Anna

I thought your post made a lot of good points. We know about God's mercy but we don't want to purposely take advantage of it for selfish purposes. (Of course, we can never get into the mind of the person committing suicide to know whether they were motivated by selfishness, even if the person leaves a lucid note. We leave it to Jehovah to read hearts.)
Also, wanted to point out that Paul never used the word "some" (in case anyone would have read your words to imply that). Either way, though, I think your point is still valid. 

He (Tom Henry) probably used "some" in his explanation because the scripture says all unrighteousness is sin.  The scriptures also show that there is a sin that incurs death and that we would not expect God to cover over. (See Hebrews 10;26) Therefore the apostle John said not to make request about that kind of sin.  That is permanent death.
(1 John 5:16, 17) 16 If anyone catches sight of his brother committing a sin that does not incur death, he will ask, and God will give life to him, yes, to those not committing sin that incurs death. There is a sin that does incur death. It is concerning that sin that I do not tell him to make request. 17 All unrighteousness is sin, and yet there is a sin that does not incur death.
(Hebrews 10:26) For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left,...
=====
This is what I gather about suicide or self murder from my research in the Bible itself.
(Genesis 9:6) 6 Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God’s image He made man.
 (Proverbs 28:17) 17 A man burdened with bloodguilt for taking someone’s life will keep fleeing until the grave. Let no one support him.
 Both of these remedies would be difficult to achieve for a man taking his own life. So there is a difference in taking your own life and taking someone else’s life.
So it boils down to the same thing - you have to leave it to God.
God knows whether it is forgivable or whether it is willful and wanton, disrespecting the Creator and life itself.

"Better use of dedicated funds" is a phrase I hear frequently. Isn't that more appropriate? "Saving" money implies hoarding it up somewhere. I think we are more in the business of using resources aren't we?. Compare Matt.25:24-27 😊

All the redrawing and reshuffling of boundaries and the sell off of some Kingdom Halls and the merging of some congregations is probably because a few financial experts were finally allowed to sit down and ascertain the efficiency (or lack of) of the way Kingdom Halls were being used. They called it equalizing. When I hear brothers say that obeying the restructuring, and cooperating with moving to different halls is obeying Jehovah, (was also in a video) I can't help wondering why they don't just say it's because it saves money. Why bring Jehovah into it and make people feel like they're sinning against Him if they don't cooperate. 

No new light, just the elder's opinion, and not a very good one at that. It still stands that Jehovah will be the judge as he knows the reasons and circumstance.

All the redrawing and reshuffling of boundaries and the sell off of some Kingdom Halls and the merging of some congregations is probably because a few financial experts were finally allowed to sit down and ascertain the efficiency (or lack of) of the way Kingdom Halls were being used. They called it equalizing. When I hear brothers say that obeying the restructuring, and cooperating with moving to different halls is obeying Jehovah, (was also in a video) I can't help wondering why they don't just say it's because it saves money. Why bring Jehovah into it and make people feel like they're sinning against Him if they don't cooperate. 

No new light, just the elder's opinion, and not a very good one at that. It still stands that Jehovah will be the judge as he knows the reasons and circumstance.

All the redrawing and reshuffling of boundaries and the sell off of some Kingdom Halls and the merging of some congregations is probably because a few financial experts were finally allowed to sit down and ascertain the efficiency (or lack of) of the way Kingdom Halls were being used. They called it equalizing. When I hear brothers say that obeying the restructuring, and cooperating with moving to different halls is obeying Jehovah, (was also in a video) I can't help wondering why they don't just say it's because it saves money. Why bring Jehovah into it and make people feel like they're sinning against Him if they don't cooperate. 

No new light, just the elder's opinion, and not a very good one at that. It still stands that Jehovah will be the judge as he knows the reasons and circumstance.

Or technology per se?
The scripture spoke of a time when men who were delegated to care for mundane tasks required spiritual and secular qualifications in view of the context of their work. This required appropriate selection.
Similarly today, secular background is required to implement technical solutions for spiritual tasks effectively. The acquisition of secular skills is sometimes erroneously viewed as antithetical to spiritual endeavour. Therefore an important and enlightened balance needs to be achieved and maintained to avoid waste. This of course will have to incorporate the principles of Ex.35:30-35.
Quite a challenge, but apparently met is my observation.

Thanks for that personal experience and viewpoint.  I have seen (especially in computer field) many brilliant kids. One of my nephews also played music while teaching  himself programming.  He is a firewall programmer (or something very saught after in protection field) without a degree.  
I marvel sometimes at kids who turn out technical machines in poor countries (especially central Africa) where the intellectual and technical landscape is barren. They somehow find books and teach themselves.
My best friend in Africa has a son who manufactures feeding machines for factories (including car factories). He designs and makes them.  I knew him as a boy.  She raised him and his 2 sisters alone and did not have money for secondary education.
I wish all stories turn out like this but unfortunately we do know reality - not all people are innovative.  Some have to go to vocational school to learn how to do a job in order to become employable. 
To be an entrepeneur one needs a skill (self-taught or acquired during secondary education) to provide something of value one can sell.

Did I mention that my youngest son was accepted to each and every Ivy League university in the United States? Just wanted the excuse to mention that again if I didn't state it before. 😊 His final choices were between MIT, CalTech, Harvard, and he chose Harvard because he also writes/performs music and studies history.
He graduated with his degree in theoretical/engineering physics (with a minor in music) and was almost immediately contacted by another Ivy League university graduate who has worked at each Bethel site in upstate NY. Through this particular circumstance I have come to learn of several more university graduates working at NY Bethels. The engineers and environmental specialists, even IT specialists at various Bethels, have become more and more "infested" with Ivy League graduates. These are not always full-time positions, but are persons added to the team. At one time they were given only a consultant role, or advisory role, and often ignored, but the Society has learned through very expensive mistakes, to give them leadership roles in these teams.
When I was at Bethel in Brooklyn many years ago, a flailing Computer/IT department was just starting up and a lot of expensive mistakes were being made when a couple of brothers with a lot of "spiritual" seniority were chosen to lead the new department. After about a half-million dollars worth of mistakes, they started to ditch the "decision by seniority" paradigm and gave more decisions to a brother who had a high position at IBM, but who was also arrogant to a fault.
And they brought in a new bunch of fresh college graduated kids from around the country. One was a sister that my brother knew from Missouri, and one was a brother I had known from Missouri. (A brother who had not pioneered or even been very active.)  We had a four person room at Bethel and he became one of the four roommates. My roommate would commiserate with the sister and another member of the Computer department about the ridiculous arguments and decisions of the day.
As it turned out, Arauna, you were right. A lot more practical progress was being made from a small team of computer hobbyists from up at the Wallkill Watchtower Farm in upstate NY. My roommate and the sister thought this was hilarious because there was a lot of prejudice against the "farm boys" even though the difference between who got assigned to the farm and who got assigned to Brooklyn was often just as random as a name in a hat.
The "untrained" farm boys actually finished a home-made computer that started to computerize typesetting flawlessly through the APS5. This was a huge breakthrough project that Brooklyn had already wasted half-a-million on.
 

This viewpoint is personal and not only unreasonable, but unscriptural.  In fact, it is also out of line with Jehovah's Witnesses thinking by at least 29 years. As Melinda above said, do your own research in the theocratic literature, and avoid some of the clumsy blundering presented by cleverdicks more interested in their own opinions
*** g90 9/8 p. 23 Suicides—A Resurrection? ***
Stunned friends of a suicide victim may thus take comfort in knowing that “Jehovah has shown mercy to those fearing him. For he himself well knows the formation of us, remembering that we are dust.” (Psalm 103:10-14) Only God can fully understand the role of mental sickness, extreme stress, even genetic defects, in a “suicidal crisis,” which, the National Observer noted, “is not a lifetime characteristic [but] often a matter only of minutes or of hours.”—See Ecclesiastes 7:7.
Granted, one who takes his own life deprives himself of the opportunity to repent of his self-murder. But who can say whether one driven to suicide might have had a change of heart had his fatal attempt failed? Some notorious murderers have, in fact, changed and earned God’s forgiveness during their lifetime.—2 Kings 21:16; 2 Chronicles 33:12, 13.
Thus, Jehovah, having paid “a ransom in exchange for many,” is within his right to extend mercy, even to some self-murderers, by resurrecting them and giving them the precious opportunity to “repent and turn to God by doing works that befit repentance.”—Matthew 20:28; Acts 26:20.
 
*** g00 2/22 pp. 6-7 Given a Desire to Live ***
Yet, never forget that Jehovah God raises up the dead and that this might well include our loved ones who because of depression, mental illness, or despair took their own lives.—See “The Bible’s Viewpoint: Suicides—A Resurrection?” in Awake! of September 8, 1990, pages 22-3.
While suicide cannot be justified, it is comforting to remember that the future prospects of our loved ones rest with a God who fully understands that weaknesses and frailties could push one to such desperate action. The Bible says of Jehovah: “As the heavens are higher than the earth, his loving-kindness is superior toward those fearing him. As far off as the sunrise is from the sunset, so far off from us he has put our transgressions. As a father shows mercy to his sons, Jehovah has shown mercy to those fearing him. For he himself well knows the formation of us, remembering that we are dust.”—Psalm 103:11-14.
 

No new light, just the elder's opinion, and not a very good one at that. It still stands that Jehovah will be the judge as he knows the reasons and circumstance.

No new light, just the elder's opinion, and not a very good one at that. It still stands that Jehovah will be the judge as he knows the reasons and circumstance.

No new light, just the elder's opinion, and not a very good one at that. It still stands that Jehovah will be the judge as he knows the reasons and circumstance.

Ask your elders about the list of decisions at the last  Annual Meeting.  Don't think anything about suicide was in that list.
 

I dunno ... I always vote for the hunchbacks,
If they have gossamer wings is NONE of my business!

I think it wooden matter.
Several groups of  "Russellites" use a convention that you'll see in the HTDB (Harvest Truth DataBase) which can be found here: http://www.htdbv8.com/about.html
If a link starts with an A through F, then it refers to Russell's Studies in the Scriptures series. Therefore the D in D543 is the 4th volume ("The Battle of Armageddon") and the next numbers are the page number in the edition printed closest to 1916. R refers to the Zion's Watch Tower and the "Watch Tower" reprints, which were in several volumes, but the page numbering runs from 1879 to 1916. R362 is a very early one (June 1882) and R5527 is a very late one in Russell's career (Sept 1914). Q is the Question Book. (Actually it's a compilation called "What Pastor Russell Said.")
I just use the links the same way they are used on htdb.
 

No Allen....I mean Tom. Revision is a good thing. The problem is when we state something as fact one year, and then change it the next. One thing is building on an idea, pretty much the way technology and the medical field develop, but another is completely changing ones mind. The equivalent is maybe what psychologists do, they seem to change their minds, one time they say it's better to let a child do what it wants, and then when negative results are reaped, they say it's better to discipline a child. A kind of trial and error approach. Similarly, when what JW's teach does not work out, then we try the next "theory". Think generation.

There are actually two men whose name is a type of tree. Both are pseudonyms, the specific trees are different, and one was chosen as a tribute for the other. I think the two have been confused with one another here.
Tree 1 has the hatred for the elders,  but not to my knowledge, any unpleasant family history. Tree 2, the one named in honor of Tree 1, is the one with the dysfunctional family history. I don’t quite remember the specifics, but I don’t think it was anything wildly shocking—perhaps an authoritarian father on his wife’s side, or step father—something like that.
Tree 1 is the one who banned me from his website. Never from Twitter, where I did answer him a few times, and he was without exception (once he discovered that his initial hope that I was about to jump ship was wrong) insulting, taunting, and ridiculing.
Tree 2 blocked me from the moment I first responded—not disrespectfully (though also not half-heartedly)—to his article that was published in a major magazine.
References to both are in “TrueTom vs the Apostates!”
Tree 1: https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/are-we-looking-at-encouragement-to-commit-insurance-fraud-part-2.html
Tree 2:  https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/04/he-has-blocked-me-i-think-that-says-it-all.html
I have a different type of a tree in my front yard—a ginkgo tree. It is one of the few (perhaps only) deciduous trees that come in male and female variety. The male tree is fine. The female stinks in the fall. 
“The sarcotesta [fallen ginko tree fruit] has a strong smell that most people find unpleasant.” - Wikipedia
We call ours a ****ball tree. People think that is crude, but then they stop by for a whiff and wonder what took us so long to name it.
Otherwise, it’s an outwardly beautiful tree.
Why it is MY tree and not one of THEIRS I’ll never know.
 

No Allen....I mean Tom. Revision is a good thing. The problem is when we state something as fact one year, and then change it the next. One thing is building on an idea, pretty much the way technology and the medical field develop, but another is completely changing ones mind. The equivalent is maybe what psychologists do, they seem to change their minds, one time they say it's better to let a child do what it wants, and then when negative results are reaped, they say it's better to discipline a child. A kind of trial and error approach. Similarly, when what JW's teach does not work out, then we try the next "theory". Think generation.

No Allen....I mean Tom. Revision is a good thing. The problem is when we state something as fact one year, and then change it the next. One thing is building on an idea, pretty much the way technology and the medical field develop, but another is completely changing ones mind. The equivalent is maybe what psychologists do, they seem to change their minds, one time they say it's better to let a child do what it wants, and then when negative results are reaped, they say it's better to discipline a child. A kind of trial and error approach. Similarly, when what JW's teach does not work out, then we try the next "theory". Think generation.

If he's honest, he surely admits that he has caused people to view scripture differently than how Jesus taught it. Otherwise why would he give a talk in October 2014 where he said that a very well ingrained method of teaching the scriptures was about to change? And the basic reason for the change was because he said it didn't currently line up with the style that Jesus used when he taught. It was NOT the way of teaching that God approved.
Somewhere between 100 and 200 doctrines changed, based on that talk he gave in 2014. They were changing because, as his theme scripture stated, the Governing Body was to become more faithful and discreet and follow Luke 10:21 which was tied to "how Jesus taught" and which said: "Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved."
Now if he was changing 100 doctrines to become aligned with the teaching method Jehovah approved, then he must have believed that he was previously NOT following the teaching method that Jesus used: the method that Jehovah approved.
If you don't believe this, then you might as well say that the change was made just so that things wouldn't seem stale.
Of course, based on our history, it's always quite possible that some teachings have been currently been added which cause us to view scriptures differently from the way it was taught in Scripture itself. What caused us, for example, to decide that the "higher powers" or "superior authorities" were God and Christ when Russell and nearly a thousand years of Christian commentary had it right. Surely, you admit that the teaching in 1961 was wrong, and this is the reason it was changed in 1962.
Up until a few weeks ago, we taught that the "locusts" of Joel 2 referred to Jehovah's Witnesses, and just now Brother Splane ( https://www.jw.org/en/news/jw/region/global/2019-Annual-Meeting-Summary/ ) has stated that the locusts refer to God's enemies, just as nearly 100 percent of Christendom's commentaries have been saying for hundreds of years. This teaching was already "clarified" in 1961. ( https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1961883 ) and is still on the website as current in the "Revelation . . . Grand Climax" book. ( https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101988022 ) Again, you might have guessed that Russell had already claimed that the locusts could not be God's people. D543 R362:3 R5527:1 Q23:7
So this is not really clarification at all. Russell teaches that the "superior authorities" are secular not God & Christ. Rutherford "clarifies" this (1929) to say they are God & Christ and not secular. Then in 1962, it is "clarified" again to say that it is secular and not God & Christ.
Same with the locusts. Russell teaches that they cannot be God's people. Then the Watchtower "clarifies" that these locusts are God's people. Then Brother Splane "clarifies" that these locusts are not God's people. So far, the website only says the following.
Brother David Splane clarified our understanding of the prophecy recorded in Joel chapter 2 describing a swarm of locusts. We look forward to studying this clarified understanding when it appears in The Watchtower.
I think it's easy to see that this will clarify that the teaching was wrong up until a few weeks ago. A wrong teaching is always misleading. But it does not necessarily follow that the person teaching it wrong is "mentally diseased" as you said would be true of any who taught something misleading.
Several would say that the overlapping generation teaching is wrong the way that Brother Splane explains it. You might say that anyone who teaches that this explanation is wrong is misleading by the teaching of Christ and God's words. But what if Brother Splane, next October, begins to agree that the way he explained it was wrong, and says that a new "clarified" teaching is now going to be taught? It seems like you would say that the persons who were right were misleading, and Brother Splane was not misleading when he was wrong.

No Allen....I mean Tom. Revision is a good thing. The problem is when we state something as fact one year, and then change it the next. One thing is building on an idea, pretty much the way technology and the medical field develop, but another is completely changing ones mind. The equivalent is maybe what psychologists do, they seem to change their minds, one time they say it's better to let a child do what it wants, and then when negative results are reaped, they say it's better to discipline a child. A kind of trial and error approach. Similarly, when what JW's teach does not work out, then we try the next "theory". Think generation.