Anna

Yikes! No “data-gathering” according to the new privacy law. What to do?
As far as I am concerned, this is a blessing in disguise. Jehovah’s people will adapt. They always do. 
I even think it will be beneficial for us, overall. We have some people who become obsessed over records, the way some people do with regard to records of any sort. We have some who call back repeatedly if the householder does so much as give them the time of day—training them not to, in my opinion. Working with this new European law will force more discernment and maturity, though initially inconvenient in some respects. I wouldn’t mind if it spread to here in the States.
This law will alter the logistics of the Matthew 28:19-20 aspect of Christianity— “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, (Mathew 28:19) but it will not impact the Matthew 24:14 aspect at all: “And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.” (Matthew 24:14) It will probably even enhance it. 
The more I think about it, the more I like it.
Most of the suggested field service presentations I don’t like. I don’t like them because they do not work for me. Of course, it is “different strokes for different folks,” but from what I have seen, they don’t work that well for others, either. They are incremental in approach, and many, when implemented by anyone less than an expert, come off as passive-aggressive. Sometimes I wonder where they come from, because they do not necessarily dovetail with each other. Probably they are the products of various full-time evangelizers who are brainstorming. Since many start with floating a question that will seldom be on the typical person’s mind, such as “Where are the dead?” you pretty much have to record the response and hope that you have laid the foundation for furthering it or starting another topic. All that requires you write stuff down, which is now illegal unless the person has authorized it.
Better—or at least it works better for me—to bring up something more all-encompassing. The circuit overseer last visit made much of the 1-minute (and six seconds) video “Would You Like Good News?” Invite people to hear it—it only is one minute (and it is good to say literally one minute) The video ends with a plug for the Good News from God brochure and that brochure has a table of contents:
“Which topic interests you most?” It says. They include 
Who Is God?, 
Who Is Jesus Christ?, 
What Is God’s Purpose for the Earth?, 
What Hope Is There for the Dead?, 
What Is God’s Kingdom?, 
Why Does God Allow Evil and Suffering?,
How Can Your Family Be Happy?, and 
How Can You Draw Close to God?
The video is here: 
If the person registers any interest, you can set up something then and there. If not, off you go with a sincere thanks for their time—after all, we call without appointment, which is becoming a rarety in the West, nobody is required to listen to what we have to say, so whenever someone does, I thank them for their time.
Some all-encompassing verses that also work for starters—just offer to read a verse, give a brief statement as to why you read it, ask what the person thinks about it, and then offer to disappear. Such as:
Jeremiah 29:11 - “For I myself well know the thoughts that I am thinking toward you,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘thoughts of peace, and not of calamity, to give you a future and a hope.” (The reason I like the verse is because some people think God is out to rake us over, or judging from the current state of things, that there is no God, and this verse says not only that there is, but he thinks good thoughts towards us.)
Or Matthew 5:3 - “Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need, since the kingdom of the heavens belongs to them.” (The reason I like the verse is because we all have a spiritual need, but we are not necessarily conscious of it—it is more like vitamins, that if neglected, may lead to sickness and we never know quite why.)
There are no end of verses that can be used. It just takes adjusting to the idea. All work except for the verse Tom Pearlsandswine latched onto in my first book, ‘Tom Irregardless and Me’: Revelation 21:8: “But as for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth and murderers and fornicators and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur. This means the second death.” “The reason I like that verse,” he would say, “is that it shows sinners are going down and you’d better shape up.” He is such an idiot. 
With a flat response to any chosen verse other than his, off you go. With a favorable one, you can even go to a longer video, with the intro that I find works well, “This video runs almost four minutes, but you don’t have to listen to it all. The minute it gets boring, hand it back.” It puts the control in the householder’s hands and defuses any impression of being pushy. I hate being pushy and try hard not to give that impression. There are few people in the world easier to get rid of than me.
None of these presentations require the use of memory-jogging records. If the response if favorable, there is no difficulty in exchanging contact information if desired.
As for keeping track of who is not-at-home—JWs do this—I even know one person who writes down every address beforehand and crosses them out as she finds them home, completely reversing how it is intended to be done—one might respond by forgetting all about it. Put the angels in charge of that one. Call when the majority of persons are likely to be home in the first place, which we do not always do. 
As for keeping records of those who have requested we not call on them again—well, I don’t know. Tell them we’d love to comply but the new law is screwing us up.
Not to mention that we have long been moving in that direction anyway. That’s what the mobile cart witnessing is all about. That’s what the website is all about. They are two forms of advertising the good news without going to anyone’s door at all. On the home page of jw.org is a new Bible study feature. A series of studies that are multimedia, self-guided at one’s own pace, and require no registration or entry of info—“I’ll never know if you do it or not,” I tell people. In fact, I am looking forward to the time—the timing and circumstances will have to be just right, you wouldn’t do it just with anyone—when I tell someone, “I don’t want to study the Bible with you. Do it yourself.” We spoon-feed people too much, and it is hardly necessary with the majority. I even think being constantly obsessed over presentation of the very basics keeps us from pressing on to maturity, in some respects.
They have done us a favor with their new law, is my take.

Photo: DSC00212 by gauge opinion
 

It's the English language again. When someone says in this context that they don't believe (or believe) something, doesn't mean they think the other person is lying, it merely means I am expressing my opinion on the matter. In this case I don't think the only reason for John's leaving was the child abuse problems, although John might think so. Perhaps when John really thinks about it he may realize that there were other things in the religion that he was unhappy about and this was just the last straw. I am sure our research is similar.  But the difference is, although I am aware we have made mistakes, I am not prepared to "throw the baby out with the bath water". I sincerely believe Jehovah's Witnesses are the true religion, with all their faults. I have had quite a lot of experience in life and I have seen some bad stuff happen in congregations. And as you know, I do not agree with everything. I have experienced other religions, and seen how the "world" does things. So I think I have a pretty broad outlook. But  @JOHN BUTLER has decided that the religion is not for him, and that is his right. Yes, we all reach different conclusions, because we understand things differently.

Sometimes we get upset over imagining the silliest things.
I get depressed, walking along with a hunched over look, staring at the sidewalk, depressed, as if looking for loose change ... possibly even a nickle ... when I think about Kingdom Hall restrooms, with condom machines.

I’m glad you asked.  I hadn’t looked at this WT picture for a long while, but then remembered that to be a true anagram, a valid word can be changed into another valid word, like “pat” can become “tap”.
“Tups” is a word meaning,
A ram. ‘tups were set free among the ewes for mating’ – sexual intercourse.
It can also mean, Headbutt (someone) in a fight.
 
This is the anagram, which can also be rearranged to say, “puts” – “Jest Puts Thru Daily”
Or…it can read, “Jests (jokes) Put Thru Daily”
In other words, Satan’s little jokes, like the glossary leaving out, of all things, general identities relating to Christ, pile up in the Watchtower.  
Interestingly, God’s people during the last days, are guilt of spiritual sexual “fornication”, by submitting to an idol, its image and a “false prophet”. 
The headbutting“ram” in Dan 8:3,4:  Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and there, standing beside the river, was a ram which had two horns, and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. 4 I saw the ram pushing westward, northward, and southward, so that no animal could withstand him; nor was there any that could deliver from his hand, but he did according to his will and became great.
This is the false prophet/Harlot with two horns of Rev 13:11, that gives authority to the “Beast”/organization/elder body to overpower the anointed ones, with not only lies (jokes) but seducing them into spiritual “sexual immorality” by believing that an organization can bring one salvation.  Idolatry. Rev 13:15
Armageddon is a war of words.  Those who recognize this, can also see why the glossary's exclusions about Jesus, play a part in this war.    2 Cor 11:13-15 
Whatever Satan devises in his realm is a counterfeit. 
 
Pearl Doxsey:  “In this blog article, Obadiah reasons from the Bible, why the JW interpretation of Armageddon is wrong. It is, after all, only mentioned in two verses of Revelation, and in both verses, refers to it as a battle between the lies of Satan (Rev.16:13-16; 17:14), and the truths of Christ (Rev.19:11,15; Heb.4:12), with the messengers of each, battling for the hearts and minds of men (2Cor.10:3-5). There is no need to fear that God is a hypocrite and murderer. Regarding the impact of Armageddon on us as individuals, one only need to make a choice of which side one follows... lies or truths, light or darkness. The Bible proves that the only one who murders and destroys, is the Devil (John10:10; 8:44; Rev.9:11; Isa.33:1).
Obadiah’s Blog – “Armageddon”
Pearl Doxsey – “Who is the Destroyer”
 

Not me

Not me

I would just like to remind you that until Jehovah God "overthrew" and replaced the old Jewish System, Jesus HIMSELF commended the unnamed widow for supporting the corrupt system that they all had to endure.
Jehovah had his Son fully submissive to the "old system" of governance ... and until Jehovah overthrows the CURRENT system (and there is nobody on Earth that can disfellowship the Governing Body) ... Jehovah's Witnesses are "The Only Game In Town".
Jehovah set the example of doing what he could... with what he had to work with.
 

This is quite frankly drivel! It is a glossary, not a theological encyclopedia.
Chief Agent.
The Greek term basically means “Chief Leader.” It refers to the essential role of Jesus Christ in freeing faithful humans from the deadly effects of sin and in leading them to everlasting life.—Ac 3:15; 5:31; Heb 2:10; 12:2.
Christ.
The title of Jesus, from the Greek word Khri·stosʹ, which is equivalent to the Hebrew word translated “Messiah,” or “Anointed One.”—Mt 1:16; Joh 1:41
Anyone who really wants to know who Jesus is can get a precise understanding from reading the Scriptures.
Don't underestimate the tenacity of those who realy seek truth. They will want to get more detail and reasoning on the matter. They will not be satisfied with a simple Glossary of Bible terms definition.
If they want to do this using a website that "is one of the busiest ones on the internet", then a simple search will give a choice of 6,584 articles. Why not try?: Jesus Christ   
Perhaps then God may give you too "repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth." 2Tim.2:25

Could it be Witness is thinking about Hay-Seus, the illegal  Mexican groundskeeper?
He can mow a lawn so fast you would think it's a MIRACLE!

This is an old chestnut complaint that raises it's head every now and again.
The messgae of Scripture remains powerful and true, and will, if understood and applied correctly, enable the bereaved one to not "sorrow as the rest do" 1Thess.4:13.
But....I think it is entirely insensitive and lacking in empathy to try and exploit bereavement.
Presenting this information in an insensitive manner is equivalent to slaking a parched man's thirst with a water cannon. It just hurts!

Some people like to play with words ... some like to play with numbers.
There is a difference between a mathematician, and a moron.
At least, with numbers, you can PROVE what is true.

 
Well ... you DID specifically ask for my opinion .....

This a ridiculous assumption. There are several Glossaries available. This particular one appears not to follow the general principle that a Glossary is normally a list of terms and concepts. So what? There is nothing significant about this.

Seems that a glossary differs from an encyclopedia in that it is an alphabetical list of terms. Biographical information is only included when it is relevant to explaining the use of what might be considered a personal name in a terminological sense. For example some background biogaphy is necessary to understand the use of the name "Jacob" as a term for the nation descended from him.
Terms such as Christ, Christian, Chief Agent, Firstborn etc are defined as they are terms. The name Jehovah is viewed by some as a term not having personal significance. That is clarified in this glossary.
There is no need do do the same for the personal name of God's Son, Jesus, as his name has not become a "term" in the sense of being  "a word or phrase used to describe a thing or to express a concept".
If this was a Glossary relating to the Roman Catolic Church, then there might be a case for including the name as it relates to the term "Jesuit". Or indeed the word "Trinity" as it relates to the peculiar concept of the nature of God held by many members of that denomination. Of course, these terms have no relevance whatsoever to the Holy Scriptures.

Thanks, but I don't want to watch it again. (I already have it saved, no idea why though, since I don't want to watch it again...)

It will not readily yield to change, if history is any guide. About the best I can hope for is some circuit overseer acting similarly as he did with another “crisis.” During a transitional lull from one main point to another, he will say that the expression “Now let us turn the platform over to the next speaker” is ridiculous because it evokes an image of turning the platform over. With that, I eventually heard the expression less, though it still pops up from time to time.
It is not easy to correct anyone on anything, especially on a triviality, though occasionally people jump instantly on the trivialities but ignore substantial things. Finding the right degree of emphasis is tough. One recipient will say “Thanks for the new RULE!” and his companion will say “Huh? Did you say something.”
There was a certain sister ages ago who enjoyed explaining things to others and eventually left the truth because not enough people listened to her. She had even begun to partake of the emblems. “What the Society is trying to tell us is....” she would often employ as a preamble. She is the inspiration (in this one regard only) for John Wheatandweeds, from Tom Irregardless and Me, who will not let the brothers go in field service in the morning because he insists as the conductor of rattling on and on about the day’s text, and he resists counsel  to shorten that part eventually to as short as 7 minutes, and he talks at such length, drawing out comments, that eventually nobody is in the mood to go out anymore. “What the Society is trying to tell us...” he responds to every bit of counsel on the subject. Finally, the Society interrupts him mid-sentence to say “We’re not trying to tell you anything—we’re telling you.” So he finally responds by getting everyone out the door in reasonably short order—not seven minutes, but neither seven years—however he makes up for it by chatting away in the parking lot.

I must admit, I agree with you. But then I wonder, maybe it's me who is seeing it "wrong". Attitude, after all, is everything...

I must admit, I agree with you. But then I wonder, maybe it's me who is seeing it "wrong". Attitude, after all, is everything...

I could be in serious trouble. They just finished remodeling the Kingdom Hall, and there are two quarter walls, one left of stage and one right. Gulp. Will the brother start entering and exiting the platform via those quarter walls, just like I saw them do in the other congregation?
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/forums/topic/79559-you-don’t-enter-stage-from-behind-the-quarter-walls/
The circuit overseer was visiting, so I started pumping him on it. “‘Don’t let the brothers walk behind the quarter wall to go on-stage,” I told him. I was not too insistent, one mustn’t overdo it on these things. I mean, I don’t want to be the brother who meets him in the parking lot to tell him that all the brothers are no good, and they aren’t loving at all, and they are deadwood in the ministry, and come to think of it, they don’t even like God, and so he, the circuit overseer, has a lot of work to do here, and he says “Yeah, I think I’ve found the problem already.”
I did about as much as I could. He seemed to be sympathetic. “Yeah, I know,” he said. “You see them, then you don’t as they walk behind the wall, and then you do as they emerge from the other side—it IS a little funny.” So I gave it a good try. But he was just biding his time to get away from me. He is not going to do anything at all, I don’t think, other than tell the brothers to go on the platform when it is their turn to speak. What does he care how they do it? It doesn’t bother HIM any one way of the other. It’s ME it’s driving nuts, and then he will say “Well, you were mostly there already.”
I have always tried to stack the deck. Those elders way back in the day would have a meeting coming up and I would pump various ones separately over  multitude of picayune things, so that one of them said at their meeting (as I was told later) “Wait a minute. Who’s running this congregation? You, me, or Tom Harley?”
But lo! A miracle has occurred. Never never never NEVER did I think I would EVER agree with @Jack Ryan. But I do on something. Jack Ryan! who if a Bethel brother so much as farts, he starts a derogatory thread on it. Jack Ryan! who has been known to start as many as a dozen critical threads in a single day. Jack Ryan! who I think regards himself as some sort of a secret agent/freedom fighter. What is it with this character?
Yet, I saw, yes—I witnessed it while visiting another congregation, brothers clapping after each and every exchange that took place up front, whether li8ve or on video, just the way Jack was complaining about. Suddenly he becomes as a prophet from on high. That too, drove me nuts!—all that clapping. You don’t clap over every single skit of one sister offering a tract to another, who, of course accepts it a just little too eagerly, it seems to me, from what I recall in the actual ministry. You clap spontaneously when something really knocks your socks off. You clap when a child or even anyone gives his or her first talk on the school. You clap when the spirit genuinely moves you, for anything. You clap after the public talk, even giving the speaker the benefit of the doubt if it wasn’t that—um—good. But you don’t clap for every minor exchange of trivial words! It only cheapens the times that there really is something to clap for.
I know where this comes from, just like I know where walking behind the quarter walls came from. Some pious brother doubtless wanted to “show appreciation” for everything under the sun and so started up the habit, thinking he was setting a ‘good example’ and that others would follow, and those others, not wanting to seem unappreciative, did follow, even some half-heartedly. 
However, it is possible that it is not the pious brother at all who is responsible, but rather the one who is too swayed by the new-agey mantra that you have to lavish praise on children non-stop just for showing up, for the sake of building self-esteem, and so they clap if a brother so much as clears his throat. I mean, don’t go pinning this one on “theocracy,” Jack—it could just as well be that trendy “world” that you are so enamored with.
This will not the easiest habit to break. I mean, you can hardly sit there and scowl, so as to provide the counter-example. The best strategy is just to contain it, as you might strive to do with a measles outbreak. Don’t send speakers to that congregation for awhile, until the illness passes. I doubt I can even enlist the circuit overseer in any serious capacity on this one. He will probably just roll his eyes when I meet him about it in the parking lot. C’mon, DO IT RIGHT, BROTHERS!

That seems to be the trouble with those who apostatize in this manner. They were idolators themselves, but having realised it, they just can't come clean and admit it, they have to accuse everyone else in the organisation they have now renounced of the very practice they themselves engaged in.
They turn themselves into "once-duped" but now "enlightened"victims to gain sympathy and acclaim from their newfound peers. Their self-appointed crusade might provide some temporary relief for the resentment and embarrassment they feel, but needs constant repetition.  
The sad thing is that they think they left the organisation they now oppose. But, actually, they were rejected. 
1John 2:19: "They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out so that it might be shown that not all are of our sort."

Whether this is deliberate or not is a matter of opinion of course. In any case, I would hesitate to say that anyone makes deliberate mistakes unless they are truly evil. So you are suggesting that the GB are evil. Well, I do not think they are evil.
No one condones Pedophilia.
You make very general sweeping statements here about what and how Witnesses believe. Most of the Witnesses I know (I would say 99.9%) have a deep and private relationship with God themselves, with Jesus as their mediator. It must be just your idea to somehow involve a third party, the GB,  in this relationship. I do not know anyone who does that!

Whether this is deliberate or not is a matter of opinion of course. In any case, I would hesitate to say that anyone makes deliberate mistakes unless they are truly evil. So you are suggesting that the GB are evil. Well, I do not think they are evil.
No one condones Pedophilia.
You make very general sweeping statements here about what and how Witnesses believe. Most of the Witnesses I know (I would say 99.9%) have a deep and private relationship with God themselves, with Jesus as their mediator. It must be just your idea to somehow involve a third party, the GB,  in this relationship. I do not know anyone who does that!

Oh my. It seems Billy the Kid's imagination is running away with him!

Oh my. It seems Billy the Kid's imagination is running away with him!

Oh my. It seems Billy the Kid's imagination is running away with him!