The Librarian

Shun your inactive family members and report them if you suspect they are sinning 
 
 
 

Source

The Photo Drama of Creation - Charles Taze Russell

Lessons From the Book of Job—Natural Forces

Via

Lessons From the Book of Job—Natural Forces

Via

The Photo Drama of Creation - Charles Taze Russell

Lessons From the Book of Job—Natural Forces

Via

Loyally Uphold Jehovah’s Judgments

Via

Anneliese Zelina: Jehovah, I’m Going to Put You First (See video two posts down)
 

-by Laura Tucker, Staff Writer; Image: Katherine Jackson (Image Source: Screenshot)
The 86-year-old Katherine Jackson has lived through a lot in her years. And while she put up with much of it, including her husband's infidelity, it appears that she may have finally reached her limit.
She has been granted a temporary restraining order against her nephew, Trent Lamar Jackson.
It's alleged in court documents that Trent, who is also a longtime driver for Katherine, has been accessing her bank accounts without her knowledge, using her credit cards for his personal use without her approval and also emotionally abusing her.
The claims of abuse state that "Trent has manipulated Mrs. Jackson so much and preyed on her known kindness, that whenever the police arrive or efforts to press elder abuse charges have been undertaken, she ultimately recants or changes her mind."
It wouldn't be the first time she changed her mind when looking for a better life for herself. She twice filed for divorce from the family patriarch Joe Jackson. She was tired of his affairs and filed in 1973, but her Jehovah's Witnesses church persuaded her to drop the divorce. She then tried to divorce him again in 1979 but was again urged to drop it. He went on to have a long-term affair with another woman and had another child with her. While Katherine and Joe remain married, they live in different states.
The current paperwork also stated, "Mrs. Jackson does not want to hurt anyone and has always erred on the side of enduring abuse to save everyone else."
Her lawyers speaking on her behalf say that she "will have moments of strength and tell her kids that Trent is abusing her, and by the time they get Adult Protections Services to the house, he has convinced her by crying or begging not to report him, and the cycle starts all over."
Trent has not spoken publicly about the restraining order or the claims in the court documents.
It's not known why Trent was given such previous power in his aunt's life. She has plenty of adult children and grandchildren to take care of her needs. She and 66-year-old daughter Rebbie went to go visit youngest sibling Janet recently to see her newborn son Eissa for the first time in London.
"It seems like her family is staying close to help and support Janet," said a source, but it seems like maybe they need to stay close and help and support the family matriarch as well.
http://www.allmediany.com/articles/51938-katherine-jackson-receives-temporary-restraining-order-against-nephew

Wedding of a couple of Jehovah’s Witnesses
Via

Anneliese Zelina: Jehovah, I’m Going to Put You First (See video two posts down)
 

Looks to me like the pioneer sister featured  in February's broadcast. 

You covered a good portion of what we called the "pendulum swing." That's what I was going to bring up next. I think the general expectation is that we will sooner or later end up, not exactly in the middle of the two extremes, but a little closer to "erring on the side of love." One reason might even be due to concerns with our reputation and legal issues. It's a shame if that's what shames us into no longer using shaming techniques in the same way we have been. But I do know that it is true that when Judah Ben was at the head of the Public Relations department, he admitted that "shunning" was one of the worst policies we had in terms of the way in which it helped create and give a voice to a community of ex-JWs. Ex-JWs could now correctly claim an injustice even when their only reason for not coming back was that they disagreed with specific policies including, ironically, the policy of shunning. 
It's of interest that we would notice the contradiction and therefore had to make exceptions for eating with disfellowshipped spouses or minor children. Yet, we would not notice (as quickly) the issues you pointed out, or that what we recommended often contradicted the example of Jehovah and Jesus and the counsel about "showing no natural affection." This does not mean that there is only one definitive way to read the specific expression "anyone called a brother." But in general, overall, I think you are making a correct point.
Personally, I agreed with Judah Ben and also believe that we would be as large as Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists (who started out defining themselves at about the same time) if we had abstained from the shunning policy. 

I am glad you brought this topic up CMP. It is something I has bothered me for a long time and a lot of the issues you raised I have also thought about. It is clear what purpose the disfellowshipping/shunning policy serves. It is to keep the congregation spiritually and morally clean. I have no problem with that. We would not be who we are if we were lax about this.
My issues are these:
Disfellowshipping is supposed to be a protective and corrective measure. Those whom Jehovah loves he disciplines. However, what about when this protective and corrective measure has lost its purpose and/or is no longer relevant?
Continuing to shun a family member, who had been disfellowshipped in the past, but is no longer practicing what they had been disfellowshipped for, but who no longer wants to be a Witness (therefore no chance of re-instatement)  has never made sense to me. It seems to be all about being slapped with the disfellowshipp label but not about what is really going on. There is something amiss there. Jehovah wants worshipers who do so willingly, because they love him, not because of their friends and family. Also, Jehovah has given everyone the right to change their mind and to break their promise, at a cost of course, that being they will no longer be in line for everlasting life. But does the cost have to include being shunned by family members in the present life? Shouldn’t that be left up to the innocent JW family members to decide  how much and to what extent they will associate? Someone once argued that associating with a family member who no longer serves Jehovah could have a detrimental effect on us and could possibly lead us out of the truth as well. That someone pointed out an experience where one of the family members became an atheist and influenced the rest of the family so much so that they too left the truth. Well I say so be it! Yes, bad association spoils useful habits, but it is still up to each individual to heed or not heed that advice. Doesn’t Jehovah give everyone the freedom to live their life as they want? So if half the congregation leaves, what difference really does it make? Jehovah wants all to be saved, but not all want to be saved.
Could someone explain this to me: "No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family" (“Is it wrong to change your religion” Awake 7/09) Why does this apparently apply to every other religion except ours....??

I don't get it. The bride looks modest to me. On the other hand, are those tight pants the groom is wearing? 

lol.

What about the beard?

Busquemos perlas escondidas

ISAÍAS 58-62
Puntos sobresalientes de la Biblia
Puntos sobresalientes del libro de Isaνas (parte 2).pdf
60
s_60.pdf
58-62
s 58-62.pdf
 
 
SEMANA DEL 20 AL 26 DE FEBRERO DE 2017

Jehová recompensa a quienes lo buscan con todo el corazón
A husband and wife enjoy an ocean view in the future Paradise
Un matrimonio disfruta de las vistas al océano en el Paraíso
Um casal olhando para o mar no futuro Paraíso
Nel futuro Paradiso una coppia ammira l’oceano
Ein Ehepaar genießt im Paradies den Ausblick auf den Ozean
Dans le Paradis, un couple admirant l’océan
 
Jehovα recompensa a quienes lo buscan con todo el corazσn.pdf
 
 
 

IMAGES :
https://myspace.com/anneliese313/photos
http://www.nextmanagement.com/packages/28893
http://www.rebaengel.com/decadence/reba-jenna-photoshoot-2013-close-up/
https://twitter.com/mccallimages/status/130130241074118656/photo/1
https://gr.pinterest.com/anneliese313/

Like this point and also the picture of Jesus as the rider of the White Horse in Rev. 6:2 "And I saw, and look! a white horse, and the one seated on it had a bow; and a crown was given him, and he went out conquering and to complete his conquest"
Haven't so far seen any conflict with the WT application of Heb 10:12-13 initiating this discussion. There is no doubt that Jesus was Jehovah's anointed king as soon as he returned to the heavens having completed his earthly mission. @JWInsider has already cited Phillipians 2:9 on this "For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name". But I am pretty sure that neither Dan 7:14 or 27 were fulfilled at that point.
I mean, let's face it, I am sure some believed that Cassius Clay was the heavyweight champion of the world on Feb 24 1964, but what took place on Feb 25 1964 altered the perspective entirely.

Samuel Herd - Governing Body member and a member of the 144,000 Anointed Ones by Jehovah God the Almighty in heaven http://ift.tt/1QpEk8c #jworg #jehovahswitnesses #samherd #governingbody #governingbodyofjehovahswitnesses #samuelherd http://ift.tt/29FcaLG
Via

Glad you caught that Melinda.
I actually wrote it that way on purpose. ;-). 

JW couple in Nigeria, Africa
Via