Anna

I think it's still there. Under "Becoming a Witness"

I think this has been discussed somewhere before, that in fact Gnam's claim was correct, that is, in the context of a family member living at home, which would naturally apply to husband and wife, and any children that were currently a part of the household. But, the claim was deceptive because it did not clarify this, and allowed for the assumption that the topic included ANY family member living inside or outside the home, in other words in a broad sense, which is how most people view "family". 

I think it's still there. Under "Becoming a Witness"

I think this has been discussed somewhere before, that in fact Gnam's claim was correct, that is, in the context of a family member living at home, which would naturally apply to husband and wife, and any children that were currently a part of the household. But, the claim was deceptive because it did not clarify this, and allowed for the assumption that the topic included ANY family member living inside or outside the home, in other words in a broad sense, which is how most people view "family". 

Well said. 
I sympathize with all victims but with the latest laws the government has shifted the responsibility of bad legislation onto all the organizations working with children.
The government changed the laws so the victims can go after old cases retroactively now they are adult and can talk and testify better and take the ' organization ' to court.  This means that the government is shifting its responsibility on the organizations who work with children. But many of these organizations have closed.... like boy scouts etc. We are still active.
There are not many JW cases but because it is JW, those who hate us blow up these cases as if we are all child molesters..... when most of us live clean, honest lives and hate these crimes.
They are not going after the perpetrator because they know it is too hard to convict.  They go after the organization - which in most cases did not have the resources ( child psychologists etc) to go after the perpetrator.
We are an organization which tries to create a safe environment for children but we are not a crime fighting organization. This is the job of the police and government. They should take these cases and get a conviction and put the perpetrator behind bars - not retroactively after 20 or 30 years put it on the organization.  
In this way the perpetrator is still walking free and JWs carry the shame. Perpetrator ....... does he have any consequences for his actions with this legislation! 

You are just trying to kill off 4Jah with cognitive dissonance and I do not approve. You know very well that he will wildly cheer one statement, turn furious at the next, and laugh hysterically at the one thereafter—and that the strain will cause him to drop dead.
Such attempted manipulation ought not be allowed. I am forwarding a note to the elders who run this forum to ban you from it.
It really is the case that in the last days people will be saying what is bad is good and vice versa. It is not only you. I just called out Arauna for trying to kill him too, by playing with matters of capitalization. Really, everyone is going awry here—all the true prophets have been killed off and it is only I that remains—yes, only I.

Yes. I think this is implied. It's a very imperfect world, and sometimes the world rubs off on us.
But this does not mean that all of the arguments made by WTS lawyers in defense of the WTS are false. I think this is what some non-Witnesses (especially, ex-Witnesses) are anxious to believe. What's shouldn't be lost here, is that many of the points that WTS lawyers make in cases about child abuse are actually quite true. For example:
The Watchtower Society/Organization is not responsible for the criminal and sinful actions of its members. Many of the arguments made in court that people complain about are merely trying to mitigate liability that was not the liability of the WTS in the first place. In many cases the victim goes after the WTS because that is the only place they can get financial redress. The primary criminal party is the perpetrator. There are times when the local elders are the ones showing negligence in after-the-fact investigations, trying to protect the reputation of the congregation or certain members of it. The liability, in this case should be on those elders. Only when following improper instructions from the WTS, should the WTS be partially liable. And even here, the local elders should understand their own personal responsibility if a process seems unconscionable. Much has been made of members of the judicial committees destroying notes made during the "investigation" process, as if this is all about a cover-up. Yet, destroying extraneous notes is (and often should be) common practice in organizations of all types, so that the findings are highlighted, not the messy process. If someone believes all elders are evil, they will think that the "official" version, which is never destroyed, is always a cover-up. But this view says more about the person imputing the wrong motives, and shows that they have not understood the typical investigation process. Watchtower disciplinary policy in congregations is not to be confused with Caesar's discipline. There are things the WTS should have done better to reduce the repetition of such crimes by perpetrators, but very little can be done about the original crime. There were things about the process in judging such matters that needed improvements too. More recently these "after-the-fact" matters and processes were handled and revised about as well as can be expected. Anyway, I only went off topic here to show that it's too easy to claim that WTS defense attorneys are constantly being dishonest. In most cases they are just using the law to protect the financial interests of the client. It's more of a negotiation, and they have to be careful what words they use. But there are also times when the "twisted" words of some attorneys shows that the WTS itself wishes it could hide some practices from the world. But if these practices are right, such as "shunning," then we should be proud to be upholding righteous counsel from the Bible. If upholding righteous counsel from the Bible makes us liable before the world, we should be proud to accept the consequences. Lying about it, or twisting words about it, makes it obvious that we are ashamed to uphold God's word in the way that we do.
This is quite separate from child abuse cases, which have also sometimes included dishonesty by both defense attorneys and attorneys for victims. But when Geoffrey Jackson argues that we don't believe that Proverbs referred to a physical rod for disciplining children, or when a Witness child custody attorney argues that our summer conventions were really more about vacation fun than spiritual education, or when . . . .
I won't turn it into an itemized list for opposers, but these things have already been commented upon elsewhere.

Certainly. But now I do wonder why Br. Glock said what he said. Is there a feeling that the GB's trust worthiness is under fire and is it gaining some success?

I am probably misunderstanding the point you are trying to make. I don't think science has anything to do with Br. Glock's use of the word "proof' in the context he used it in. I think you might be over thinking things....

@TrueTomHarley I know what you are saying, and I understand why you are saying it. It's similar to being a literalist. But that quote " proof they have God's backing" says  exactly what it means, and essentially boils down to this: In context Br. Glock was talking about apostate lies putting doubts into peoples minds about the GB. So, "In case you doubt the wisdom of the GB because they are imperfect and sometimes make mistakes and you want proof that they have God's backing, well here is proof". (Despite the fact that anyone can issue similar guidelines, and HAS issued similar guidelines). But sorry, all it proves is that the GB have been diligent in watching the world, are wise in applying the Bible's wisdom, wise in applying the authorities' advice and that they are concerned for us and want us to stay safe..
Really, the praise goes to all the hard working CO's, elders, and publishers who willing cooperate and actually make all this work! Without the co-operation of everyone in the organization, the GB can give wonderful advice till they're blue in the face and have Jehovah standing right behind them what would it prove?
Come on Tom, just admit it, it was not the best argument to prove a point ( Br. Glocks) or choice of words. And you must admit that this is somewhat of a clumsy effort at reassurance that the GB do have God's backing and that we can trust them. I believe there has been some success on the part of opposers in bringing the friends away. It was confirmed by a trustworthy elder, as I already mentioned in one of my posts. Br. Glock's talk is what the opposers like to call damage control. I won't call it that, because I am not on the opposers side. But I can see how some could think that! Actually, to be honest, I find it rather exciting as it may indicate something drastic is going to have to happen soon (oh, you don't say!)
By the way, apart from the "trust the GB because we have proof they have God's backing" bit I thought the talk was very good.
 

You know—he is right! Gasp! You are tipping your hand with capitalization of the letters!!!
Well, you won’t get away with it on my watch! From now on, you are merely uncapped ‘arauna’ in my book. (Relax—uncapped beats unhinged) In fact, in view of your disrespect, I may drop the first letter altogether, Ruana. That ought to teach you a lesson!

Lawyering (and barristering) is a whole field unto itself with its own ethics considerations, similar to how policeman in the United States are legally allowed, and often expected, to lie to a suspect to elicit incriminating information for a case. My oldest son is an attorney. In his last two years of law school they had him do paid summer internships with a well-known and well-respected firm in NYC, and they kept putting him on cases to help defend cigarette companies and insurance companies to lower their payouts. He was not an attorney yet, but he learned how the entire existence of some of the major law firms is based on their ability to get away with lying. After he took the exam and became a lawyer himself, he took a job in family court, and found, of course, that dishonesty pervades each side of arguments there, too. So now he does mostly real estate, wills and estates, and contract law. (Yet in just those few weeks of paid internship as a non-attorney he made more money than in his first year of being an attorney.)
The case with Gnam above is not nearly as serious as others, even compared to examples of other Watchtower lawyers in the U.S. But I don't condone such dishonesty, even in small amounts. In my opinion Mr. David Gnam is dishonest here, and therefore a wrongdoer, and very likely an unrepentant wrongdoer. I don't think he should be disbarred, but he should not be used by the Watchtower Society in any way unless he is ready to be honest.

For goodness sake John Butler, I mean 4Jah2me, there are no elders controlling this forum! 

No, that they would die at Armageddon.

For goodness sake John Butler, I mean 4Jah2me, there are no elders controlling this forum! 

No. Sorry. I just highlighted some words of yours to get your attention. It does sort of look that I am attributing them to Glock, doesn’t it?
Do you mean they feared that if they left, Jehovah’s Witnesses would kill them?
When Fauci says people may die if they do not wear a mask, do people take it that he means to kill them himself? When the fire department says you may die if you don’t change the batteries of your smoke detector, does it mean they are going to do the deed themselves.
Of course not on all three. The game is too stupid to play. Such opposers are just upset that faith has power—they wish it were gutted. Of course, the Witnesses say that departing from Jehovah’s organized way exposes one to eventual death. A very good tell that such might be true is that whenever ones do it, in no time at all they come to think the Name itself is a hill of beans, and that it hardly matters if it is used or not.
 
 

How can one be so obtuse as Srecko? He fusses on and on about the GB’s counsel, as seen through the appreciative eyes of Glock. “It’s just good sound human advice,” he says. “What’s God got to do with it?”
He misses the point most powerful so as to focus on the petty. Tell Jehovah’s people to obey the secular authorities, and they will. Tell ones of the greater world to obey, and they won’t—as a group, I mean—obviously there will be a Bell curve, but it is where that Bell curve falls that determines success of failure.
Here is a post from CNBC entitled, “Salesforce’s Marc Benioff: Face masks can end the U.S. coronavirus crisis within weeks.”
Within, Benioff says: “If everyone in the United States wore a mask for 3 weeks — just 3 weeks — we would not have anymore coronavirus because there would be no more spread, but people do not want to wear masks.”
One would think that Srecko would be cheerleading for Jehovah’s Witnesses. One would think he would be urging all to come under their umbrella—for there is to be found the end of Covid-19 within three weeks. “People do not want to wear masks,” Benioff says. Witnesses do not want to wear them, either, but they are ready to 
It is as though it is a dirty word. Consistently Srecko uses it this way—he and all his cohorts raging on about the ‘control’ and ‘manipulation’ of the GB. In this case, such obedience, which JWs by and large will render, and huge portions of his people will not, will serve to rescue the earth from the pandemic.
In fact, the very position of the Governing Body makes clear that they do not attempt to control people. They set an example—and people will take note of their example because they are highly regarded—but they make clear that each family head is responsible for the course his own family. As states open up—they are all over the board on this, just as they are all over the board on CSA laws—“obedience to secular authority” translates differently to different places—some localities require masks and some don’t—and there are further variances as to the circumstances that masks ought be worn. 
Suffice it to say that, if governments universally mandated masks in public, Witnesses would comply. Vast swaths of the overall world would not. It may be human advice, but Witnesses will comply because of the Bible requirement to be obedient to secular authority. At least some of the CultExpert’s followers will use their #FreedomOfMind to tell the government where it can go with it’s regulations.
That is why the GB must be credited—for presiding over a culture in which people will obey laws of Caesar, providing only that Caesar does not over reach into matters of God. And on mandating masks for a limited period, he does not.

In context this is true of course. But some opposers will say they were held in slavery by the JW religion because of the fear of death because if they didn't do what was right they were going to die. 

In context this is true of course. But some opposers will say they were held in slavery by the JW religion because of the fear of death because if they didn't do what was right they were going to die. 

I've been getting similar. Mine says the website didn't renew its license or something like that, so it's not secure...

I've been getting similar. Mine says the website didn't renew its license or something like that, so it's not secure...

The GB makes mistakes. “Stay Loyal With Queen Zenobia and Obi Wan Kenobia!” some traveling overseers were parroting—they got it right from HQ!. She came crashing to the ground yesterday with no one to mourn her—with no one to say “Too bad, too bad, you great hen!” What a flip-flop to treat the old girl with such disrespect! How can God not be displeased?
 

I defend them as elders who are taking on a huge responsibility in leading some major efforts to distribute Bibles and Bible-based publications around the world to fellow Witnesses and for non-Witnesses, too. I do not defend them as the equivalent of "the faithful and discreet slave." That, to me, and perhaps even according to the words of Brother Jackson of the GB, is a pretty presumptuous and haughty assumption, therefore not in keeping with being faithful and discreet. I am making an assumption that this is a serious error, but it does not discredit all the work they do. It's just a mistake of interpretation. The GB admit that this will sometimes happen. Jesus' anointed disciples made serious mistakes too. And not that this is an excuse, but we see it did not disqualify the work and zeal they showed. Remember how Apollos was zealous and aglow with the spirit, even though he was only acquainted with John's baptism. He even "gave himself" an assignment to go over into Achaia, and Priscilla and Aquila supported it fully.
(Acts 18:24-27) . . .Now a Jew named A·polʹlos, a native of Alexandria, arrived in Ephʹe·sus; he was an eloquent man who was well-versed in the Scriptures. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of Jehovah, and aglow with the spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things about Jesus, but he was acquainted only with the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, and when Pris·cilʹla and Aqʹui·la heard him, they took him into their company and explained the way of God more accurately to him. 27 Further, because he wanted to go across to A·chaʹia, the brothers wrote to the disciples, urging them to receive him kindly. So when he got there, he greatly helped those who through God’s undeserved kindness had become believers;
Where testing the scriptures shows me that the GB are right, I support them fully. But I'm also a bit outspoken if I think they might be wrong.
I have a feeling that you are too quick to jump on any place where someone finds a reason not to support a specific teaching of the GB, and you want to explode that into proof that the GB are completely wrong on all things, when we are talking about very few things out of hundreds of perfectly good interpretations.
You recently asked about a translation issue where I think that the great majority of the 700 verses that were translated with the "prove to be" construct in the NWT were unnecessary, and some potentially misleading -but not linguistically wrong. But this is a translator's choice, and it was used to create a certain gravitas or "sacred" sound, much like quoting the KJV today gives a kind of gravitas or "sacred" sound when used in a sermon of otherwise modern English. (The NWT got rid of 85% of these "prove-to-be" constructs in 2013.)
But how quick would you be to jump on other translators who make translation choices? (Some other translators even made the same [prove-to-be] choice for the "causative" verb rendering in some of the same places found in the NWT.) In reading Joel in the NET version, for example, there are multiple footnotes that admit that words were added that were not in the Hebrew. For example, the note on Joel 2:25:
(Joel 2:25, NET) I will make up for the years1  that the ‘arbeh-locust2  consumed your crops3 
The footnote for "3" says:
3 tn The term “your crops” does not appear in the Hebrew, but has been supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity and smoothness.
They simply added a couple of words to the Bible. In reality, nearly every verse is filled with choices for the translators. Just three verses earlier, it appears that they made a choice that I would disagree with:
(Joel 2:22, NET) Do not fear, wild animals!1  For the pastures of the wilderness are again green with grass.
The footnote says:
1 tn Heb “beasts of the field.”
For me, "beasts of the field," the literal Hebrew, was much more appropriate, because this is especially addressing the problem of animals that pasture, like sheep, goats, and cattle, which are often domesticated beasts. "Wild beasts" might be more consistent with how the NET translated the term elsewhere, but it gives the idea that it includes wild lions and bears and hyenas, for example. This particular choice can therefore end up being misleading. I don't know if I mentioned it before, but I took four years (7 semesters) of Hebrew in college, and I really love this kind of nerdy nit-picking when it comes to translation choices. But it's not that I think it's terribly important in the long run. It's not the kind of "adding to" and "taking away" from the words of a scroll that Revelation warns against.

It was warning about you. But you can yet get your act together—see prior post.

You mean the wife whom you said deserves sainthood for putting up with you? Give her a flower from me, also, will you?
Maybe @Araunadid not—she’s sort of lazy—but I did. Eight and a half million of them, I asked every one of them, it took all afternoon—just so I would have an answer for you.
You blasted idiot! Don’t sin! Put yourself somewhere that you will be aided not to sin. Put yourself somewhere that you can get your head around just how the ransom of God’s son works. Put yourself somewhere that you can appreciate how Paul can say ‘what I wish to do, I do not do,‘ and yet still say that he has run the race to the finish.
Spurning God’s free gift, are you? Stop doing that! Life was horrible? I won’t challenge that. Yet, what does the Word say of God’s promise? “The former things will not be called to mind.” Where’s the faith?! Even the most horrible nightmare people do not retain in their conscous mind. God cannot do even more than that? If nothing else, your long-suffering wife deserves to see you healed up.
You are a piece of work, 4Jah. You know you are. That does not mean that I am not, as with most others here, and everywhere else. It’s the human reality—a condition of the fallen flesh. Drop this ridiculous obsession against the GB and make peace with the earthly organization. Whatever it takes. It sure doesn’t appear that Witness’s FB page is helping you any, nor her upcoming project to quote the entire book of Jeremiah for the purpose of demonstrating that her rivals suck.