaccines, or spent any time listening to news reports about them, then this could easily be the most important information ever presented about these topics.
It's here:
Dr. Robert Malone interviewed by Joe Rogan
  I think everyone ought to at least give it an hour, especially considering the many hours that other news sources that we will be exposed to.

Agreed!…
Christ’s  followers were confused a lot of the times…first when they went out on their first preaching missionary they taught and thought that Gods Kingdom had already come and Jesus was there to rule now….( wow that was misleading …and the thing was Jesus knew that but let them go on with it anyway)…..seems they got confused many times over Jesus and his actions…how on earth could he ever talk to the Samaritan woman..that was a big one…confusion over circumcising..confused over drinking Jesus blood and eating his flesh…and what of Peter renouncing Jesus three times..out of fear…all of them were confused and frightened on the night of Jesus and his betrayal….they scattered frightened and left him alone ..they never had a clue as to what was going on..yet he told them…they should have…
And they fought amongst themselves and yelled at each other…brothers and sister of the anointed at that(…even after Jesus death and their anointing…)
Yet they had the scriptures…they should have known …should have discerned what would happen to the coming Messiah….they lived with him..knew him In The flesh….he TOLD THEM….yet they abandoned  him in his hour of need…confused …they didn’t understand  anything!!!
Yet who of us does not want to be like them…..Dmitar….why do you think Gods people will be any different in the time of the end …or at any time in the past….
Those men were constantly learning…failing ..enduring…growing in years and age as well as understandings…and probably the wisest they ever were was just before they died.
But HE chose the foolish of the world, remembering they are but from dust and he keeps putting up with the weak earthly vessels…that are all cracked and flawed….so why do you expect such a high standard when HE knows it’s not possible .
1Cor 1:27
but God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise
God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

So true. It's hard to imagine what kind of "spirituality" can live alongside certain kinds of sin and certain kinds of personalities.
Most people go into the various Bethel branches, at about age 19 and 20, rather naively, and usually just a few short years after their baptism and with an average of more than a year of pioneering.  The statistics favored those who were 'raised in the truth' rather than recent converts. One of the first things we were told, jokingly by Brother Couch and Brother Sydlik in the "welcome speech' is that Bethelites were divided into two groups, "Newbies" and "BAs" (those with a "Bad Attitude). Then we were reminded that this wasn't a joke by Bethelites who had already been there a year or two. The direct implication was that it didn't take long before we would all become jaded.
I went in on the cusp of a changeover from a 4-year commitment to just a 1-year commitment. Those who were serving out the last year or so of a 4-year commitment were supposed to be the worst BAs (although with the changeover, there was no stigma to a 2 or 3 year Bethelite leaving early, as there had been previously). If you went home early prior to that, it was considered the same as a dishonorable discharge from the army. And worse than that, there had just been a dismissal of 50 or more (all at one time) who had been accused of homosexuality. It was right after that that the 1-year commitment was offered, but no one wanted to leave early in the midst of that, for fear of what the congregation back home might think.
On the first day I got to Bethel, my temporary roommate stole a couple hundred dollars from me, as he was just going back home after 4 years. On my last day of Bethel, I discovered that my storage locker, unused for several years, had been broken into and my valuables had been stolen. I never thought to check my storage locker even though Brother Knorr made at least a weekly announcement of Bethelites dismissed for theft over a period of several months.
But all this was very easy to ignore, by just putting your nose to the grindstone and staying busy. As TTH reminds us, it's dirt among diamonds. I found diamonds by the dozen, and would have never focused on the dirt. And of course every diamond itself has imperfections, too. I could not have asked for better assignments at Bethel. I didn't deserve any of them, and I loved it every single day. Even those dark days of 1980 that seemed surreal, didn't change my resolve to continue to just try to be the kind of person who was like those whom I liked to be around. 
As I got a little older I realized that part of helping others stay grounded is to stop keeping everything to myself, and just admit the faults we've lived through. And I think that we can help others even by admitting the specifics (up to a point). The reason is that others who have gone through something unexpected might never guess that others have gone through something similar. It might give them a bit of relief that they are not going crazy or being singled out for mistreatment or just to know that others really can sympathize.
There is always an element of concern over the fact that some are stumbled by dirty laundry, but that's why I've mentioned before that a semi-anonymous discussion forum (for me) is a much better choice than trying to sympathize in the congregation setting. Many of those who are hurt by mistreatment from those they trusted have clearly turned to discussion forums like this one. (Actually, I saw several of that sort on a bigger discussion forum and was terrified for them that they were being eaten alive by a a lot of unruly ex-JWs, proud to call themselves "apostates.")
Rather than fight the noise on that larger forum, I ran across this one, and think, so far, that it has a fair balance, and that even ex-JW and non-JW "opposing" voices are fairly good at self-moderating here. Someday, this forum will probably no longer meet the same standards it meets now and I'll either go back to silence, or go looking around for another outlet. Many won't agree, but I think that sharing openly and honestly is a loving thing to do for those who might be looking for a sympathetic or empathetic ear. That goes for those concerned about issues of justice and issues of doctrine and healthful teaching. I think this is why the Bible reveals the flaws, even of people at the highest levels of responsibility. (Noah, Moses, Jephthah, Saul, David, Solomon, . . . Paul, Peter, James, and John).
I'm sure some are annoyed that not everyone here spends 100% of their time encouraging loyalty to all the long-standing traditions, and bureaucratic processes. Some apparently only want to encourage complete obedience to any and all suggestions from the Governing Body and apparently think anything less is some kind of apostasy. We have congregations for that kind of encouragement. We have meetings where we specifically study the current thinking of the Governing Body and support it through prepared questions and answers and reading of published material. The congregation is no place for open questioning of current doctrines and procedures.
Well put! 

@Jay Witness
Didn't notice this until now. What a terrible tragedy. I didn't listen to the report, because I started a couple of others first and realized that they are a little too negative for my taste. I still have a few long-time friends at Bethel, and a couple of them will talk to me about anything. Some of what I get from them is a bit too gossipy but they are firm believers in the idea that 'what you hear in the darkness you should shout from the rooftops.'
I don't know if they knew this sister but there was a definite lack of communication and lack of openness since the middle of last year with one of my friends. I wondered if there was something going on similar to what happened in  late 1979 and early 1980. If they are back to talking openly about anything, maybe they will tell me more about what this sister was doing.
From a Biblical perspective, I don't think an organization like ours has any right to secrecy. I think everything we do, we should be proud to preach about, and humble enough to let others evaluate it, too. And if we do things we are not proud of, these should be shouted from the rooftops so that all of us, even the world, can evaluate it. I'm angry that such a thing could happen. Reminds me of how Scaramucci went flailing and embarrassing himself yesterday because he thought his loyalty to the US president gave him a mandate to just wildly accuse people and it obviously clouded his judgment. I saw the same kind of flailing back in 1979-1982 and I saw good friends lied to back in 1980 as a way to get them to try to turn in their friends, and I saw political scheming behind the scenes that would have even scared off a lot of good Bethelites if they had been able to see what was going on in closed doors right around them.
The open court system of Jewish towns and cities mentioned in the Mosaic Law is a much better precedent for Society and congregation decisions than the secrecy we encounter (and are expected to adhere to)  today. The only problem I see is privacy concerns for certain types of cases, yet justice would always have a better chance of prevailing if everyone could be aware of the decision making processes. They say that sausage and apple-cider taste great, but you just don't want to go behind the scenes to see how they are made. I would add religion to the list, until we can learn to be humble enough to expose our processes to scrutiny and proud enough to allow the world to see why we are proud to be Jehovah's Witnesses.

I really liked him. That's because back when I was just 21, he gave me an assignment to help set up the pre-press, typesetting, and "art" department at the branch in Athens in 1978. This was right in the middle of a vacation which I would spend traveling with a member of the GB and his family for the first few weeks through London, Paris, Barcelona, Nice, and Rome. Then this assignment in Athens (which I honestly didn't deserve) and the last few weeks traveling in 7 additional countries, staying with Witness families and at the Branches. I was born in California but grew up mostly in Missouri, so this was more than I could have hoped for. Because of the extra assignments, I ended up with a 6-week "vacation" after only earning a 3-week vacation.
Everyone said Songer was educated as an engineer, and I liked him for his sense of humor. (Most engineers have one as a prerequisite to getting along in their future jobs.) He reminded me of my father, an electrical engineer with a similar sense of humor. Good times!

What are these guys doing on MY STREET!? They have no right!

I think everybody here is missing the point of Life, The Universe, and Everything.
Yes, the WTB&TS is guilty of hundreds of sins over a hundred and more years, but the fact is that in a Universe that is inhabited by big ugly bags of mostly water, and a Sovereign God that allows for it, they are the best bet we have for learning about how to be better people.
Again and again and again I have asked all here to show me something better, and they have, with a million words, failed to do so.
Details are important, and they have been sorely lacking.
There is no love in what I know .... but I cannot deny the fact that, disregarding "Management", Jehovah's Witnesses are humanity's best bet.
... all the others are so very much worse.