Anna

There are legitimate concerns that someone can misunderstand, or concerns that many people tend to walk by sight, not by faith. But the expression has been common for years, both inside and outside the Witnesses, that when you approach a house of worship, it becomes a "house of God." I don't believe for a minute that the average JW feels any reverence towards the bricks and mortar of a building. There is sometimes a natural feeling of nostalgia or sentimentality over a place or object that brings back a lot of good memories. So I heard about many Bethelites in Brooklyn who felt really bad about leaving their historical New York buildings. But did any of them actually think that there was something about the physical aspects of the buildings that made them somehow more spiritual? I think that even the brothers who used to give talks about "dedicating" a place "from now until the new world" were probably seeing an opportunity to emphasize the closeness of the end, and the stability and growth of the organization. Even if they perhaps considered the assumption that Jehovah might even protect these buildings as a means of protecting his people, they would definitely have not claimed or felt that there were any such guarantees.
Earlier this month, I was reading a diary of a woman in the early 19th century, 1830's, who takes religion very seriously, even taking her children to up to three different church buildings on a Sunday. It sounds like she was Episcopalian, but attended the Episcopalian, the Methodist and the Baptist sermons and perhaps even their Sunday schools, too, if she could manage it in the day's schedule. She complains about some of the sermons and lessons, and she loves some of the others. But in each case, in each different building, she seems to identity all of them as "the house of God." She even reminds her child that Moses took off his shoes before entering holy ground, so he must remember to take off his hat. In spite of the words, "house of God" I'm sure this woman didn't consider anything special about the actual building. Sometimes when one of the preachers was called away, the preacher from one of the other churches would preach as a substitute, or they would share buildings in an emergency. People can understand the gist of the idea without taking everything so literally.

Most Witnesses are quite satisfied with a midweek meeting, a weekend meeting, and meetings for service, a study night with the spouse or family, and some additional time for talk preparation, additional personal study, prayer, meditation and contemplation. For many, due to various circumstances, it's hard enough to keep up even a minimum in each area mentioned.
But for others, it's obvious that they (we) spend quite a bit of time on this forum, too. And for some, I'm guessing, they spend some time here, and even seek out other places, too, where Witnesses talk or are talked about. It's pretty obvious that when it comes to how we spend our free time, there are much more fruitful pursuits. We could be visiting sick or shut-in brothers and sisters, or just doing something loving for someone else, perhaps even taking on some additional employment to able to help out those who are having financial difficulties. And not to judge anyone of course, because it's likely that many of us already engage in such additional activities, and yet we still find ourselves coming to a forum such as this.
I don't think anyone of us would think we are "witnessing" here, at least not in the typical sense of how we define sacred service. I do think that some think they are "witnessing" when they defend the status quo against those who might raise questions. And some non-JWs and ex-JWs likely think they are "witnessing" by exposing the real truth about the truth, as some would call it. However, when JWs, defenders of JWs, or even non-JWs find they are not resolving questions in their defense of a certain position, there is often a lot of anger that gets shown, and the focus of anger gets all the attention instead of the unresolved question. (Of course, that's probably a tactic for some who would rather not admit that some questions are still unresolved.)
I won't try to address the reasons that other people might be here, but I can repeat my own reasons.
I have unresolved questions of the type that would not be addressed by others in the congregation, nor by the ones responsible for  "creating" those unresolved questions in the first place. JW.ORG is not going to include a "questions and comments" section any time soon, and if they did it would become a complete mess in a hurry. So I use this site as a kind of substitute for a JW.ORG questions and comments section.
Because of that kind of utilization of this forum, I don't include a lot of comments about the areas of agreement because I have no question about them, no issue, and these are the areas where we can comment and speak up freely at the Hall, or to anyone around us who's interested in talking about such things. If this is our situation, however, that kind of skews the impression we might give to others about the Witnesses, why we believe, why we share our beliefs, and how much we appreciate our association with a world-wide brotherhood of fellow believers.
Speaking for myself, I know we've done a bit of this on the JW Closed forum, but perhaps it's a good idea now and then to share our positive public views on this part of the forum, too. When I get a chance, I'll add something more specific to my next post.
 

Well, I suppose we have moved on from the rather outdated notion that in some way the dedication of a building would somehow sanctify or change the nature of the bricks and mortar of the construction in the same way that some in the 1st century felt could occur with regard to meat used in some sort of  idolatrous ritual.
The dedication of a building for a particular purpose is really an act of the users, making that dedication for the time that they find that building suitable for that particular purpose. Once the building no longer suits that purpose and is no longer required by those making the dedication, then it seems quite reasonable that it should be disposed of and any funds obtained as a result should then be used for that same dedicated purpose.  Thinking that the fabric of a building should be used in perpetuity for that same purpose as if it was somehow made "holy" by that dedication is unreasonable . If that notion was applied literally, then no refurbishment could ever take place. No rented or leased building could ever be returned to it owner.
Nice to see more pretentious hooey biting the dust. (However sincerely it was originally meant of course).

My evil plan is almost complete .. ( squints eyes and rubs hand together as if putting on aloe vera lotion ...) . I have fakers accusing the regulars of being in control, meanwhile from behind the curtain, like a little grey mouse in the laboratory, I CONTROL THEM ALL!
BROUHAHAHAHAAAAAA !!
 
Best of Pinky.mp4

“We find nothing wrong with this man, but if an email spoke to him....”

Yes please, do post some examples. Although all this is hugely off topic, who cares.

Can you tell me how that is possible in practice? How can someone cause a division among the brothers if no one hears of it because it's in private?

I suppose I could tie it back to the original post about a French-speaking Baptist Church. Most of these are about the wording used when we try to imply that: for decades in advance the Bible Students predicted that 1914 would see a time of trouble associated with the end of the Gentile Times, Christ's presence, Christ's enthronement, and the casting of Satan out of heaven. The problem is that the English wording has (usually) become very careful to only IMPLY that the Watch Tower publications and Bible Students had, for decades, predicted Christ's presence, a time of great trouble, Satan's ousting, and Christ's enthronement. In reality, all that was predicted decades in advance for 1914, was "the end of the Gentile Times" which, of course, meant some things that are completely different from what we now apply it to.
It's easy for someone who knows English well, to create an implication of the above (to mislead) without actually stating something that's untrue. I have found some translations where the translator didn't catch the subtlety, and just assumed that the Watchtower really did predict these things. I guess it would be very difficult for Brother Jackson (Translation Dept) to call up these other translators and have to admit that they need to create a subtly misleading wording that does the same thing in Greek, for example, that it does in English. I'm sure it happens in many other languages where the translator isn't in on the "game."
But I am hesitant to start a repeat on a 1914 / Gentile Times topic.

Yes please, do post some examples. Although all this is hugely off topic, who cares.

Sounds like Allen Smith is in a tizzy for having to create multiple new accounts........AGAIN!
Allen, you can come out now, we know it's you!

Sounds like Allen Smith is in a tizzy for having to create multiple new accounts........AGAIN!
Allen, you can come out now, we know it's you!

Can you tell me how that is possible in practice? How can someone cause a division among the brothers if no one hears of it because it's in private?

Yes. I am warning all you miscreants. Any more shenanigans and I will kick your sorry cans to the curb. Especially you, @James Thomas Rook Jr.

Yes. That works for many Witnesses. I personally don't think it's honest to simply redefine all types of changes as "refinements." But I'm more concerned with the fact that it can reflect a lack of humility that expects us to merely accept false doctrines as doctrines that simply needed refinement. The teaching might be a complete turnaround or rejection of a former teaching, or it might just be a minor adjustment, but even in the latter case it does not mean that the previous teaching is still true.
For example, there was a change that happened in 1943 that changed the time for Christ's presence from 1874 to 1914. In the long run that is just a minor adjustment of 40 years. But it doesn't mean that 1874 is still a true doctrine. 536 BCE for the destruction of Babylon was changed to 539 BCE, even a smaller change, but this doesn't mean that 536 BCE is still a true teaching. Yes it's a type of "refinement," but a "refinement" that must still admit that the previous teaching is false. 
For example, the Watch Tower publications once taught, under Russell, that the "superior authorities" were not the secular authorities, but were God and Christ. Then, in Rutherford's time, the WT changed the view to just the opposite. Then, in Knorr's/Franz' time, the WT changed the view to the opposite again, so that it was right back to what Russell had taught. The Watchtower treated this as an adjustment, a refinement, and even claimed that there were advantages to having been wrong (without using the word "wrong" of course). This is clearly a matter of just not wanting to admit that a false doctrine was ever "false." Haughty people don't like admitting they are wrong, so this gives the impression of haughtiness.
So was Naboth a prophetic type of Jesus or the anointed? Is it the case that this is true, and that the only reason we don't teach it that way is because it's too complicated to tell the whole truth? If it's still true, then someone should say that it's still true and we won't hold back from telling you "all the truth"? Of course, if it's actually a change in "understanding" then we are admitting that the former understanding is wrong, therefore it is no longer true. As you tacitly admitted, as Witnesses, we can never admit to having had a false doctrine. So we use different words. False doctrines must be re-worded as "refinements" "improvements" "clarifications" etc.
We see this type of explanation in the very articles that explained the changes to "types" and "antitypes" which had no Biblical basis to be treated as prophecies. The article appeared not to admit that these had ever been wrong. Only that the:
"faithful and discreet slave" was becoming steadily more discreet. discretion was leading to "greater caution" these older explanation were unduly difficult to grasp the details can be hard to remember and apply the former explanation tended to obscure more important moral lessons None of those points actually admits that the former explanations were wrong, only that we were now being more careful, more cautious, more discreet, more simple and clear. Watch very carefully how this was done:
*** w15 3/15 pp. 9-10 pars. 10-11 “This Is the Way You Approved” ***
As we might expect, over the years Jehovah has helped “the faithful and discreet slave” to become steadily more discreet. Discretion has led to greater caution when it comes to calling a Bible account a prophetic drama unless there is a clear Scriptural basis for doing so. Additionally, it has been found that some of the older explanations about types and antitypes are unduly difficult for many to grasp. The details of such teachings—who pictures whom and why—can be hard to keep straight, to remember, and to apply. Of even greater concern, though, is that the moral and practical lessons of the Bible accounts under examination may be obscured or lost in all the scrutiny of possible antitypical fulfillments. Thus, we find that our literature today focuses more on the simple, practical lessons about faith, endurance, godly devotion, and other vital qualities that we learn about from Bible accounts.
11 How, then, do we now understand the account about Naboth? In much clearer, simpler terms. That righteous man died, not because he was a prophetic type of Jesus or of the anointed, but because he was an integrity keeper.
Notice how even the idea that we no longer understand it the same way is worded in such a way as to be very ambiguous about whether the previous understanding was actually wrong. This is one of dozens of such ambiguous wordings, and I can show you cases where this exact kind of wording apparently "fooled" the translator into creating inconsistent (less ambiguous) results in Simplified English, French, German and Greek. And I'm sure there are several other examples I don't even know about.

Well you've got to be reasonable.  The question is; is our employment closely and consistently tied with false religion. One off things don't count I'm sure.  One thing is fixing a church HVAC, and another is specializing in polishing church steeples.

For me, this was a matter of prayerfully considering and meditating on the full meaning of the 2014 talk by Brother Splane when he admitted that many teachings were all being dropped at once because they were based on an old extra-Biblical tradition of creating types and antitypes when there was no specific scriptural basis for doing so.
This actually turned out to refer to literally over ONE HUNDRED teachings that we were now admitting had no scriptural basis. All at once, we were DROPPING at least ONE HUNDRED TWENTY teachings.

Then there were 80 more of these types of teachings, which were reviewed in a 1981 Watchtower
*** w81 3/1 p. 27 Do You Appreciate the “Faithful and Discreet Slave”? ***
OVERWHELMING CREDENTIALS
The “faithful and discreet slave” has abundant credentials. Following is a partial list of Scriptural and prophetic designations applying to or being represented in the remnant of Jesus Christ’s anointed followers since the notable year 1919:
(1) Noah’s wife, Gen. 7:7; (2) angels sent to Lot, Gen. 19:15; (3) Rebekah, Gen. 24:64; (4) Joseph and Benjamin, Gen. 45:14; (5) gleanings left behind, Lev. 19:9; (6) two spies to Rahab, Josh. 2:4; (7) Barak, Judg. 4:14; (8) Jephthah, Judg. 11:34; (9) Naomi and Ruth, Ruth 2:2; (10) David’s Israelite warriors, 2 Sam. 18:1; (11) Jehu, 2 Ki. 10:11, 15; (12) Mordecai and Esther, Esther 4:13; (13) Job, Job 42:10, 13; (14) King’s daughter, Ps. 45:13; (15) men of loving-kindness, Ps. 50:5; (16) intimate group, Ps. 89:7; (17) Shear-jashub, Isa. 7:3; (18) light of the nations, Isa. 60:3; (19) big trees of righteousness, Isa. 61:3; (20) ministers of our God, Isa. 61:6; (21) cluster preserved, Isa. 65:8; (22) servants called by another name, Isa. 65:15; (23) men trembling at God’s word, Isa. 66:5; (24) new nation born, Isa. 66:8; (25) Jeremiah, Jer. 1:10; (26) Jehovah’s people in the new covenant, Jer. 31:33; (27) enduring watchman, Ezek. 3:16-27; (28) man in linen, Ezek. 9:2; (29) cleansed people, Ezek. 36:29-32; (30) dwellers in center of earth, Ezek. 38:12; (31) the host of heaven, Dan. 8:10; (32) sanctuary restored (cleansed), Dan. 8:14; (33) they that are wise, Dan. 11:33; (34) the happy one who is keeping in expectation, Dan. 12:12; (35) all flesh receiving the spirit, Joel 2:28; (36) Jonah, Jon. 3:1-3; (37) apple of Jehovah’s eye, Zech. 2:8; (38) liberated remnant, Zech. 2:7; (39) a Jew, Zech. 8:23; (40) sons of Levi, Mal. 3:3; (41) wheat, Matt. 13:25; (42) sons of the kingdom, Matt. 13:38; (43) workers for the vineyard, Matt. 20:1; (44) those invited to marriage feast, Matt. 22:3-14; (45) chosen ones, Matt. 24:22; (46) eagles, Matt. 24:28; (47) faithful and discreet slave, Matt. 24:45; (48) discreet virgins, Matt. 25:2; (49) brothers of the king, Matt. 25:40; (50) little flock of sheep, Luke 12:32; (51) beggar Lazarus, Luke 16:20; (52) sheep in “this fold,” John 10:1-16; (53) branches of the vine, John 15:4; (54) royal palace of David, Acts 15:16; (55) heirs with Christ, Rom. 8:17; (56) the remnant, Rom. 11:5; (57) branches in the olive tree, Rom. 11:24; (58) holy ones or saints, 1 Cor. 6:2; Rev. 16:6; (59) temple, 1 Cor. 6:19; (60) new creation, 2 Cor. 5:17; (61) ambassadors for Christ, 2 Cor. 5:20; (62) congregation of God, Gal. 1:13; (63) part of Abraham’s seed, Gal. 3:29; (64) Israel of God, Gal. 6:16; (65) body of Christ, Eph. 1:22, 23; (66) soldiers of Christ Jesus, 2 Tim. 2:3; (67) house under Christ, Heb. 3:6; (68) holy priesthood, 1 Pet. 2:5; (69) holy nation, 1 Pet. 2:9; (70) association of brothers, 1 Pet. 2:17; (71) seven congregations, Rev. 1:20; (72) twenty-four persons of advanced age, Rev. 4:4; (73) spiritual Israel, Rev. 7:4; (74) locusts, Rev. 9:3; (75) two witnesses, Rev. 11:3; (76) two olive trees, Rev. 11:4; (77) seed of the woman, Rev. 12:17; (78) New Jerusalem, Rev. 21:2; (79) the bride of Christ, Rev. 22:17; 19:7; (80) Jehovah’s witnesses, Isa. 43:10.
I knew that we had spent hundreds of hours studying these in Congregation Book Studies from the time I can remember my very first Tuesday night meetings. Then, at Bethel, in 1980, I became a study partner with a Gilead student who lived next door to me on the third floor of the 107 building. My own set of Gilead Notes (I have 2 full sets) contained MONTHS worth of study of these specific kinds of teachings, and some students fretted that they could not keep track of them all.
But what caught my attention in Brother Splane's talk is that they were being compared to the Pyramid doctrines under Russell and Rutherford. Brother Splane admitted that Brother Bert Schroeder (died 2006) had already come up with this change and had provided the current definition now being published in the 2015 Watchtower.
*** w15 3/15 p. 9 par. 7 “This Is the Way You Approved” ***
In times past, it was more common for our literature to take what might be called a type-antitype approach to Scriptural accounts. The Bible narrative was considered the type, and any prophetic fulfillment of the story was the antitype.
*** w15 3/15 p. 18 par. 3 Questions From Readers ***
If such interpretations seem far-fetched, you can understand the dilemma. Humans cannot know which Bible accounts are shadows of things to come and which are not. The clearest course is this: Where the Scriptures teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so.
The questionableness of such doctrines had already been discussed in a Watchtower from back in 1972, where even though it came very close to admitting just how questionable such teachings were, the decision was made to keep teaching them.
*** w72 8/15 pp. 502-503 God Readjusts the Thinking of His People ***
Another thing that has given rise to questions is the use by Jehovah’s witnesses of parallels or prophetic types, applying these to circumstances and to groups or classes of people today. Many people who read the Bible view its accounts all as simply history, but when they begin to study with Jehovah’s witnesses a readjustment of viewpoint takes place as they see that there is more to the accounts than history. For example,. . . .[long example skipped]
The question that is sometimes asked is, Did Jehovah stage that ‘dramatic’ event, so that we would have a warning now? Well, would he cause such bad things to happen? Would he maneuver them himself? No.
The real answer was obvious, but before that article was complete, the writers had found some twisted reasoning to be able to keep these dozens and dozens of false teachings that we had come to accept from old traditions. Brother Splane gave the example of the brother(s) who really loved the Pyramid doctrines and how they had to have the humility to suddenly change their viewpoint when Rutherford dropped it. (Rutherford said these teachings were ultimately from Satan.) It almost sounded as if Brother Splane was saying that these "antitype" doctrines could not be changed until certain people who still loved them had dropped off the scene. When he mentioned that this "new" way of looking at it had already been stated so well many years earlier by Brother Schroeder, this was another hint that this change had been in the works for quite a while.

Little is known about Bro. "Judge" Rutherford's small screen TV fetish, circa 1939, because back then there was only one channel, and you had to know Morse Code.
 

Sniff, sniff, sniff.....I can smell Allen Smith

Sniff, sniff, sniff.....I can smell Allen Smith

I think you are exactly right. This is why I said the following:
That was based on Hebrews 13, of course, and also:
(1 Tim. 5:17) Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching.
As Christians, we should question every one of our teachings, to make sure it is brought into obedience with Christ's teachings. We should never shirk our responsibility to "make sure of all things," "prove to yourselves," "test the inspired utterances," "pay close attention to your teaching," "see whether these things were so," etc., etc.
And since the Governing Body have become the most public of our elder committees, and have taken on a greater responsibility, it is vital that we question them just as we should question a local body of elders. More will be asked of those to whom more has been given. Teachers will receive heavier judgment. We don't just want to have our ears tickled.
In the NWT, the paragraph that starts out with 1 Tim  5:17, quoted above, ends with this phrase, after a discussion about reproving elders before all onlookers:
(1 Timothy 5:21) 21 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to observe these instructions without any prejudice or partiality.
Remember that there was a group of men in the first century that, due to a set of circumstances, were being seen as a kind of "governing body" that was at least indirectly exerting an strong influence on the doctrines of distant congregations. Galatia was very far from Jerusalem; it was about as far from Antioch, as Antioch was from Jerusalem. So Paul wrote to Galatia about those men who were at least indirectly creating such an influence on them, and he said:
(Galatians 1:7-3:1) 7 Not that there is another good news; but there are certain ones who are causing you trouble and wanting to distort the good news about the Christ. . . . Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave. . . . 15 But when God, who separated me . . .  so that I might declare the good news about him to the nations, I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ceʹphas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. 19 But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. . . . . 2 Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up as a result of a revelation, and I presented to them the good news that I am preaching among the nations. This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded, to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain. 3 Nevertheless, not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. 4 But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us; 5 we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you. 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary, . . . .9 and when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and me the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the nations but they to those who are circumcised. . . .  11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, . . . 13 The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense, so that even Barʹna·bas was led along with them in their pretense. 14 But when I saw that they were not walking in step with the truth of the good news, . . . . 3 O senseless Ga·laʹtians! Who has brought you under this evil influence. . . ?
So when Paul told Timothy not to show any partiality when it came to reproving elders before all onlookers, we see that Paul had already "walked the walk." If we are to be imitators of Paul's example, then we should be willing to look closely at all the doctrines and influences that we are taught, no matter who they come from. Even if from those who seem to be important, even if from the very pillars of the congregation, even if from James, Peter or John, or men sent from them. Would we be willing to resist such ones face to face? Or would we yield in submission because they were highly regarded?
Fortunately, of course, that matter in Jerusalem was cleared up with the help of the holy spirit. Fortunately for us, most matters of this magnitude have already been cleared up, too, and we have no problem always giving the benefit of the doubt to those who want us to submit to their lead. This probably causes no problems at all for 99 percent of us.
But we should still learn from the apostle Paul's words, that our teachings should not come from men, and that we should always be ready to resist any teachings that still need to be brought into harmony with the good news, no matter from whom or where we learned them.
We should be happy to have a committee of elders who are willing to take on the necessary responsibilities for the world-wide congregations. We should respect them, honor them, and follow their lead. However, the teaching that claims that the Governing Body is equal to the Faithful and Discreet Slave of Mt 24 is one of those teachings that we should question, specifically for the Biblical reasons that Jesus and Paul gave us. Also because it directly contradicts other Watchtower teachings from the March 15 2015 Watchtower. Also, it gives the impression that there are specific humans that we should always identify as Leaders, (even "Governors") instead of looking IMPARTIALLY to each particular example of conduct and faith, to contemplate how it turns out. It gives us the impression that, for doctrinal matters, a certain group of men should always have the FINAL say, and can therefore override the Christian-trained conscience of individuals, who will stand or fall before the judgment seat as individuals. 
As true and discreet slaves, we will each take the initiative (take the lead, see footnote on) in carrying each other's burdens. None of us, no matter how much we think of ourselves, will believe that more honor goes to us than we should give to others. This is what true obedience means:
(Galatians 6:2-5) . . .Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and in this way you will fulfill the law of the Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. 4 But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load.
(Romans 12:9-16) 9 Let your love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is wicked; cling to what is good. 10 In brotherly love have tender affection for one another. In showing honor to one another, take the lead.[fn, initiative] 11 Be industrious, not lazy. Be aglow with the spirit. Slave for Jehovah. 12 Rejoice in the hope. Endure under tribulation. Persevere in prayer. 13 Share with the holy ones according to their needs. Follow the course of hospitality. 14 Keep on blessing those who persecute; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; weep with those who weep. 16 Have the same attitude toward others as toward yourselves; do not set your mind on lofty things, but be led along with the lowly things. Do not become wise in your own eyes.

I chuckled when TTH called Sean Migos a "newbie."

Yes, common sense is great!
A few weeks ago, we had the video about the brother getting a bit materialistic and buying a big TV, a fancy coffee maker and fancy car. After study and meditating he realised it was not a good idea so he went and took these things back and he replaced the TV with a really small one. On the way home, the COBE and his wife joked about it in the car (I was getting a ride with them). She said; "did he really have to replace it with the size of a computer monitor"? (lols from all of us) "I mean come on, you'd need a pair of glasses to see that!" (more lols). Me: "so on Sunday when you are at our house for FS you know what you're going to see on our wall" (now really cracking up...tears rolling down face). This back and forth and laughter lasted till we almost got to my house. Of course the conclusion was that this extremism was for illustrative purposes only, and not to be taken literally. However, we all agreed that in the past, and even now, some friends might take it literally...
Later on my husband made a point that on a very small TV, one could still watch the bad programs, if you sat really close that is (lol).
 

Sniff, sniff, sniff.....I can smell Allen Smith

A year or two after I was baptized, about 1968, our Circuit Overseer (called the "Circuit Servant" back then) gave a talk on a Tuesday that railed against giving our old junk to the Salvation Army. (We used to give up the Book Study night for the first meeting with the Circuit Overseer.) This didn't bother anyone too much because we didn't have a Salvation Army around the city, and most of us only BOUGHT things at the local GOODWILL STORE which was huge in our city, and it was unlikely that any of us gave anything to any of these stores, anyway. But someone was bound to ask, not during that meeting, but sometime before the Thursday night meeting, so that the Circuit Overseer mentioned the question, and that he had left out the fact that even BUYING at these stores is supporting false religion, and he added that the GOODWILL STORE was founded by a Reverend So-and-So. 
I know that my mother was like . . . "Why did that person have to ask?" It was her favorite place to shop, spoiled by someone asking the wrong question. 
Fast forward 50 years, and I'm cleaning out junk for my parents at their house in California to move them into an apartment last year. We've got 3 Witness families happy to take quite a lot of the stuff, but there was still quite a bit that no one took. So I boxed it up and told them that I'd drop it off at the local GOODWILL STORE. My mother said, "Fine." And I reminded her of what Brother Kent Karras (the Circuit Overseer) had said. She remembered, and told me that his counsel "lasted all of about 2 weeks." I told her I didn't know she was such a rebel.

It's ALL about credibility.
It's a constant battle between WANTING to be obedient ... and not being an obvious moron.
Roughly the equivalent of not buying lunch at Churches Fried Chicken, for religious reasons.