Anna

It is revealing to me that those who taunt us endlessly over just how “inspired” are the ones at the helm today seem to take for granted that there should be ones who are that way. It gets even more crazy when words such as “infallible” are thrown in. “Perfect” is even worse. 
“Look at what Brother Jackson said,” they gloat. “Guess he’s not so infallible after all, is he?” they say. They take for granted that for the Christian life to have validity in modern times, there should be ones who ARE infallible, who can and SHOULD spoon-feed members, so there is a lessened need for faith, and hopefully (from their point of view) none at all.
These ones wouldn’t have lasted two minutes in the first century, when the ones taking the lead were manifestly not that way. A local speaker with a dramatic flair enacted a fictional encounter from back then with an irate householder, a forerunner of today’s “apostates.” “What! You’re going to tell me about love?” he tells the visiting brother. “Look, I was there at that meeting of Paul and Barnabas after John took a leave of absence! You see those two kids there? [motioning to his young children playing on the floor] They do not fight as I saw those two grown men of yours fight! Why don’t you learn love yourself before you come here to lecture me about it!”
For that reason, I shy away from such loaded words as “infallible.” Maybe the insistence on infallibility is a holdover from the Catholic Church, which for centuries insisted that the Pope was that way. “Inspired” will also blow up in your face, because you end up doing backflips in translating just what the word should effectively mean now—or even then, when the “leading men” fought like kids. (I even put the word “apostates” in quotes, increasingly, because it comes in many varieties and it means different things to different people.)
It is enough to say that the written record, which includes the dealings and interactions of imperfect ones at the first-century helm, is deemed “inspired.” “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,  so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” This is so even though it includes the account of Peter’s astounding cowardess (given his leadership role at the time) of changing his association once the Jewish-based brothers came on the scene—before they did, he mixed freely with the Gentile-based Christians; after they did, he “withdrew” from them.
It is still “inspired.” It is enough for us to go on. It is enough to make us “fully competent” and “completely equipped for every good work.” Even though it includes the blunderings of the “uneducated and ordinary” ones that were the leaders back then—and the leaders today hold to that pattern—that is still the case. It is not at all what Srecko or John thinks it should be—a true “anointed” to wipe away every tear and smooth the path, (sorry, Witness) removing all pebbles so that the people of God can sail along blithely without really having to develop faith. 
 

I am sorry, I realized it sounded like I was telling you what you should be thinking. There were a lot of people coming and going out of the house and talking to me, so I found it hard to concentrate, I changed the sentence around a bit and forgot to put the I back. It should have read " so I don't think..."

Of course the child has rights, and one of those rights is the right to live. I think I am beginning  to understand the angle you are looking at it from. Like what right do the parents have to say that a child is to die as a result of their (the parents conscience). It's complicated, because it's true that no one has the right to decide over the life (as in life or death) of another human. On the  other hand the parents are responsible in Jehovah's eyes to uphold the law.  I understand now why you brought up the parallel example with the pets. So in effect persons are upholding the law not only for themselves but also for others in their care, whether it be children or pets. (Or as you call it imposing their conscience). I can see that a part of the problem is that both children and pets are dependent on the adults and that both children and pets are not able to make informed decisions like the adults are, and therefor the adults in charge of them make the decisions for them.
But I think the main misunderstanding in our dialogue has been because we have both been approaching the issue from different angles, for example the Bible says children belong to Jehovah, and that they are merely in the parents care. So assuming Jehovah really means that the law on blood includes all forms of manipulation with blood, and all forms of ingesting blood whether by mouth or intravenously, what would HIS decision be regarding the treatment of the child?   In that case, aren't the parents merely trying to uphold what they believe would be Jehovah's decision, rather than anything to do with imposing their conscience onto a dependent child? So I think that's the angle I was coming at it from. But you were looking at it from the point of view of the rights of a dependent child (or pet) per se. Am I understanding it right?

I don't know if this is really new, but I learned it's very important to love, and show love to one another because we as heck are going to need it in the future. And I'm talking about true love, the principled kind, not the sentimental kind.
 

Ah! I remember it. It wasn't necessarily about a sister at all. All this time I thought it was about a sister in a congregation who relied too much on her husband or something like that.
*** w17 January p. 12 par. 1 Treasure Your Gift of Free Will ***
WHEN faced with making a personal choice, one woman told a friend: “Do not make me think; just tell me what to do. That is easier.” The woman preferred being told what to do instead of using a precious gift from her Creator, the gift of free will. What about you? Do you like making your own decisions, or do you prefer that others decide for you? How do you view the matter of free will?
 

The lawyer is not lying if he is referring to family members STILL living at home. The problem is, most people understand family members to mean anyone who was originally born into the family, but not necessarily still all living together.
The legal definition of family (even immediate family) is: 
Father Mother Parent’s spouse, if a parent has remarried Child (by blood, adoption, or marriage) Brother Sister Spouse Grandparent Grandchild Further, a person’s immediate family for legal purposes also includes the spouse of his child, brother, or sister, as well as the father, mother, brother, and sister of his spouse.
Obviously, rarely do all these members live together all of the time, with the exception of the spouse and underage children. 
I haven't seen the rest of the video, but had the Judge asked specifically if he is referring to family living outside of the home, then the lawyer would have had to clarify this. However, if there was no further clarification established, then technically and legally the JW lawyer did not lie, but allowed others to assume something else, therefor it could be said that he was misleading.

 
Someone's spouse, parents and grandparents, children and grand children, brothers and sisters, mother in law and father in law, brothers in law and sisters in law, daughters in law and sons in law. Adopted, half, and step members are also included in immediate family

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/immediate-family.html

The lawyer is not lying if he is referring to family members STILL living at home. The problem is, most people understand family members to mean anyone who was originally born into the family, but not necessarily still all living together.
The legal definition of family (even immediate family) is: 
Father Mother Parent’s spouse, if a parent has remarried Child (by blood, adoption, or marriage) Brother Sister Spouse Grandparent Grandchild Further, a person’s immediate family for legal purposes also includes the spouse of his child, brother, or sister, as well as the father, mother, brother, and sister of his spouse.
Obviously, rarely do all these members live together all of the time, with the exception of the spouse and underage children. 
I haven't seen the rest of the video, but had the Judge asked specifically if he is referring to family living outside of the home, then the lawyer would have had to clarify this. However, if there was no further clarification established, then technically and legally the JW lawyer did not lie, but allowed others to assume something else, therefor it could be said that he was misleading.

 
Someone's spouse, parents and grandparents, children and grand children, brothers and sisters, mother in law and father in law, brothers in law and sisters in law, daughters in law and sons in law. Adopted, half, and step members are also included in immediate family

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/immediate-family.html

Yes, his last name is Bond

...
With the gaping holes and three arms, I suppose not.
 

They are all woven into a fine garment, so it hardly matters.

I was not being ironic, this badges with names will be helpful for sure :))

I had the impression that this was Newton's whole point. It was not that he was serious about actually predicting a date for the end of the world. I think it was to show contemporaries that the same "data" that "prophecy hounds" always made use of in order to prove something will happen within their own generation, could just as easily be used to point to something hundreds of years in the future.

What I like about Newton is that as opposed to Russell, Rutherford, Franz, the 1990 leadership and the 21 century leadership is that he "predicted" the "end" to be NOT in his lifetime. All the others did. Interesting.

What I like about Newton is that as opposed to Russell, Rutherford, Franz, the 1990 leadership and the 21 century leadership is that he "predicted" the "end" to be NOT in his lifetime. All the others did. Interesting.

When i was arrested by Civil Police and handed to Military Police and after they transported me to place where i have to serve army, they treated me as Soldier even i was in civil clothes. Later i understand that all young people who passed age of old (17) when they went to medical examination /recruitment / and been put in evidence for serving in army,  were  under the law  and considered as future soldier, especially in moment when you are literally, physically inside Military Camp.  

Yes. I have cancelled my subscription to the Watchtower. Also The Week. Also my trips to the library. Also any further visits to JW.org. How could I ever have wasted all those hours?
Now I am a regular reader. I do nothing else. 
(No. I have yet to visit. That is not to say maybe it will be so someday. Try.to keep your enthusiasm in check)

No! Say it ain’t so. The only thing that is lacking is that your VW bus ownership does not stretch back to the original ones of the 60’s.
You know, the more I think about it, the more I think that the JW website should be taken down and replaced with a Facebook page like yours. That way, Zuckerberg will steal information willy-nilly, the way he does, and we can count it all as placements.

Even Einstein stood on the shoulders of giants that went before him ... notably Sir Isaac Newton .... arguably the smartest natural man who ever lived, and whose theology was almost EXACTLY the very best of what Jehovah's Witnesses teach today.

The case of Frank D'Onofrio makes the point that once a person is in a military unit they are under the command of others. And those others have been given the power of life and death. They can "kill the body." In the United States, as in many countries, a person could make application for exemption on religious grounds, BEFORE conscription, but once they accepted an "oath" to the military, it was supposedly too late to make that request safely. If they made a request in such a way that could be interpreted as bringing down the morale of a military unit, or was interpreted as running away from a post due to cowardice, this might not end well for the person.
If a person on the outside spoke out against war when the nation was not actively at war, this was never a problem. Woodrow Wilson himself had run for president on statements that were antiwar. But when a war is commenced, the religious leaders and pacifist philosophers were expected to shut up and talk about other things.  The making of an actual law to that effect seems ludicrous, but laws made in the throes of nationalistic passion don't always make rational sense.
Obviously, there would always be some flexibility or variability (inconsistency) of interpretation about how much could be said, and how it could be said, and what effect it was intended to have on potential troops. Some FBI Agents would find certain kinds of evidence useless, and another might think the same evidence was damning. And, the main point: something innocent or barely questionable outside of wartime, could be seen as treasonous and seditious during a war.
Based on the definition of sedition given just before the war, and as expanded between 1917 and 1918, a lot of people were technically guilty of sedition. From a single individual with little influence on others, it could be forgiven (although often it wasn't). But it was considerably more serious to the War Department and FBI if a person had influence, and their words were intended to influence.
One other thing I learned by reading literally thousands of documents on this case and other similar cases in these FBI files, is that the times were already filled with suspicion even before the war. The War Department and FBI was evidently filled with a lot of people who were passionate to fight against perceived internal enemies of United States. These enemies were sometimes just created out of fears propagandized by large commercial interests. The terrible fear of socialism was stoked by capitalists since many socialists had come from Europe to the United States in the mid-1800's. Many fought for the North in the US Civil War, seeing it as an important class conflict. But this brought suspicion on European immigrants from many different European countries, leading to fear of strikes, fear of labor organizing, and fear of those with financial power losing any profits to workers asking for rights.
You'd think it completely unrelated to the case of the Bible Students and Rutherford, but I think that much of the thinking and suspicions of those days was at least partly depicted in a terribly long and slow-moving movie I once saw called "Heaven's Gate" with Chris Kristofferson. It was an adapted depiction of the culmination of the Johnson County Wars, where Wyoming officials (backing the cattle rancher associations) sanctioned the open assassinations of a large part of the new European immigrant population of this area of Wyoming from literal "death lists" of people that a hired posse was allowed to murder, and get paid $5 a day, and $50 for every European immigrant they successfully murdered. This was just over 2 decades prior to 1918.
I read the Agent's reports that reek of suspicion for anyone who might have a socialist bent. If the assembly of IBSA was Polish, Greek, Italian, etc., the suspicions were high that there might be such "anarchists" among them. If the names were potentially German or of some other Eastern European sound that wasn't recognized, then they were all the more fearful of German enemies and socialist "enemies." Agents' reports on IBSA and others were quick to point out any tendencies toward socialism in these groups (which was called "anarchy" because, for example, a worker who wanted to work only 10 hours a day instead of 12 was causing "anarchy").
Russell, well before Rutherford, had already been teaching that Armageddon would involve a clashing of classes between labor and capital.
Although religions like the IBSA (and some other groups and preachers) got caught up in the "Sedition Act" sweeps of 1917 and 1918, it was mostly folks like Eugene Debs (famous socialist) who got impacted. Debs had started and defended railroad unions since the 1890s and even ran for President in almost every presidential election (as a socialist) since 1900 until he died. The last time he ran from his prison cell, having been thrown in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary just as Rutherford was leaving. Note Wikipedia:
On June 16, 1918, Debs made a speech in Canton, Ohio urging resistance to the military draft of World War I. He was arrested on June 30 and charged with ten counts of sedition.[43]  . . . Debs appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court. In its ruling on Debs v. United States, the court examined several statements Debs had made regarding World War I and socialism. While Debs had carefully worded his speeches in an attempt to comply with the Espionage Act, the Court found he had the intention and effect of obstructing the draft and military recruitment. Among other things, the Court cited Debs' praise for those imprisoned for obstructing the draft. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. stated in his opinion that little attention was needed since Debs' case was essentially the same as that of Schenck v. United States, in which the Court had upheld a similar conviction. . . .
In March 1919, President Wilson asked Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer for his opinion on clemency, offering his own: "I doubt the wisdom and public effect of such an action". Palmer generally favored releasing people convicted under the wartime security acts, but when he consulted with Debs' prosecutors—even those with records as defenders of civil liberties—they assured him that Debs' conviction was correct and his sentence appropriate.[50] The President and his Attorney General both believed that public opinion opposed clemency and that releasing Debs could strengthen Wilson's opponents in the debate over the ratification of the peace treaty. Palmer proposed clemency in August and October 1920 without success.[51] At one point, Wilson wrote:
[Edited to add that some of the FBI documents use phrases like "The Finished Mystery and other examples of socialist propaganda." Also, to be fair, the Bureau during about the same period increased their efforts  going after war profiteers who were conspiring to overcharge for coal, etc.]

Some of these are difficult to read, but I noticed the one addressed to Br. Robinson where Rutherford writes: "So far as I know, the law has not made provision for the discharge of enlisted men because of their religious conviction. The statute relates only to those who are drafted and who then make their application for exemption".
I am still confused why it should have been a problem to refuse to go to war for religious reasons. How did that equate to sedition, even though Rutherford promulgated that true Christians should not go to war?
I have in my files a letter from an Italian brother that was used in court to show that true Christians refuse to kill.  Also here is a court transcript of the trial, not sure how complete it is. You will have to figure out some of the words because they are the wrong format (I assume from when the original typewritten text was converted to a PDF file) but over all it is quite readable. https://archive.org/stream/RutherfordVTheUnitedStatesTrial/1918_Rutherford_vs_the_United_States_Trial_djvu.txt
 
 



 
 

There are so many pieces of evidence that I will not be presenting them in any particular order. If anyone is really interested in seeing where these pieces should be placed in a timeline, it would be good to review the order of events given in Watchtower articles above (and the Proclaimer's book, the 1975 Yearbook, "Faith on the March," "God's Kingdom Rules," etc.
Also, I have previously shared some of the pictures from the "Courage" exhibit up in Warwick on the forum:
They probably still available at the same link:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/qfZaGqvevttRsWpJ6
It includes a set of "slides" that highlight various events from 1918 to 1919 related to the ban on the book and related persecution and legal actions taken all over the country. Also note the timing of Kingdom News 1, 2, & 3 in the midst of this.

This forum currently contains a recent topic where the subject of the 1918 imprisonment and 1919 release of Rutherford and his associates has come up. There is a lot of misinformation under that topic. I'm no expert on the subject, but it's still obvious that even some who present themselves as experts can be misinformed.
There is plenty of documentation and verifiable information out there on the topic, and while there's no real shame in being misinformed, we should be careful not to present ourselves as experts. When a person presents themselves as an expert, their misinformation becomes disinformation. We should strive for honesty.
And it's not that going back to this history is necessarily all that important, but our publications have made it part of fulfilled Bible prophecy, and therefore any mishandling of information about it becomes all the more serious. Also, sometimes when such historical topics are brought up some Witnesses are quick to complain that there is no reason to go back and rehash that old material. Note however, that it is our recent books and Watchtower magazines that regularly bring up such material for review. The "God's Kingdom" book discusses it. Even one of the most recent Watchtowers brings it up again (October 2019 Watchtower):
*** w19 October p. 3 1919—One Hundred Years Ago ***
    While the eight brothers were imprisoned, faithful Bible Students circulated a petition calling for their release. These brave brothers and sisters gathered more than 700,000 signatures. On Wednesday, March 26, 1919, before the petition was submitted, Brother Rutherford and the other responsible brothers were released.
     In a speech to those who welcomed him home, Brother Rutherford said: “I am convinced that this experience we have all gone through is merely to prepare us for more strenuous times. . . . Your fight has not been to get your brethren out of prison. That was merely a side issue. . . . The fight you have been making has been for the purpose of witnessing for the Truth, and those who have done it have received a wonderful blessing.”
     The circumstances surrounding the trial of our brothers may give indication of Jehovah’s direction. On May 14, 1919, the appeals court ruled: “The defendants in this case did not have the . . . impartial trial to which they were entitled, and for that reason the judgment is reversed.” The brothers had been convicted of serious crimes, and these judgments would have remained on their records if they had only been pardoned or if their sentences had merely been commuted. No further charges were laid. As a result, Judge Rutherford retained his legal qualifications to defend Jehovah’s people before the Supreme Court of the United States, something he did many times after his release.
I won't personally get back to this topic for up to a day or so, but welcome anyone with information to present what they know about it, or have heard about it. We can start with our own publications and Wikipedia, of course. But anything that seems like valuable information or interesting questions could be presented for evaluation by all who are serious about such history.

Anna: I have not been getting any private messages.
If anyone wants to email me:
James.Rook@Technik-SA.US.
I am not concerned about any vulnerability to letting out my email address ... I need the target practice, and Luigi from South Chicago, with facial injuries that never heal, owes me some favors.
JTR

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.
 

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.
 

I see this from text.
First, they "Compromise their Neutrality" by Obeying Censor and Not God. :)))
Second, why to speak about Worldly things (wars and weapons and politics) IF they want to be "Neutral" about Politics and Worldly Things? :))) IF someone want to be Neutral about something then He/They Have NO Opinion on something or at least They must "shut their mouth" and NOT to Tell WHAT IS Their Opinion, Thinking, Attitude. :)))) With this behavior you show your "neutrality"!  :)) and not taking sides.