Anna

All that repetition by JB about how the GB could be "taken out" either by God directly or through the hands of humans (and that it would happen sooner or later) was probably interpreted by some here as a semi-veiled threat. I remember exactly what you said at the time, and never took it as all that threatening. But someone did. Perhaps more than one person. And the action taken in removing JB was probably made at an admin level, not by any of those who might volunteer as moderators. I would not have thought you should be kicked out, but a website owner probably could face some kind of legal scrutiny if someone carried through on a threat, and they had let such talk go on.
Personally, I don't want anyone thrown out of here. There are many things I don't like about the content of several of your posts, but I'm sure there are things you don't like about mine, too. I can't believe all those "laughing" emojis I get from you are given because you think I am saying something comedic, especially when it's little more than a scripture quote that you appear to be laughing at.

It is a good example though..... I was making a point
Is that not viewed as such in the bible?  But that does not make you rethink your situation?  I feel for you but you are doing it to yourself by your stubborn attitude.  Instead you prefer to always rale against the organization that taught you the truth about the ransom sacrifice and god's name.  Without them you would not have been in the privileged position you were in.  But like an unthankful dog you still bite the hand that fed you.  Think what you are doing to yourself. You seem to be all over the place! All it take is a little humility!  There were anointed in first century that were shunned and came back!
I am sure if they saw these persons in private they would definitely apologize (even though they personally were not the perpetrators)…… but you obviously do not understand the implications of legally apologizing..... that is totally a different matter. 
We JWs do NOT condone pedophilia ….or any form of porneia…... so why should we apologize in court or public for something we as an organization we do not condone?  The organization has sinning individuals in it and in this world the entire system is imperfect - and to top this off one cannot expect 100% perfect way of dealing with every case.  Expecting this would expect perfection, perfect judgment and seeing into everyone's heart!  Ask your self - how would I have done if I had to judge this matter.  Bring me any organization that has dealt with pedophilia perfectly a 100 percent of the time!  Legal organizations cannot even do it - and they have child psychologists top advisors - the lot!  This is why the Australian government had the inquiry in the first place because there were gaps in the laws they needed to close up!  
I think I know more than most about the Jews, the Muslims and some other religious denominations where pedophilia and child suffering is much worse than people can ever dream it to be...… but yet these ignorant people do not expect perfect case handling from them - if a case ever comes to the fore.... lol - because people are too afraid of the religious leaders.  This is like expecting a fools dream in the real world. But they expect 100% perfect case handling from JWs.  
Pedophilia is everywhere  is very prevalent an even covered up in courts of law (Epstein, gangs in UK). There is a case that went on for several years in Brooklyn USA in the ultra orthodox Jewish community. A Jewish school teacher fled to Israel (the school paid her flight because her husband was a Rabbi) and because she was prominent the accusers could not get her extradited for several years from Israel - the government and Rabbis covered it up in Israel.....   Nothing much in newspapers.  Not to speak of UK where the court system covers up big-time.  So why should we apologize for not handling every case that comes up with perfection..? When courts themselves find it hard to find enough evidence to convict?   DO you live under a rock or something when you expect 100 percent people in JWs to never have a secret sinner? …. And when we do get enough proof and shun a sinner then then you are the first guys to criticize this? Where is the sympathy for the shunned person you say?   This kind of double speak or double tongue is often found in those who do not understand both sides of this issue. 
Yes - those are the very ones who have been disciplined by JW and turned to defaming.... but they do not tell the public that they were sinning or in which capacity.... 
One question:  when are you going to get ready for the end?  You think a world-wide lockdown is important? … similar to Jerusalem when the Romans came and surrounded the city the first time, you do not think it is significant at all?  Putin himself is now president for life... and what did he do this week?  started putting journalists in jail.  He has a port in Syria now and now he is expanding into Africa working with Libya - to get access to the port.   So what must all happen for you to realize the world is a little deeper in the cesspit than we realize.
 
 

When people no longer want to live as Jehovah's Witnesses, for whatever reason, and an opportunity presents itself where they feel justified in leaving, then they will eagerly grab that opportunity. Very often this has nothing to do with any actual "truth" or "facts" but everything to do with that person's attitude and desire to do what they want. With the internet, these opportunities present themselves much more frequently and readily than in the past. There have always been opposers, but now they are finding more of a voice than they ever had before....

Do you really think that? I think you are completely wrong and are confusing this forum with a congregation. Nobody wants anybody to get thrown out of here. There would be no discussions otherwise. Plus, I'm sure you are an inspiration for some of his fictional characters in his books 😄

Is he ever! He is the gift that keeps on giving.

Victor Blackwell, a Witness attorney who defended many brothers before the various town courts of the American south during WWII days of conscription, told of his experience with one. The judge ordered him to shut up!—he, the defending attorney—or he would throw him into jail himself! “I looked around and I saw lawyers, prominent businessmen, and educated persons—I knew I wasn’t going to jail, so I said, ‘Your Honor, if we have reached the sorry state when justice has so disintegrated that an attorney is barred from defending his own client, then at that time the most appropriate place for me to be is behind bars with him.” (not an exact quote) Blackwell related at a special assembly in Niagara Falls how the judge’s face reddened and his veins stood out on his neck. A week later, he died of a stroke. “You killed our judge,” townspeople told him at his next trip to that area. “I”m sorry,” he replied, but it seemed that his degree of true remorse was suspect.
“I killed another judge,” he told the entertained audience, of whom I was one, and he went on to relate events in another town. Interestingly, he treated the judge’s of high courts with the greatest deference, especially those of the Supreme Court, whom he practically revered—as well as those justices of military courts—they were professionals who knew the law thoroughly, but the judges of some town courts were little more than popularly elected swaggering bullies popularly who often didn’t know much of anything other than what they wanted.
Now...let’s see if we can get 4Jah going. C’mon, let’s see what happens:
Now, let us change the setting to that of Jesus on his final night on earth:
“About the ninth hour, Jesus called out with a loud voice, saying: “Eʹli, Eʹli, laʹma sa·bach·thaʹni?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt 27:46)
Okay—I admit it—it’s a little bit of a cheap shot. But nobody deserves it more than that piece of work 4Jah, who sits at the feet of Anna and JWI as though at Gamaliel’s, thankIng them profusely whenever they drop some nugget he thinks beneficial to his cause, and heehawing like a donkey throughout everything else they say.

I think that is why there is so much injustice in many places. The court system is broken.  I marvel at some of the decisions taken these days. 
I think we can refer to it in a modern word of our choice, which serves the purpose, as it embodies what the BIBLE tells us to do with rebellious people. We cannot use an old Greek word...... If you belong to a club you have to follow the rules of the club or you are shunned/disfellowshipped/ told not to come back.  Just try it ...and behave badly at a golf club and see what happens to you.  As video shows - disfellowshipped means spiritual contact lost and one can be re-instated.
This very idea was tried in court a while back was it not? When a gay couple took a baker to court for refusing to bake their wedding cake.  The baker was shunning them was he not?  he did not even want to take their money.  You see, legally we are on shaky ground here.  When these kind of people start winning court cases then they can come for all religion... force you to accept LGBTQ and what else?  And this is what our dear friend MR 4JAH does not understand... He is so blinded by being right (or finding fault)  that he does not get the subtle nuances of these things. The autonomous decisions of different religions is being eroded...…(JWs included) .. in a big way at present.  So when he gleefully publishes these clips..... I just shake my head.
We know the system is coming for ALL religion soon and the world is heating up to it.  Satan is busy getting ready to create a counterfeit world government to bring peace and security to the earth.....and Satan's moral rules will be forced onto all of us such as LGBTQ, pedophilia may be included, no rights to shun, no male elders (according to them it is a white supremacist, colonizer, patriarchal idea which comes from the patriarchal bible which has been the oppressor of humankind for a long time), vaccinations and blood forced on you...…...and replaced by atheism and the immorality and free sex and free whatever now already taught in most schools. 
(By the way I am not antivaccine but I read this morning how they are making it and I believe it has potential to harm DNA in the body - trials started in UK, brazil and South Africa and Oxford university is doing it -  big money can come from it).  Just like before the flood there is a horrible arrogance and a changing of human DNA.  They are messing with things they should be leaving alone.)
 
Depends on your inclination and the subject.  Here on this forum you hold up well because there is only one view spewed by you.. a destructive one.  I think I can make a good case for NOT watching videos against JWs.  You are a good example of it ...... your hate-…... seems to be fueled by watching all these videos against JWs which are spinned and propagandized in a certain way.

Well, that I can readily agree with!

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.
 

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?

@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.
 

And if you look at the NWT for related words, you will see something of further interest. In the related words below, the first number is the frequency in the pre-2013 NWT, and the second number is the NWT (revised).
prove 360/57, proved 273/30, proven 0/0, proves 23/1, proving 20/7 proof 21/8, proofs 2/1
for a total of 699 "proof" words, reduced to only 104. A drop of "7 times."
Except for the word "proof(s)" itself, the vast majority of these terms are carryovers from a favorite verb construction credited to F.W.Franz, apparently because he wanted to translate Jehovah's use of "ehyeh" to Moses with "I will prove to be" rather than just "I am." So to be consistent, he sometimes even took mundane phrases similar to "I will speak" and translated them as "I will prove to be speaking."
In other words, Jesus never says "prove yourselves cautious as serpents" he just said "be cautious as serpents."
Jesus never said: "On this account, prove yourselves ready," he just said "On this account, be ready."
And Jesus didn't say: ". . . prove yourselves my disciples," he just said ". . .you shall be my disciples." (Although in this last case the full construction is: "My Father is glorified in that you are bearing much fruit and [so that?] you shall be my disciples." So a translator might be justified in either adding the word "true" to disciples, or using "prove to be" because of the probable implication of the entire construction where the usual word for "and" can sometimes imply "so that.")
Although 600 of the 700 verb constructions were dropped in 2013, there was no real reason to keep the other 100 as carryovers, either. It was mostly a quirk of the old NWT where it gave an important "sound" to the phrase, but with very few times when it translated the true meaning of the verse. That's why in current Bible reading, the revised NWT simply removes the following cases of "prove" or "prove to" and just leaves it as "be."
(Exodus 10:7) . . . After that Pharʹaoh’s servants said to him: “How long will this man prove to be as a snare to us? . . .
(Exodus 12:5)  The sheep should prove to be sound, a male, a year old, for YOU. . . .
(Exodus 16:5) . . .And it must occur on the sixth day that they must prepare what they will bring in, and it must prove double what they keep picking up day by day.”

I have not yet offered any scholarships, but that may change.
I’m not sure where all this Zondervan stuff started, but I wish that somewhere Rolf could have pointed out the conflict-of-interest in putting Big Business in charge of distributing the Word of God. 
He might, too, have highlighted the feat of inventing an entirely new publication and distribution channel so that the poverty-stricken fellow in a developing nation is not stuck with some 200-year-old turkey of a translation that he can neither afford nor understand. 
He might also point out how such a channel means that rigorously translating a ‘trinity’ scripture will not doom the Bible in the marketplace, as it would in Zondervan’s case.
He might acknowledge that the GB can’t be all that bad to have pulled off such a stunt.

Is that what you think this forum is for—so that we may get far? Have you seen any sign of agreement from anyone over the last five years? The best thing that has happened is that JTR began to realize who all his comments were making him friends with and did a reappraisal. 

When my homeschooled son entered community college at age 16, he said in all innocence, “I had no idea that there were so many stupid people.”

That’s not “proof” either and the same unholy trinity here would bellyache about those words no less than they do what Glock really did say.
I almost think that “prove’ should be stricken from the JW vocabulary. It is one more word that has been redefined to give it a narrow focus that it never exclusively had before. “Scientific proof” is all that people have in mind today, and if “scientific proof” was the order of the day, the stuff we have would not be called “faith.”
Should Glock be expected to use the word “prove” in the scientific sense? Not hardly. He is a Bible teacher. How does the Bible use the term? The New World Translation uses the word ‘prove’ 46 times. Not one of them is in the scientific sense. Only 2 or 3 is even in the legal sense. Typical are verses like Jesus “sending you out as sheep among wolves; so prove yourselves cautious as serpents and yet innocent as doves, (Matt 10:16)
“On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it.” (Matt 24:44)
“But wanting to prove himself righteous, the man said to Jesus:...” (Luke 10:29)
“My Father is glorified in this, that you keep bearing much fruit and prove yourselves my disciples.” (John 15:8)
In fact, 
What do you suppose is the etymology of “approve?” Does anyone think it suggests scientific proof? Or does it not denote meeting the standards of someone with recognized stature? It is ridiculous that Brother Glock should be taken to task by narrow-minded sticklers for a single application of the word which will almost certainly not be his, nor be the dominant one of history.
Words change. There is no sense grousing about this. “Why so serious?” the Joker says, as he slits another throat. We may have to change on this as well—or just ignore the idiots and put pedal to the medal!
Sometimes I think we should do that with the word “cult.” The word has changed. Rather than resist it, it may be better to embrace the new meaning. Point to the etymology of the word. It stems from the same root as does the word “agriculture,” which literally means “care of the earth.” Ones who care for “the matters of God” would be an appropriate definition for “cult.” I could live with it.
One might even do what the cops did when their radical student “apostates” began tormenting them with the epithet “pigs”—doubling down when they saw that it got under their skin. Finally, one innovative officer decided to roll with it:
P - Pride
I - Intergritey
G- Guts
S - Service
Can Witnesses do the same? “To the adolescents I became an adolescent,” Paul said:
C - Courage
U- Unity
L - Love
T - Truth
One does not want to be like my (non-Witness) cousin, who grumbled till her dying day that she could no longer use the word “gay” because the homosexuals hijacked it. “I’m no prude,” she would day. “If they want to go AC-DC, that’s alright with me. (would she really wink just then?) But why couldn’t they invent their own word? Why did they have to take “gay?” She’d go on and on. I used to set her off just to watch the sparks fly. “She’s just mad that she can no longer speak of going to ‘gay Parie,’” I said to my right-wing brother. But my right wing brother had still not forgiven the French in the aftermath of the “Freedom Fries” fiasco. “Why  can’t she?” he muttered.
 

Did you forget that I have television? I can see how obedient they are.
JWs have put themselves among company in which peer-pressure is going to nudge them in the safer direction. Non-Witnesses, many of them, (recall that I said “with some exaggeration”) have put themselves in a place where their peer-pressure will not. Do not think that peer-pressure is nothing. It is the reason that we look at our photos of yesteryear and marvel at how we ever could have thought those dorky styles back then did anything for us.

Yes, I thoroughly agree with that statement (therefore I do not need to be assured this is proof of Jehovahs backing, in this situation (covid)) and I said this in one of my posts above.  My use of the Catholic church was just an example. Probably a bad one. But my point was that just because someone does something right, is it proof of Jehovah's backing? And what if we do something that turns out to be wrong advice, as the GB has admitted (because they are fallible and can err) does that mean this is proof they do not have Jehovah's backing? I think it was just a really bad choice of words....and a little presumptuous. And was it really necessary for him to say it? Something like this surely would have been more appropriate and modest: "the advice that the GB are giving is proof that they really apply the scriptures in their life and are allowing the holy spirit to lead them" and he could have even added "we will do well to immitate them". But saying this is proof of God's backing is almost painfully insecure. Like we need to be assured because some are doubting. But do not actions speak louder than words? Should it not be left up to others to make that deduction, (like you and I did) rather than say it about themselves? And they did say it about themselves, because as I have already commented to Tom, everything that is published first gets approved (by the GB).

Yes, I thoroughly agree with that statement (therefore I do not need to be assured this is proof of Jehovahs backing, in this situation (covid)) and I said this in one of my posts above.  My use of the Catholic church was just an example. Probably a bad one. But my point was that just because someone does something right, is it proof of Jehovah's backing? And what if we do something that turns out to be wrong advice, as the GB has admitted (because they are fallible and can err) does that mean this is proof they do not have Jehovah's backing? I think it was just a really bad choice of words....and a little presumptuous. And was it really necessary for him to say it? Something like this surely would have been more appropriate and modest: "the advice that the GB are giving is proof that they really apply the scriptures in their life and are allowing the holy spirit to lead them" and he could have even added "we will do well to immitate them". But saying this is proof of God's backing is almost painfully insecure. Like we need to be assured because some are doubting. But do not actions speak louder than words? Should it not be left up to others to make that deduction, (like you and I did) rather than say it about themselves? And they did say it about themselves, because as I have already commented to Tom, everything that is published first gets approved (by the GB).

It appears that the GB will not join in "relaxed measures". This is because as he said; they value life more than money and they would rather be over cautious than too casual. So no meetings of field service for a while yet. Also conventions will not be held in 2021. They require preparations a year in advance. However, what each individual family does is their choice. Personally, I feel it is very wise to not relax protective measures. Especially not here in the USA. Cases of covid are on the rise again. Each countries' situation differs though, and this was acknowledged by the brother. So it may happen that resuming meetings will be based on countries. 

It appears that the GB will not join in "relaxed measures". This is because as he said; they value life more than money and they would rather be over cautious than too casual. So no meetings of field service for a while yet. Also conventions will not be held in 2021. They require preparations a year in advance. However, what each individual family does is their choice. Personally, I feel it is very wise to not relax protective measures. Especially not here in the USA. Cases of covid are on the rise again. Each countries' situation differs though, and this was acknowledged by the brother. So it may happen that resuming meetings will be based on countries. 

No, I don't know this, but logic tells me this is so. Not only that, but G. Jackson said as much in his ARC interview. In any case, your example is not really relevant, I don't think. There is a big difference in someone giving a part at a convention, and someone giving a talk on video at HQ that will be "immortalized forever" . I am not sure when you gave your parts, but I know that in the past there was much more leeway in how brothers handled talks. This is why Charles Sinutko was able to deliver that infamous talk which included the slogan "stay alive till 75" . OK, I know you probably gave talks long after that, but still, I do know for a fact that things have become a lot stricter and brothers are supposed to stick to the very detailed outline. This is confirmed to me when I watch the convention videos (sent to us because of my mother in law who is housebound) the talks are practically identical to the ones I heard at our convention, with perhaps very minor differences, mainly pertaining to experiences. I think it makes practical sense that the GB would look over a script/detailed outline before the video is shot, rather than after. And even if they didn't do that, they would see the video before it was broadcast on the website. The fact that it is broadcast shows the GB approved it. As G. Jackson said, they approve everything before it gets printed or broadcast.
Yes, pretty much..
It is true, he may or may not have imputed this. I guess it's left to individual interpretation which leads to what you say next:
 
 Here I am not so sure.......saying that the GB advice is proof of God's backing very much hovers on the borders of the "woo" factor. As if for example the catholic church did something right, are we supposed to think this is proof they have God's backing? By the same token we should.  (JWI mentioned something along similar lines).
 
I completely agree with you. Just today I read this quote: "Basically, we're seeing what happened in New York back in March, except it's happening in multiple metropolitan areas of the country," said Dr. Leana Wen, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University. And we don't have the political will and the public willingness to impose the shutdowns as we did back in March." 
And these are the kind of people that will be allowed to be subjects of God's kingdom, because this is the only way it would work. This is what my very astute Bible student once discerned. I was impressed.

Yes, I understand. Sometimes I feel like I have unnecessarily dissected some things, and it may appear that I am being overly critical, but I am just trying to be fair, and look at things from all angles(I know you do the same). I do think the GB are giving excellent counsel. Whether this is because of some "woo" factor, as Tom calls it, or whether it's just common sense is immaterial really. It's the results that matter in the long run.