Jump to content

Ann O'Maly

Is it time for this forum to close its doors?

Topic Summary


Last Reply



Ann O'Maly -
Space Merchant -

Top Posters

Recommended Posts

I won't speak for the @admin since he is probably not even aware of this "controversy" right now....


I just can't imagine Jesus Christ creating JesusChrist.org to publish his words... and then tell everyone that nobody has the legal right to copy his words.

If anything EVERY KING of Israel was to MAKE A COPY of the scrolls.... to what purpose? TO SHARE THEM.

The Watchtower Lawyers are thinking of JW.org as a money making for profit corporation instead of the charity and group of like minded bible students that it should be and was at one time..


When the apostles were angered that others were preaching the gospel of Jesus what did he tell them? 

"Round up the Christian Lawyers" ... NO!!! 


Advertise, Advertise , Advertise the King and His Kingdom......hmmm...... 


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the scripture I think the Librarian referenced.

(Mark 9:38-42) 38 John said to him: “Teacher, we saw someone expelling demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one who will do a powerful work on the basis of my name who will quickly be able to say anything bad about me. 40 For whoever is not against us is for us. 41 And whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ, I tell you truly, he will by no means lose his reward. 42 But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith, it would be better for him if a millstone that is turned by a donkey were put around his neck and he were pitched into the sea.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez.... You guys are a piece of work.

If Watchtower Legal Dept. tells me to take something down that is their legal copyright I would immediately comply.



You do all realize that Catholic.org considers all of you apostates as well.


@The Librarian Thanks for letting me know.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not hard.

It is their material. They want to control its distribution. They have voiced no objection whatsoever to linking to their material. When you do this, it always remains obvious that it is theirs. @Anna

But if you reproduce it - pictures, logo, articles, anything from their art department - it suggests to the casual reader that you are them. And you are not. If you are a liar trying to misrepresent their work, the problem is obvious.

But even if you are a friend you should not suggest that you are them because each of us has his/her own hangups.

I can be crass and sarcastic. I like homeopathy. I comment on things political from time to time (they don't do it at all). If I do this on my own, I am okay. If I do it and include a link to something of theirs, I am okay. If I do it and reproduce the jw.org logo or some picture, I am not okay because I am suggesting I am them and that they identify with my views. The discerning reader will know it is not so, but not all readers are discerning. Most are not.

Many brothers on Facebook reproduce their artwork, thinking it is fine because they are faithful. They shouldn't. I won't say i have never done it before. I don't think I have ever done it here, but I have done it a handful of times on Facebook. I won't anymore. 

Primarily, they are not 'laying down the law' for the vile people. The vile people will not listen to them anyway. They may have to be confronted legally. But it is more challenging to do this when every Tom Dick and Harry of a Witness is also reproducing their work, thinking it is okay because they are friends.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, admin said:

If Watchtower Legal Dept. tells me to take something down that is their legal copyright I would immediately comply.

Of course. 'The sons of this system of thing are wiser in a practical way than are the sons of the light'

23 minutes ago, admin said:

Geez.... You guys are a piece of work.

Um.....yeah        But not all

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all your comments. :) 

Yes, I doctored the image. It was partly fun, partly to make a point.


"If the spiritual food passes through other channels,
there is no guarantee that it has not been altered
or contaminated.—Ps. 18:26; 19:8."

However, you all immediately noticed something was 'off' and you could compare with the original on the jw. org site. And yet, there is no guarantee that the spiritual food on the jw. org website hasn't been altered either. 

Consider this:

A critic of JWs may allege that there was an Awake! article on the topic of Creation and Evolution that misused a respected scientist's quote. 

A JW may retort that the magazines NEVER misuse quotations because the writers research very carefully and honestly - there was even a recent Broadcast showing us this was so. The critic must be LYING!

So the critic produces this scan with the relevant part marked in red:


But there is no sign of this particular quote on jw. org nor in the downloadable digital versions. Other than the red marking, has the image otherwise been doctored? Is this critic trying to pull a fast one?

It turns out that the scientist complained to the Org about the magazine's use of his quote and the Org removed the quote from the website's article and the digital download editions. The quote will still be found in the original hard copies and downloaded editions saved to people's computers.

The critic was telling the truth and, apart from the red marking, the scan was a true representation of the original page.

You see, just because the publications are reproduced on other sites, it doesn't mean that the content has been tampered with. Equally, just because a publication appears on the jw. org website, there is no guarantee that the content has not been tampered with - whether it is due to a scientist's complaint about how his work was used, or due to new understandings in doctrine. Website content is so easy to edit now.

@Anna  made the point about it not violating copyright to post links to the jw. org site. True. The article says:


"Therefore, as the Terms of Use
indicates, you may e-mail someone an electronic
copy of a publication or share a link to material
found on jw.org."

But the receiver of the email-attached copy isn't getting it direct from the official website. S/he's getting it from a secondary source and we're back to this.


"If the spiritual food passes through other channels,
there is no guarantee that it has not been altered
or contaminated."

Which raises a question: If one plays safe and emails a link to the Org's publications page instead, would the 'link share' count as a placement on the report slip?

@Witness said about there still being Facebook pages for Lett and Morris. I guess we are to understand these are fraudulent. :)

And finally, the reasons for the thread title:


"Furthermore, posting our publications on websites
that allow comments provides a place for
apostates and other critics to sow distrust of JehovahÂ’s
organization. Some brothers have been
drawn into online debates and thus have brought
added reproach on JehovahÂ’s name. An online forum
is not an appropriate setting for “instructing
with mildness those not favorably disposed.”
(2 Tim. 2:23-25; 1 Tim. 6:3-5)"

This is the GB's 'loving counsel' folks. Discussion of JW publications on these forums is dangerous, inappropriate, and some JW 'brothers' who have participated have made Jehovah the Org look bad. 

So, time to pack up, shut up shop and go home .... *sniff*


.... Bwahahaha! :D

Are you kidding? It's much too late to stuff the genie of free online discussion back into its bottle! 

To quote Leah Remini:


"If your religion is so amazing and doing all these amazing things for the world, then it should stand up to some questioning."


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Equally, just because a publication appears on the jw. org website, there is no guarantee that the content has not been tampered with - whether it is due to a scientist's complaint about how his work was used, or due to new understandings in doctrine. Website content is so easy to edit now.

Most would consider this a good thing that updates can be made so easily. But for research purposes it would be useful to know which "editions" contained which updates. For example, if this particular Awake! magazine had been on the Watchtower Library CD in its original form, it could still have been overwritten with later updates.

I noticed that doctrinal changes were being inserted into the "Insight" book for a year or more before a notice was added that the online versions may contain different content from the printed version. I still use the printed version of the Insight Book for some of the pictures and charts that don't show up very well in the online edition. I keep only two versions of the Watchtower Library CD on my computer, one from 2006, but the latest one is regularly updated online. I still have about 12 other years of CD's around, but I've never seen a reason to install more than a couple at a time. 

Of course, there is always this:



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

He was quoted accurately. He was not entitled to have the quote removed, much less anything further.

Just found that on topix.com by "pcloadletter", thanks.

Then why do you think the Watchtower Society gave in, and did what he wanted?. Fear of men?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Forum Statistics

    Total Topics
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    Total Members
    Most Online
    Newest Member

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • True, however, testing the spirit does not include drawing one's own conclusions outside scripture. I have not found an insistence where the Watchtower has gone beyond what is written. Do they try to simplify certain things, yes they do. That doesn’t mean they are stepping away from the context. Another thing is with the comparison made. The GB are following the true spirit of God like the apostles. Therefore, they have NOT taken the position of the Jerusalem counsel. If you have, then you sit in Moses seat. Matthew 23:2 If the passion is to correct, as God corrected his people, Then I would suspect there is a resemblance to be equal to Christ as the Pope seems to indicate. The GB do not hold themselves in that high regard as to think, they can question God's motives for humanity. I would recommend studying the issue further. There are areas that haven’t been included with many presentations here. Since you claim the Watchtower is misrepresenting an issue that has become an obstacle to your personal faith, then I would make light of JTR and TTH comments about contacting the Watchtower directly. Feeding an assumption only emboldens the God of this world, no one else. Correct. There is only one way to view scripture. Anyone deviating from that is causing personal harm to the spirit of others. It doesn’t matter if those individuals hate the Watchtower, it’s by their own spoken words and actions of clear and concise misinterpretation of scripture, and misapplication of the Watchtower literature where they fail to see the difference. Removing themselves from the context of scripture to argue with the strength of hate and discourse is the sole definition of scripture when Christ clearly stated not to and to stay away from. Those are the dangers when we engage in an open forum. We like to think it is to discuss issues. However, the ever present danger will always be, the influence of the devil. It is one thing to defend the truth, but quite another thing to defend the truth when one’s heart is conflicted. Merely following that conduct disqualifies anyone from stating they are Christian. That is the kind of Christian Jesus spoke of as a danger. The confusion would lie with how the public perceives the Watchtower under the direction of the bible Student association. The word “association” should give anyone, pause to rethink, Russell and Rutherford belonged to the International Bible Student Association. A reason, Rutherford dismissed the edger pyramid scheme straight up. Russell, used it as a comparison, nothing more. Another thing that witnesses should consider, those works were made by not allowing Christendom’s view of scripture. Therefore, Russell essentially started from scratch. There are far more reasons why those dates were accepted. Mainly, by events of that time. Bible Students still believe, the Jewish nation has a pivotal role in the last days. According to Christ everyone became relative in the last days including the Jews. They are not the sole reason for the last days as Christendom exerts. Remember, even the most conservative view which is Bishop Ussher, his calculation referenced 586BC as the 3rd instance of judgment by Nebuchadnezzar. The third, not the first nor the second as historians and scholars claim, but the third. This is why history itself is flawed, since they continue to insist, there were only 2 campaigns against Judea and Jerusalem. Mainly 597-587BC. I will not beat on the bush with this one. I am confident we both know what limitations are imposed and previous actions taken.  
    • An interesting take with a lot to say for it. When Jude mentions these "rocks beneath the surface" for example, it always reminds me of the first time I read "Paul and Thecla" while at Bethel, but at the NYPL, via a book about Christian widows of the 2nd century. Paul and Thecla is an early Christian short story or novella with Thecla, not Paul, as the hero. It's one of a few stories of this type, probably written by and for women in the early Christian congregations. The antagonists of some of these stories are the 2nd century "circuit overseers" who would go from congregation to congregation saying all the right things from the "platform" but then they would also quietly worm their way into the houses of well-meaning sisters and widows, and try to take advantage of them sexually. I was quite surprised when the Watchtower last year mentioned Paul and Thecla for the second time in nearly 100 years, and was again surprisingly supportive of the work as containing possible reflections of true traditions believed in the 2nd century: *** w18 March p. 13 par. 3 Questions From Readers *** The Acts of Paul and Thecla was highly regarded in early centuries, as confirmed by the fact that 80 Greek manuscripts of it exist, as well as versions in other languages. Thus, our artistic presentations are in line with some ancient indications of what the apostle looked like. I personally have never experienced a "bad" circuit overseer. All of them have been exemplary and I have always looked forward to their visits, especially when hearing a new one for the first time. But I think all of us old-timers have had experience with congregational drifters, and we often look at them with the same kinds of suspicions. Sometimes it's a young brother who is very vague about his last congregation and who quickly latches on to an association with another eligible sister. Sometimes it's a more elderly brother, perhaps even a special pioneer, looking for an alternate congregation, hoping the trouble he caused in the last congregation won't get reported in too much detail. (Speaking from a real example, this elderly brother also latched onto a "relationship," and place to stay, with a family of sisters: a sister with an unbelieving and ailing husband, and a couple of daughters. It was a recipe for disaster.) The younger brother caused some heart-ache by getting engaged to a sister, and the engagement was later broken off.  It's hard for me not to imagine such cases when I read Jude. So, at first, it was hard for me to see them as drifters into forums like this one to cause other kinds of trouble, but I can definitely see a similarity now.  
    • I’m not really sure what “worshipful” means.  When celebrities come into town, they are mobbed by fans. Are those fans worshipful? I might say yes, but the fans themselves will just say they they are flocking to them out of respect for their accomplishments. If brothers pose for selfies with the GB members (much to the latter’s annoyance, I am consistently told, someone said with the possible exception of Lett) are they “worshipful?” It’s in the eye of the beholder, I think. Though I have a great many faults, admiring personalities is not one of them. I would love to have a GB member stay at my house so I could ignore him. “There’s your room—make yourself at home. If you’d like to visit, that works fine, but you have many things to do and if you ignore us completely that also works fine with us,”  Probably there are few words they could hear that would please them more. And no, @James Thomas Rook Jr., I wouldn’t present them with a list of my QUESTIONS that, as MEN of HONOR, they are obligated to answer,
    • Just for interest, here is an interview with prince Andrew. It's acutely embarrassing the excuses  he makes and the denials.... Read comments, they are entertaining  
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.