Anna

Amen to that! I don't know why we are bringing Jehovah into this at all!

".... Moscow, May 2, Interfax - The Russian Orthodox Church sees Jehovah's Witnesses as a dangerous sect and has supported the ban imposed on it in Russia.

"This is a sect, totalitarian and harmful at that. I am well aware of this because I have had an opportunity to speak to former adepts of this sect more than once," Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of the Synodal Department for External Church Relations, told a program shown on the Rossiya 24 (VGTRK) TV channel.

Jehovah's Witnesses members are dangerous because they approach people in the street and offer them their literature, introduce themselves as a Christian organization, while their activities are based "on manipulating consciousness, and they erode the psyche of people and the family," the metropolitan said.

In addition to that, adherents of Jehovah's Witnesses "warp the teachings of Christ and misinterpret the Gospel," he said.

"Their doctrine contains a lot of false teachings. They do not believe in Jesus Christ as the God and the Savior. They do not recognize the doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore, they cannot be called Christians," the metropolitan said. .
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=13749
 

Which is not our remit as an organisation, but as members of the human race in these critical times.

I don't think it's in the Royal Commissions interests to "twist" things because their concern is to find the best possible solution for child protection and in order to do that they need facts. Their concern is not to malign the Witnesses, they are not Apostates. I don't know if you are aware that we were only one out of many other institutions that were investigated.
Very true, we don't have all the details. But the Commission had all details, both from the victims and the "society" and was therefor able to handle it within that framework. It has nothing to do with "speaking against the society", this involves facts.
I hasten to say, but I think that is exactly what may have happened in this case.
You must also remember that the situation with child sexual abuse is unlike any other - "eventually" may give enough time for another child to be abused, so I don't think  "Jehovah letting them know eventually" is really  applicable here. It is not like it concerns an adjustment in understanding prophesy, or even facts of immorality between two adults coming to light. We are talking about protecting innocent children.
So we may actually be helping the Australian government to get their act together as well.  I guess we should not view this as a battle between "us" and "them" but this should be a mutual effort with the ultimate aim of protecting children.

True statement. I would add "at home". Pretty difficult elsewhere. Parents must become computer savvy if they allow their children to use them....and they really have no choice in the modern world. Home network is the only really effective way to go.

http://www.snopes.com/jehovahs-witness-russia-trump-asylum/

I like the frank statement in Paragraph 12 of Sunday's Watchtower stuydy: “The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction.”
 
There is no finer way to get some grumblers going than to say: “oh, we changed that.” Hostile people scour past publications, discover where you’ve once said ‘A’, whereas now you say ‘B,’ and pounce all over the ‘flip-flop.’ They thereby reveal that they themselves reason like 10-year olds.
 
It's not a piece of cake looking into the future - everyone knows that - so if you mess up, you back up and tackle the subject anew. We do it all the time. For decades, we have spoken of ‘tacking’ and the ‘light getting brighter.’ What is that if not an admission that we’ve often been wrong? We’re very open about it. So when the grousers come around with their grousing over teachings that have changed, they look pretty silly if they harp on it – we’ve never said that they don’t. There are many examples in the Bible of faithful ones doing or saying things that did not pan out.
 
The logical extension of this is that with any new understanding, one can always accept it as tentative, the best understanding available at the moment. Nobody expects you to herald these new understandings from the rooftops. They are not the basic fabric of the truth that we teach to our Bible students – they are for our own edification. So long as you don’t go setting yourself up as a counter-authority with your ‘better understanding,’ everybody gets along just fine.
It’s all a matter of respect for authority versus contempt for authority. That point the Governing Body just clarified? You may have noticed that point some time ago in your own private study of the Bible. And if this was the greater church world, you would have run out and started up your own sect over it. Instead, we wait on the human authority Jehovah has provided.
One character hoo-haws over the fact that growth among Western nations is quite modest and sometimes has even reversed. He thus reveals his bias that these are the only people who matter. One explanation for what he observes is that nowhere is contempt for authority of any sort more prevalent than in the West – independence is the revered goal held before all here. Another is the effect of this world’s ‘higher education,’ which pushes with all its might an atheistic view. 
 

Got it, but I mean, who on dedication and baptism is considering disassociation and disfellowshipping? Maybe those who get married while planning their separation and divorce???

The context here is making a decision to disassociate or not disassociate as an ADULT, therefor making an informed dcision about disassociation and knowing the implications will be shunning. As regards baptism, he was saying that this applies to baptised persons, who know that once baptised, you can get disfellowshipped or disassociate (for whatever reason) on the contrary, those who are not baptised cannot get disfellowshipped or disassociate regardless of age. So as a (baptised) ADULT person (regardless of when you got baptised) and a victim of child sexual abuse, you will know that "the consequences of disassociating yourself will be shunning". THAT was the point being made. It had nothing to do with WHEN one gets baptised.
Notice this was omitted from thesubtitles which would have given the context of what he was talking about: "here is somebody, who as an adult, or approaching adulthoid is making that decission" (what decission? The decission to get baptised? NO we are talking about disassociation here, so the decision about disassociation, and being aware the consequences will be shunning) As he goes on: "that the consequences of disassociation will be shunning". 
Omitting pertinent information which gives context is typical for those who want you to misunderstand.

Would a naive, true-believer 10-year old  'disassociate' themselves? At what age would  someone be likely to "disassociate" themselves? It's not a rubber stamping excercise you know.

Fake mothers?
Accepting and sharing FAKE NEWS gives some credence to the saying that we are a gullible lot, when the opposite is true for the majority. I think it is an ego thing. We need to work on modesty. Shame!

Oh no, not another one! A friend of mine sent me the first fake news about Trump offering the Witnesses asylum. This is how our conversation on messenger went:
Me (initial enthusiasm): "Wow! Thank you for sharing"!
(10 minutes later) "I am finding out that now that this may be fake news"
Friend: "What makes you think so?"
Me:This has been posted 5 days ago already and anything Trump says is reported on other news sites and so far I have not found anything about it at all in any of the serious news sites. This website looks untrustworthy. If there is anything else I find out about it I will let you know
Friend: OK
Friend next day: I just found out that it's not fake mail. Trumps son in law married to Ivanka , he handled the sale of the New York properties. He spent a great deal of time at Bethel and knows what J.W.s is all about. I think they bought some of the properties in Brooklyn. That came from the N.Y. News paper. FYI.
Me: What came from the N.Y. news paper?
Friend: The fake mail. It's not fake
Me:So the report about Trump warning Russia about banning Witnesses and giving Witnesses asylum in the States you read in a N.Y. news paper?
Friend:I didn't read it. One of our brothers let our friend know about it. We know friends in Bethel. They keep in touch. That article about trump was real news.
Me: Ok, could you please ask them which news paper was it. I'm just interested. Thanks
Friend: OK
Needless to say she never got back to me about that, but sent other news articles (this time from reputable news sites) unrelated to this Trump thing, but related to the Witnesses in Russia.
I am just posting our conversation as an example of how some of us get easily sucked into this kind of thing. "I have friends who have friends who know friends in Bethel and they said...she said" kind of thing. But there is absolutely no concrete evidence for anything...Perhaps this is good in a sense that we can all learn not to be hasty in accepting "news", or anything for that matter until we have solid evidence it is true. Although the Bible itself gives that very advice, we still seem to have a hard time applying it, as we have seen with the plethora of fake news surrounding the Witnesses in Russia, which friends were spreading as supposed "facts".
 

Don't you see all these suggestions of sinister, mind-control techniques practised by clandestine Jehovah's Witnesses as a sophisticated version of Gen 3:1-5?
And couldn't we apply the principles of control as described on  http://changingminds.org pages to just about any social group to a greater or lesser degree? Just substitute their experiences and relevant characteristics for those of terrorists in the way in @AnnOMaly has done with Jehovah's Witnesses. (maybe an excercise for one of the wits among us to apply it to the Women's Institute, or the Woodcraft Folk).
It looks like it's actually a description of the way humans behave in groups.
It seems to me that nobody really understands why Jehovah's Witnesses do what they do unless they actually are active and happy Witnesses.

I don't understand what this means.
Quite true. Although this goes for everyone in every congregation (and everyone else) unless some kind of controlled survey is done.
There is an element of truth in this because "once a JW always a JW" is a reality of life. However, there is nothing particular sinister or unusual about someone who enjoyed a privilege receiving a sanction from the community that bestowed it, if they behave in a way that demonstrates disrespect (in the eyes of that community) for that privilege. For some examples see here: Lost privilege 
"Having cake and eating it" is an unfortunate metaphor that is echoed here. At least John Lennon had integrity, even if you don't agree with all he stood for. (Notice a hook here).
On another note, I have even known of unbelieving partners or parents to suffer discriminatory treatment because of the association a relative may have or have had with Jehovah's Witnesses. And that not just under a Nazi type regime.
You haven't thought about this statement although I understand what you mean by it. There could very well be an issue of poor family management in connection with college attendance. It will depend entirely on the circumstances. What is wrong is to say that college attendance and poor family management are synonymous in all cases.
This is rubbish regardless of missapplied Soc letters to elders. All elders qualifications should be reviewed regularly. A negative review where "children" are seeking higher education will depend on the attitude and conduct of those "children", and the same as regards the father.
My son-in-law went to college and gained a BA in an academic disciplne with absolutely no problems depite severe dyslexia. He then pioneered, and got married to my daughter. Then able to gain reasonable employment, he sought further vocational qualifications with success
He now is able to provide well for his family and serves as an elder. There were no sanctions imposed on any part of his family during this period.
But then, my observations may not be representative of other people's personal experiences.
Perfectly valid pont here. I mean it's pretty clear that following in Jesus footseps just does not mean doing what he did. Otherwise there would be literally millions of people hanging on stakes everywhere if they wanted to be true Christians.
I think @Anna just meant that there are sacrifices involved if want wishes to follow a dedicated Christian course. This may well include the pursuit of a secular vocation and the academic path to that goal. Paul's estimation of such things as " refuse" was all very well for one who "wore the T-shirt" as it were, it is true. But, nevertheless, many have made that sacrifice willingly and have not regretted it. Likewise there are many (like my son-in-law) who have done otherwise, not regretted it, and more importantly, have not been sanctioned for it.
However, in respect of the original post, and given that my view may well be unrepresentative, personal obeservations, I still feel that to say that Jehovah's Witnesses are subjected to ‘total control’ is......."total baloney"!
 
 
 
 
 

Oh no, not another one! A friend of mine sent me the first fake news about Trump offering the Witnesses asylum. This is how our conversation on messenger went:
Me (initial enthusiasm): "Wow! Thank you for sharing"!
(10 minutes later) "I am finding out that now that this may be fake news"
Friend: "What makes you think so?"
Me:This has been posted 5 days ago already and anything Trump says is reported on other news sites and so far I have not found anything about it at all in any of the serious news sites. This website looks untrustworthy. If there is anything else I find out about it I will let you know
Friend: OK
Friend next day: I just found out that it's not fake mail. Trumps son in law married to Ivanka , he handled the sale of the New York properties. He spent a great deal of time at Bethel and knows what J.W.s is all about. I think they bought some of the properties in Brooklyn. That came from the N.Y. News paper. FYI.
Me: What came from the N.Y. news paper?
Friend: The fake mail. It's not fake
Me:So the report about Trump warning Russia about banning Witnesses and giving Witnesses asylum in the States you read in a N.Y. news paper?
Friend:I didn't read it. One of our brothers let our friend know about it. We know friends in Bethel. They keep in touch. That article about trump was real news.
Me: Ok, could you please ask them which news paper was it. I'm just interested. Thanks
Friend: OK
Needless to say she never got back to me about that, but sent other news articles (this time from reputable news sites) unrelated to this Trump thing, but related to the Witnesses in Russia.
I am just posting our conversation as an example of how some of us get easily sucked into this kind of thing. "I have friends who have friends who know friends in Bethel and they said...she said" kind of thing. But there is absolutely no concrete evidence for anything...Perhaps this is good in a sense that we can all learn not to be hasty in accepting "news", or anything for that matter until we have solid evidence it is true. Although the Bible itself gives that very advice, we still seem to have a hard time applying it, as we have seen with the plethora of fake news surrounding the Witnesses in Russia, which friends were spreading as supposed "facts".
 

Oh no, not another one! A friend of mine sent me the first fake news about Trump offering the Witnesses asylum. This is how our conversation on messenger went:
Me (initial enthusiasm): "Wow! Thank you for sharing"!
(10 minutes later) "I am finding out that now that this may be fake news"
Friend: "What makes you think so?"
Me:This has been posted 5 days ago already and anything Trump says is reported on other news sites and so far I have not found anything about it at all in any of the serious news sites. This website looks untrustworthy. If there is anything else I find out about it I will let you know
Friend: OK
Friend next day: I just found out that it's not fake mail. Trumps son in law married to Ivanka , he handled the sale of the New York properties. He spent a great deal of time at Bethel and knows what J.W.s is all about. I think they bought some of the properties in Brooklyn. That came from the N.Y. News paper. FYI.
Me: What came from the N.Y. news paper?
Friend: The fake mail. It's not fake
Me:So the report about Trump warning Russia about banning Witnesses and giving Witnesses asylum in the States you read in a N.Y. news paper?
Friend:I didn't read it. One of our brothers let our friend know about it. We know friends in Bethel. They keep in touch. That article about trump was real news.
Me: Ok, could you please ask them which news paper was it. I'm just interested. Thanks
Friend: OK
Needless to say she never got back to me about that, but sent other news articles (this time from reputable news sites) unrelated to this Trump thing, but related to the Witnesses in Russia.
I am just posting our conversation as an example of how some of us get easily sucked into this kind of thing. "I have friends who have friends who know friends in Bethel and they said...she said" kind of thing. But there is absolutely no concrete evidence for anything...Perhaps this is good in a sense that we can all learn not to be hasty in accepting "news", or anything for that matter until we have solid evidence it is true. Although the Bible itself gives that very advice, we still seem to have a hard time applying it, as we have seen with the plethora of fake news surrounding the Witnesses in Russia, which friends were spreading as supposed "facts".
 

Fake Internet posts said President Donald Trump offered to give refuge to Russian Jehovah’s Witnesses after that country banned followers of the religion, but there is no record he made any such comments.
"Trump warns Russia over Jehovah’s Witnesses ban and urges members to seek asylum in the U.S.," reads the headline on an undated story on States-TV.com. The post first appeared on or around April 24, 2017, on States-TV.com, HoustonChronicle-TV.com and Fox-News24.com.
Facebook users flagged it as possibly being fabricated, as part of the social media site’s efforts to clear fake news from users’ news feeds.
The post is keyed to a real event: Russia’s Supreme Court banned the religious organization on April 20, labeling the group as a danger for "extremist activities." The assets of the St. Petersburg headquarters and almost 400 chapters were designated state property. Its literature and website have also been banned.
From there, the story devolved into fairytale, claiming Trump warned that the move "is contrary to the constitution of the land of the Russian Federation."
"I request you to reverse the decision immediately before I use your own constitution against you," Trump is quoted. He also is credited as saying Jehovah’s Witness could find freedom in this country.
"As this is an infringement of your fundamental human right, I therefore urge you to seek asylum in the United States until your rights are fully reinstated," he said, according to the post.
The problem is, there is no record Trump said any of these things. Aside from a few examples of this same post being on multiple websites, we couldn’t find any official record of him personally addressing the subject at all.
We reached out to a White House spokesman to confirm this but didn’t receive a response.
State Department spokesman Mark Toner did release a statement on April 20 saying that the United States was "extremely concerned by the Russian government's actions targeting and repressing members of religious minorities, including Jehovah's Witnesses, under the pretense of combating extremism."
Toner also noted that religious freedom was critical to society.
"All religious minorities should be able to enjoy freedom of religion and assembly without interference, as guaranteed by the Russian Federation's constitution," he said.
But there’s no mention of Trump making any statement, and we couldn’t find one elsewhere. Reposts have circulated of the country’s 175,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses being harassed by Russian police since the ruling.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/apr/28/blog-posting/reports-trump-offered-asylum-russian-jehovahs-witn/

Risking accusations of semantic quibbling, I have to say that disassociation is just not the same as non-association (or formerly associated).
The term disassociate, or more commonly, dissociate, when applied to one's former affiliation to a group, seems to imply a formal separating or severing of a relationship formerly held, rather like a divorce. This might include publicly severing one's former connection with that group, perhaps going as far as formally renouncing aims and objectives once held in common. Or, perhaps, engaging in a practice so diametrically opposed to those aims and objectives as to indicate what may not have been verbally stated.
To drift away from association with a group, for whatever reason, be it cooling of common interest, personal preference, time contraints, or a particular unresolved grievance involving other group members, carries a far less antagonistic stance toward the group as a whole.
In any event, the former action, that of disassociation, whilst possibly preceded by the latter action, drifting away, has far more consideration and deliberation involved, a rejection of fundemental tenets perhaps once held dear, perhaps a militant stand against activity once zealously engaged in, an awareness of the dramatic change in relationship to the group subject to this action, and a recognition of consequences effecting the relationship the disassociatee might have formely enjoyed with those who choose to remain group members.
The latter, drifting away, is more focussed on one's personal preferences or activity schedule, and whilst there may be personality issues involved, the group as a whole is not "tarred with the same brush" as it were. Also, a denial of the groups validity does not take place. In fact, there may sometimes be expressions like " It just wasn't for me, I couldn't keep up with such and such (requirement or activity)", or "I know it is a good organisation on the whole but I just couldn't accept this or that (practice or person or experience)"
Thus it can be seen that the deliberate action of "disassociation" carries far more weighty and considered commitment than the shifting of goals and interests accompanying the process of "drifting away". Although both result in state of separation from former associates, the relationship resulting from either is entirely dissimilar. 

The realities of the mess human governance is making on earth - interventions in the end are helping all the wrong people.   The egg is scrambled and cannot be unscrambled!

Trust no one, trust nothing
 

Yes it is a challenge. BUT..... if we're gonna use this medium.... then....we all need to up our game don't we? I mean, there's no lock that a man can make that a man can't pick......is there???  

While the Watch Tower Society was still publishing the "Divine Plan of the Ages" a few brothers and sisters started using the word "purpose." But it fell out of favor again, possibly because it was Maria Russell (who evidently co-wrote "Divine Plan of the Ages") who preferred the term God's "Eternal Purpose." In fact, after divorcing Charles Taze Russell, she wrote an entire book called "The Eternal Purpose."
More recently our 1959 history of Jehovah's Witnesses was called "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose" and we even had a "Divine Purpose District Assembly" in 1974, where the problem with the words "Divine Plan" was discussed further. As Melinda pointed out, this was a "flash of light" per the 1995 Watchtower. Based on its history within the organization, however, I think it was merely deflected light, that took about 50 light years to get back to us.

Interesting discussion, despite meandering off the original post. I suppose for me (in English), Jehovah doesn't need to plan. He has a purpose and it will be accomplished, regardless of any obstacle. That's what His name is all about.
He does provide frameworks to his intelligent servants on earth in order for them to work and share in acheiving His purpose. The population mandate, the plans for tabernacle and temple, the Law Covenant, the Christian mission, are just some examples, but He is not dependent on their success to acheive His own.
Men do need to plan in the sense of mapping a route to achieve an objective, which includes consideration and contingency. Even then, human purpose may still continue to be interrupted due to inadequacy, or unforseen circumstance, or even opposition. When these things occur, men can re-route, and/or even adjust their goal, but with no complete guarantee their (revised) plan will succeed in achieving that goal. Also, purpose unfulfilled could be not always because men plan to fail, but simply because they fail to plan.
Jehovah is not subject to any of these limitations. That is why He can say:
"So my word that goes out of my mouth will be. It will not return to me without results, But it will certainly accomplish whatever is my delight, And it will have sure success in what I send it to do." Isaiah 55:11

I was just illustrating it in" English" what my thinking was. Many times I have had to change my plan to achieve my purpose.

Reminder for those of us who still use the word "plan" in relation to something Jehovah God will do. In light of understanding what his name means, it is hard to understand why people don't remember.
*** w95 5/15 pp. 24-25 Part 2—Flashes of Light—Great and Small *** Increased Light on Terminology 15 “The congregator sought to find the delightful words and the writing of correct words of truth.” (Ecclesiastes 12:10) These words might well be applied to our present subject, for light has shone not only on such important matters as doctrine and conduct but also on Christian terminology and its accurate meaning. For example, among the Bible Students, one of the most beloved publications was volume one of Studies in the Scriptures, entitled The Divine Plan of the Ages. However, in time, it was realized that God’s Word speaks only of humans as making plans. (Proverbs 19:21) The Scriptures never speak of Jehovah as planning. He does not need to plan. Whatever he purposes is sure to succeed because of his infinite wisdom and power, even as we read at Ephesians 1:9, 10: “It is according to his good pleasure which he purposed in himself for an administration at the full limit of the appointed times.”
So it was gradually seen that the term “purpose” is the more appropriate one when referring to Jehovah.