Anna

@James Thomas Rook Jr. I keep trying to send you a private message and it keeps saying something is wrong. Let me know if you got it!

Yes, I see what you are saying. And you are right, they shouldn't have criticized the various sides. I don't think it was in the spirit of making one side worse or better than the other side, but still, they shouldn't have commented at all. That was a mistake that thankfully does not happen anymore.

"10 nipples will keep a flock of up to 40 chickens or 30 turkeys well hydrated"

Because they were understood (misunderstood) to be seditious by others. Later, the brothers regretted that they removed them. The 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses commented on the incident on page 119: "After their trialsome period of 1917-1919, Jehovah’s people subjected themselves to scrutiny. Realizing that they had acted in ways that did not meet with God’s approval, they sought forgiveness in prayer repenting of their former course. This led to Jehovah’s forgiveness and blessing. One compromise had been the cutting of pages from The Finished Mystery, this to please those who had assumed the position of censor". Something from waaaaaay back: https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=8633452&fcfToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJmcmVlLXZpZXctaWQiOjM2NjY0NzE4LCJpYXQiOjE1NjQ0NTExNDcsImV4cCI6MTU2NDUzNzU0N30.DhXaQYCE8_uD4FDAtqv0kWp04J6hh_Iu6xawSYqKZ3o

There was a little bit more to that. The government misunderstood neutrality for sedition. If I remembered right, in one of his books (The finished mystery) Rutherford spoke rather brashly (as was his custom sometimes) about the evilness of Christendom and war. Those particular quotes were later removed, but before that, they did provoke Christendom to point fingers and get the brothers in trouble any which way they could, and one of these was to accuse them of sedition. They wouldn't have been acquitted of all charges had they been guilty.

Then there's no need to worry is there?

Yes, his last name is Bond

Should have acted and done what?

If that's how you look at it. I thought our every thought and motivation comes from following the Bible. The Elders would be using their NATURAL human conscience, instead of following the "outline" ... the script. There are many areas where elders are left to follow their natural conscience, reporting CSA could just be one of them. However, if elders became mandated reporters, every time they phoned Legal for advice, they would be dictated by "central command" to report. So central command would still dictate, so that means they would not lose any grip on elders. See what I mean? The key is for the org. not to claim clergy penitence. That's the answer.

That was not with my help. That was at the top of the article you posted

This is puzzling. Why should the plaintiff have the right to demand anything that had nothing to do with his case? I wouldn't go that far. I have no idea what John Redwood is talking about here. Perhaps I should ask him. If elders became mandatory reporters, how would that affect anything? It would just mean that every future case, or suspicion of child abuse or accusation would be reported to the police. How would that be losing a tight grip on the elders? It appears that the main reason for the appeal is that this would allow for non disclosure of historical cases, and hence limit law suits.

I was looking for a topic to post this on as I don't really want to make this into a new topic. Anyway, just came across this article in the 2005 WT which states that;..... "rape is also a major crime with severe penalties. The victim has every right to report the matter to the police. In this way the proper authorities can punish the offender. And if the victim is a minor, the parents may want to initiate these actions". Just wondering why the confusion about whether to or not to report to the authorities, especially with one of the cases @JOHN BUTLER described (in a post I can't find). He said something went down in his congregation and it wasn't handled right as the authorities weren't informed. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2005563?q=rape+report&p=par#h=14 (This was 10 years before the Australian Commission).

Why even admit the case of smoking and Christmas? Nobody was asking about it. It was not necessary for either of them to be mentioned. In any case, why ban Christmas and smoking at all if it meant losing members? Regardless of what period of time. Why was it wise to wait? Was losing members no longer a worry later on? Or was something else more important than losing members? Both topics were mentioned in the chapter "Moral Refinements"

Well yes....funny....but I was being ironic when I said it 🙂

I wasn't talking about their "living in own" errors, the imperfection we all have, I was talking about error in direct revelation.

(1 Corinthians 5:12, 13) 12 "For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside,  while God judges those outside?. . . The kings of the earth will all be gathered at Armageddon. Thank you Colin, but I still do not understand what you were trying to say...

The Governing Body is not some infallible authority over us. Jesus and Jehovah do not give them direct revelations of what they should do or say. If that were the case, there would never be any error on their part. Jehovah and Jesus do not tell the GB that all Witnesses at conventions should wear their badges when out. Their direction comes from what is already in the Bible, and where there is no clear or direct Biblical support for or against, they can can make recommendations as they see fit in their opinion. However, they cannot (and should not) command anyone what to do. If they were to do that, they would be abusing their position, which is feeding the flock with spiritual food, which does not entail giving out commands based on opinion. The only justification for commanding anything is if it is a command in the Bible. The Bible does say "be obedient to those taking the lead". However, this is not an absolute. We know we would not obey anything that was contrary to the Bible. In saying "be obedient to those taking the lead", the assumption is that this would be something beneficial and reasonable and not against scripture. I would say wearing name badges while out is reasonable. It advertises the convention, it encourages questions and conversation, and it's fun to see others out and about and see they belong to us. There is nothing odd about it. Perhaps also it helps the brothers and sisters remember who they are, in case they get a little forgetful....all these things are probably the most likely reasons for this recommendation, BUT it is still an option whether one wears one or not. No one that I know of stresses about it either way. Some like to wear something more comfy than a suit and tie while at a restaurant, and some get positively worried about spilling something on their tie (my husband is one). The most obvious reason for changing into different clothes is that not everybody goes out to eat straight after the convention. Some go to their hotel to chill first. And no one chills out in their suit and tie. And to put the suit and tie back on just to go and eat out at a moderate restaurant could be a little odd. Plus it would be extra hard to get the kids back into their fancy clothes after they've spent an hour at the swimming pool..... So, no one I know of purposefully takes their name badge off, but if it so happens that they do get changed into something else, the name badge most likely doesn't go back on....

Maybe they should have taken them off 😀

Thank you. It shows me a few important things, although Russell personally thought smoking was a filthy habit, had a "dim" view of it , and didn't think it brought God any glory, he did not insist on his personal opinion, banning others from smoking. Then later in 1935 the WT called it a filthy weed and banned it in Bethel but did not try to impose this on the congregations. It was obviously still not thought of as something worthy of disfellowshipping until 1973. So, they didn't know it was totally wrong until the 70's, not the 1800's as you suggested. The same thing with Christmas.

I am not exactly understanding the point you are making in reference to what I was saying. Care to explain please?

I wonder if there are restrictions for a US President not to wear a beard. And if one day a US President does wear a beard, I wonder how this will affect US Witnesses.

I was wondering what she was pointing at

Yes probably. In the same book that said they knew Christmas was wrong but kept on celebrating it at Bethal until 1926 ish.  So, what book is that?