On 4/8/2017 at 1:24 PM, ARchiv@L said:

there are some announcements about russia on the official jworg page.

With this current "persecution" in Russia and it having made the official jworg page, I wonder why the Australian Royal Commission and their "persecution" of jws did not make the official page? Or did it and I missed it? 

10 hours ago, John Lindsay Barltrop said:

Shiwii.......you certainly do have a "chip on your shoulder,".............two things I would suggest to you are:

1. Change your source of information concerning the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society........I may suggest that you go to the website, jw.org, and get correct information from "the horses mouth"

2. If you "have an axe to grind" please go to a suitable "blog" and grind it somewhere else. If you have a genuine question or questions that you would like answered, we can certainly oblige.

PS If you wish to state a scripture that you may feel, that we, as Jehovah's Witnesses, are doing something that is scriptually incorrect, state the reason(s) as to why you think that is the case.

First of all, what portion of my statement is not true that I may need to change my source of information? Can one get unbiased information from jworg? I think not. What mention is there of the child abuse cases in which the org is involved in on jworg? NONE, and that is the problem. There is a campaign to send letters to Russia, to appeal to the gov't to allow jw's to continue to operate within the country. This is called lobbying, something the org says they do not do:

"Why Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Maintain Political Neutrality?

Jehovah’s Witnesses remain politically neutral for religious reasons, based on what the Bible teaches. We do not lobby, vote for political parties or candidates, run for government office, or participate in any action to change governments. "https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/political-neutrality/#?insight[search_id]=ae2710d7-f1e4-4dd7-afa4-57b369e71ab7&insight[search_result_index]=5

Lobbying: 

To continue with the Russian lobbying, I wonder what most jws are thinking when they hear that "the wild beast" is helping the org? 

On 4/2/2017 at 3:04 PM, Jay Witness said:

The speaker eloquently beseeched the audience to go the ATM machines and give their generous contribution or at least their widow's mite.

How is this not equivalent to passing the plate?  

Why would there be a need for an ATM, or many,  at an event like this? There is no food to be purchased or items to buy that I am aware of. 

Interesting topic. I've been wondering why the consolidation of kh's in north America? Is it possibly because they are not expanding, but rather shrinking? The magazines have shrunk, no more books being printed, but a massive compound built for the popes of wt with a remote controlled lake. How is it that there is this dire need for more money for world wide work, when operating costs have been reduced and actually freed up money? Where did that go? What about the sales of property in Brooklyn, where did that money go? 

As to the comment by The Librarian, the reference to Jesus' words is from John 15:18-25. Jesus said the world hates the disciples because they first hated Jesus and because they were not of the world because Jesus chose them out of the world. Jesus said that His followers would be persecuted for His (Jesus) name sake (verse 21). 

14 hours ago, Anna said:

So in your opinion, what do you think is happening with all the stacks of money that in your opinion is surplus from estates sold etc.?

That's just it, I don't think anyone knows. It certainly isn't being used to expand kh's or literature. What was the last "book" produced? God's Kingdom Rules? or the return to Jehovah ? I'd hardly call those "books", and as far as older books, those have been phased out almost completely with nothing to fill the gap left. 

Speculation is one thing, I'm not claiming they are using this money for this or that, but taking a hard look at what IS happening is a completely other thing. The past 5 years has not produced anything worthy of that kind of money. 

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I know this might sound cynical because it echoes the 'follow the money' line of thinking.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

The Vatican is able to do this, too, which is why you hear of local diocese having to sell buildings to pay redress for victims, rather than money coming from central Vatican coffers.

So they have adopted the practice of the Catholics in this area? (as well as other things)

1 hour ago, Anna said:

If we take it to it's grass roots, and remember Satan is the ruler of this system, then he could very well be using the world's systems (legal or otherwise) to incapacitate or halt the work of the Witnesses.

Or could it be the other way around? Think about this for just a moment, I'll explain the other side of the coin I am referring to in a moment. 

So you both can see the manipulation, whether for good intentions or bad, and acknowledge that the move of money/assets to NY USA as well as detaching the "head" from the "tail" so to speak  to protect those in NY from the government(s) who may strike out against the wt directly. Ok, I'm in agreement as to this happening, but I am not going to swallow it so blindly as to accept it as for the greater good. I do not want to derail this thread, so feel free to not reply, I just want to bring up some things.

Ok, so we have all these cong's all over the world flowing money into NY for "the work of the wt", not to mention those older folks who have left their estate to the WT. What about the millions in real estate already sold within the last 5 to 10 years? Just in Brooklyn alone its astounding the amount of money that was able to be liquefied. now I'm sure that some of those buildings could have sold for much more, or less, but the point remains the same......tons of money on top of operating costs which were somewhat being sustained by monthly contributions world wide. Now to the point I am trying to make, what has happened within the past 15 years to denote furthering of the "work of the wt"? What expansion has been done? Warwick? ok, but that was planned ahead of time as guided by the Bible (Luke 14:28)? If so, then that cost had already been accounted for. What has happened to the length and structure of the wt and awake magazines? They have shrunk in half, using less paper, less shipping costs, lower printing costs, etc. You get the point. Take a look around and how many kingdom halls have been sold and cong's consolidated? Is this expansion? Is this the money being used to further the "work" ? Where is the evidence that anything has expanded? Is it the reduction of sound equipment in kh's in place of prerecorded talks? The only thing I can see new is the jw broadcasting (much like tv evangelicalism) and a countryside palace or sorts.  Outside of that, there isn't much in the expansion pile but significant reduction in most everything else. 

All of this is only my opinion from my perspective, take it with a grain of salt. 

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

In general, JWs also do not work in law enforcement, social work, psychology, or other professional medical fields.

Then why act as though they do? 

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I don't see a Biblical requirement for shunning in the way many JWs still practice it. I think that, except for a few rare cases, the Biblical reasons given for shunning don't really apply to the types of persons that JWs tend to shun.

I'm glad you feel that way, I hope others do as well. There is of course a significant difference between a serial unrepentant murderer and someone who just doesn't feel that the wt is God's org. 

Thank you first and foremost for genuinely answering. I really do appreciate the feedback. It helps me understand where some jws place their opinions and why. 

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

QUESTION #3: Yes. And they are 100% Biblical.

Can you elaborate on this a little? I mean, if we are to go strictly from the Bible, then there are plenty of changes that can be made. 

I agree with your assessment on question #4, it does seem to be building to an ultimatum, I just wonder what. 

I agree with you on #5 as well, I just feel it is a shame that it takes a secular gov't to bring this to light and force some sort of change. Shouldn't (we) be proactive in protecting not just our children, but the rest of society if there is a person preying on others criminally.? 

#6:  Why should a society that claims God's backing have any weakness in which the courts or laws could leverage against? That is a complete side note, I just wanted to make that statement. I do understand that every group has its faults, but not every group is claiming sole ownership as "God's people", some do and some don't. 

I don't think that its fair to assume that this was mostly from the assistance of ex-jw's. That is just playing into the theory that "all ex-jw's" are "bitter" or haters or "mentally diseased", I thought it was compelling that Justice McClellan brought up the fact that there are going to be some who just cannot continue to associate with jws, based on how unfairly they were treated by the organization, and will have their whole social structure ripped out from under them. There are many cases where someone does not want to lose their family and friends, but cannot continue to adhere to wt policy. His point was that it was cruel. I'm not too sure this will have any impact, as groups can and do have their own rules, but it is still a human decency issue.  

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

es, well don’t start confusing Australian laws with that of the United States. Stephanie Fesslers case which was settled prompted a question with how the USA laws are written. That why Candace Conti case that was awarded a huge amount in, punitive damages, was overturned by the California Supreme Court. that’s why Bro Jackson suggested a clear-cut legislation that everyone can understand without confusion.

was the law not clear cut in Pennsylvania? 

As far as clergy goes, I believe that the wt has stated many times that they do not have clergy, if need be I can dig up sources from the pubs if you like, only to claim this privilege in the Fessler case?  Which is it? Do they or do they not? Does it only matter when in court? Or is it the amount of money they stand to lose if they choose not to use it? 

Also, if the support for the "elders" in the Fessler case was the use of clergy, then why did they settle instead of taking the full trial and seeing how the cards would fall? I mean a settlement is used as a way to save face if you know you are going to lose in the end. 

On 3/10/2017 at 9:51 PM, JW Insider said:

It was fortunate that Stewart didn't realize that this places the age back to as young as 8 years old.

If you realize this, then you know that it is not right. An 8 year old cannot fathom the consequences of many decisions an adult makes, but yet they are held to the same requirements as an adult. I have no doubt that Mr. Stewart did realize this fact, but the trial was more about the actions taken since the inquiry. 

Posting this from another thread: 

 I'm curious as to what the average jw thought. Was it a good representation of the wt?

Did the testimony make you proud to be a part of the organization?

Do you feel that there was places in wt doctrine that could be adjusted or improved on?

Was it succinct and complete?

Do you feel that Mr. Spinks and Mr. O'Brian were in cooperation with the courts requests? 

Were the statements from the court and counselors "apostate lies"? 

On 3/10/2017 at 6:38 PM, AllenSmith said:

That in itself has made many claims here and elsewhere overreaching without the proper facts. That suggestion that Elders have a strict code when it comes to delicate matters would, therefore, be false. Since NOT all Elders handle a case the same way. You also have to weigh in secular laws.

Isn't this what the Elders handbook is for? To direct the elders in handling these types of matters? Hasn't there been letters to all congregations directing elders on how to handle these situations? Is there not a procedure in place for elders to follow? There is, so if there are elders who deviate from the direction given on handling such matters, they are rogue and not following the standard procedure, the standard procedure which is under investigation. 

On 3/10/2017 at 6:38 PM, AllenSmith said:

That's Why Bro Jackson suggested to the ARC to make the AU laws clear-cut so there wouldn't be any confusion when it came to priorities.

The law was "clear-cut" in Pennsylvania, but Stephanie Fessler was not protected.

On 3/10/2017 at 6:38 PM, AllenSmith said:

None here are lawyers.

 Assumptions are never good at providing facts. 

I am a bit surprised that there is no opinion from any jw what so ever about the latest ARC. Did no one watch it? I'm curious as to what the average jw thought. Was it a good representation of the wt? Did the testimony make you proud to be a part of the organization? Do you feel that there was places in wt doctrine that could be adjusted or improved on? Was it succinct and complete?

My opinion, which is only an opinion, was that it did represent the wt and its policy correctly. The statements made by Mr. Spinks and Mr. O'Brian were exactly what I expected to hear. The rigid stance, the dancing around questions and repetitive answers which did not actually answer the questions raised, showed not only the court but anyone else watching that the wt will not be governed by the courts or their law, but rather by their own leadership. I do understand the premise that the Bible should be the authority and I agree. However, there are governments put in place to create a society, a society in which all should be protected and represented. This is actually backed by God Himself based on what is told to us in Romans 13:

  "Let every person* be in subjection to the superior authorities,+ for there is no authority except by God;+ the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God.+ ²  Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves. ³  For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad.+ Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good,+ and you will have praise from it; ⁴  for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath* against the one practicing what is bad. "

This was very interesting to watch and listen to. Something that I thought was of special interest was the facts brought out about shunning. Mr. Rodney Spinks and Mr. Terrence O'Brian both acknowledge that JW's are told to shun certain individuals. This admittance is in direct opposition to what jws, who man the cart, express when posed with the same question. Not only that, the "disassociated one is shunning the congregation" statement is also in direct contrast to what many people experience within their own family and friends. The DA one usually still wants contact with their family and friends, but they are shunned....even by parents. How is this loving as Christ loved? When a jw meets a stranger on the street, do they not say hello and possibly have some chit chat? If they KNOW this person is no longer a jw, they scatter or turn into a proverbial rock. That person who used to be a jw is treated less than, just because they do not align themselves with a group who admits they err in doctrine but still requires absolute adherence to company policy. 

I just hope this wakes a few people up to the unrealistic requirements of the wt and maybe take a stand for change. This speaks noting of belief in this or that, but about humanity and control. 

June 2017 Watchtower

15. How does respect for theocratic headship reveal our love for Jehovah’s way of ruling?
15 What is our response to divinely authorized headship? By our respectful cooperation, we show our support for Jehovah’s sovereignty. Even if we do not fully understand or agree with a decision, we will still want to support theocratic order. That is quite different from the way of the world, but it is the way of life under Jehovah’s rulership. (Eph. 5:22, 23; 6:1-3; Heb. 13:17) We benefit from doing so, for God has our interests at heart.

So does this mean that if you do not agree with the "err" that is presented, you still must support it? YES it does. It states that if we do not, then we are not showing support or cooperation for Jehovah's sovereignty. So somehow the sovereignty of Jehovah is at stake if we do not side with the wt.  

Again, no proof that ANYONE authorized this leadership but they themselves. 

lets not forget:

Watchtower (Study) 15 November 2013, page 20

(3) At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not.  https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20131115/seven-shepherds-eight-dukes/

On 2/24/2017 at 2:53 PM, Anna said:

This is why, before we become one of Jehovah's Witnesses we have to answer over 100 questions, and be personally convinced that WE personally believe the answers we give, and that the answer to these questions we personally believe are correct, (or as correct as is humanly possible), otherwise we would not become JWs, obviously.

The part I find troubling is this, to whom do you need to answer these 100 questions and where in the Bible do we find these requirements to join Jehovah's organization? The simple answers are 1. Men  and  2.You don't, but people subject themselves to this on the basis of men who claim authority directly from Jehovah with no actual proof. In fact it is just the opposite, there IS proof, proof that they are not chosen, not any different that anyone else. The proof is freely admitting by means of the "err" statement, but yet still claiming this authority. They are playing with a two-headed coin!

There is only ONE requirement in the Bible to be a part of God's family, John 1:12

12 hours ago, Anna said:

 

In the end though, we all have to make some kind of a stand and also accept the consequences that come with it. This is why it's important that we don't do anything whereby we could blame someone else for our choice. It needs to be our choice only because as you say, ultimately it is between Jehovah and us, and no one else. The GB have never contradicted that fact.

This is the point of the whole thread, no? It should be up to the individual to make such decisions based on their own understanding. While the wording of certain publications state this, and I'm sure some do look at it in this way, the actions still speak otherwise. For example, What reason is there that a "witness", not just a witness but a JW witness, must observe the signing of a ADD? Why must it be kept with the cong secretary? If this were really up to the individual, then there would not be a need for such forms and committees/liaisons in hospitals. 

On 2/8/2017 at 6:34 PM, JW Insider said:

Exactly. I couldn't agree more!

As you said previously, we should have a "PASSION FOR TRUTH." A passion for truth necessarily requires that we avoid error.

I like this, as we all should strive for the truth and not negate others positions unless we hold it up to scrutiny and see if it is indeed truth. This leads me to a question, not just to you JWInsider but to all here, and it comes from reading a portion of your previous post:

On 2/7/2017 at 0:43 PM, JW Insider said:

The biggest things that came from "lights or flashes" as the "GB" claimed at the time were 1925, 1935, and the "higher powers" of Romans 13 (not civil authorities, but Jehovah and Jesus). We've since dropped all three of those interpretations. Romans 13 was considered to be one of the most "inspired" of all the teachings that the GB (Rutherford) ever came up with, and was even made to be the fulfillment of prophecy. By that I mean that prophecy was supposedly fulfilled by the very fact that the interpretation was made known, and that coming up with this (wrong) interpretation had proved the superiority of the Watchtower over Christendom's teachers. Since then, we have gone back to teaching what Russell and Christendom had taught about Romans 13.

 If present "truth" replaces previous "truth" as seen here in this quote, and future "truth" may replace present "truth", what is the definition being used here for "truth"? 

On 2/10/2017 at 7:32 PM, Anna said:

Do we need to have the scriptures partially digested for us and then spoon fed? Didn’t Paul say we should grow in spiritual maturity and eat solid food?  In fact we would be foolish if we were to take every utterance by the GB/Slave as “gospel truth”. But is there really a problem with that? “Witness” tried to suggest instances where the GB/Slave have caused damage by what they said. (and Comfortmypeople has mentioned some in his new topic). It’s easy to point a finger, but is there any substance to that claim, besides mere opinion? In my many years as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses I have not had any reason to be distrustful of the GB.

Hi Anna,

I am glad that you have not had reason to be distrustful thus far. Your description here brings to mind the times when vaccines were rejected based on the teachings of the society, as well as organ transplants. Those people held to the society's position, and some of them died. Now when the new "truth" came out and made these things acceptable, what then do you say to the families who lost loved ones? Oops? Sorry, we just didn't understand? I am glad to hear you have a balanced view, and most likely have a difference of opinion on somethings than what the society's position is, I think that is healthy. While I do agree that there are some who have much greater knowledge than I in various aspects, I respect them very much, I still hold to something you said :

On 2/10/2017 at 7:32 PM, Anna said:

  Is it not the responsibility of each Christian to make sure that they are in line with the scriptures as far as we can understand them and in the most core and fundamental areas? (make sure of all things)

I'm glad you made this statement, it describes exactly how we should be approaching God's word, individually with help. I do not believe we should hold ANY man/men's interpretation as anything more than information for us to ponder and reflect. Sometimes we will align and sometimes we will not. God wrote to us individually and as a whole. We do not come to God as a group, but rather humbly as individuals. 

51 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

??? I think I said that Jehovah is happy with the overall progress of His purpose and that will always govern in what He chooses to intervene. In other words, as He always has the successful outcome of His purpose in view, He is always happy with what He allows. Of course the negative aspects and consequences of human behaviour do not make Him happy (compare Ps.119:136). Surely you know that???

He will indeed intervene in the affairs of all mankind soon. The outcome of that intervention will make him happier still, although there are some who feel otherwise.

His purpose has nothing to do with what ANY group is doing. His purpose and will are His own. It is up to us to align with that will and progress. 

God does not delight in the sin He allows to continue in this world. He allows it, because He allows us free will. I agree that soon God will intervene, some are going to be completely surprised and caught off guard, some won't. There will be no excuse for following men instead of God. Men should not dictate our behavior towards others, if we agree with them or not, regardless if they align to what the gb or any organization tells them they should be doing. Our relationship with God is a personal one not a group collective. 

Do I think that the gb err in the policy of shunning and disfellowhip? Yep, it causes people to treat others harshly, when it is God who is to repay wrath for evil (Romans 12:19). But still to this day, people are conditioned to accept the policy of men to shun even their own family/mother/daughter/son/father/etc. for what? smoking? not toeing the company line? not agreeing with the gb? for rescuing the lost sheep from the pit on the Sabbath (blood transfusion when needed)? Think about that for a moment, 

40 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

The "why" is the answer

right. This is why you say if the cap fits. 

15 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

In other words, if Jehovah has not intervened, then He is happy with the current progress.

So you are saying that he is happy with the way the wt handles child abuse?

He is/was happy with those people who died from not having organ transplants? 

16 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

...that includes their attitude to those whom Jehovah assigns shepherding responsibility.

This has not and cannot be proven whom he has appointed for anything, yet. No where in the Bible does God speak out and establish a governing body to do anything. 

question:

12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

2. Are you saying that Moses pictures Jesus as the sole channel for dispensing truth in these last days, and that the Governing Body is like Korah for wanting to set themselves up as an additional sole channel for dispensing spiritual food?

Answer:

21 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

which is why I say "if the cap fits".....

This strikes me as odd that one would have to even question such things.

I mean, if your personal position does not align with the corporate stance, then I fully understand the question.

If the question is raised out of curiosity because there is a need to find out what you are supposed to believe, because you forgot, then that is even more interesting.

Phillip Morris? 

Cardinal Health?

Rand Cam? 

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? 

On 1/15/2017 at 7:03 PM, JW Insider said:

Taking a stand means that we will sometimes discover we took the wrong stand, but it also has an advantage in making our beliefs transparent. If a doctrinal stand is taken, our thinking is clearer on it, and contradictions show up more easily

I completely agree with you and your thinking, but is that what has been done thus far? I mean, to proclaim something as dogmatic then to reverse oneself over blood,blood fractions, the resurrection of Adan and Eve, when the "faithful and discreet slave" was appointed over whatnot.  

On 1/15/2017 at 7:03 PM, JW Insider said:

So, we can have doctrinal claims that are still in the middle of such testing. We took a stand, and it clarifies our position so that it can be more clearly tested.

Can it really be tested? I mean, in the examples above, if you disagree with certain things the "infallible" gb says, what happens to you? Lets say you don't agree with their blood stance? You need it and take it, what happens to you? you didn't agree then and you don't now......I guess you are just not a jw, right? Disfellowshipped, shuned, etc.  if you do not adhere to what the "slave" says, then you are an outsider.....even though they admit not being perfect in their interpretation of scripture. that's not testing.....that's tyranny. 

18 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

They are indeed: 

"according to the system of things of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience" Eph.2:2

I quite agree with you that many are lead by such, however I do not think that was Tom's implication. 

7 hours ago, TrueTom said:

If it wasn't spirit directed, it would have fallen apart long ago.

by this logic, you must believe that the Catholic church, Islam, Hinduism and the Mormans are all also spirit directed? 

Matthew 1:21 " She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

How would Jesus save His people? 

Romans 6: ^{3 "}Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?  "

Romans 6: ^{5 "}For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. "

Romans 6: ^{8 "}Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.⁹ For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. ¹⁰ The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. ¹¹ In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. "

1 Corinthians 15: ^{3 "}For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,"

Isaiah 53:5 " But he was pierced for our transgressions,
    he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
    and by his wounds we are healed. "

I would say that the Bible DOES attach great importance on the death and resurrection of Jesus. 

On 6/19/2016 at 9:32 AM, The Librarian said:

That question was tackled a couple years ago on jw-archive.org

This link only has one comment after the presented position , to come here to discuss. 

To answer from both the archive link and this one, No, there is no Biblical reason not to celebrate Father's Day/ Mother's Day and the like. It is an unfounded requirement to obey the wt. However, the leaders of the wt are not inspired and regularly dispense errors in doctrine as admitted in Feb 2017 wt. So that leaves it up to the individual to either follow the commands of men, or God.  God, in His holy word, does not condemn this practice from what I can find.