Is it time for this forum to close its doors?

[TrueTomHarley]

6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Remember, unless you use approved words, in approved phrases, about approved ideas. using approved examples ... you will not be called on to give a comment. 

Do you mean like the comments you make here? I can appreciate they might not bend over backwards to accommodate you.

Some of my comments at our Kingdom Hall are absolute zingers but because they unfailingly show good will and lack of grumbling over a meeting being "shut down" because only one elder could be present at a Book Study and that was not enough to "control" people (sheesh - it's a wonder they don't call the mental hospital to have you carted away for paranoia syndrome) they have never been passed over, save when the conductor is searching for new hands because I have commented twice already.

In fact, they actually empowered you. For they didn't merely ax a meeting. They replaced it with a Family Study' night over which you, as family head, preside. It is on the premise that you, as head, know specifically what your family will most benefit from, and can tailor your family study to that. There is no elder at all to monitor what you say at this meeting that you preside over and if there was and I found that I was the one assigned, I would immediately resign. I mean, who needs a death wish?

The contents of the "shut down" Book Study have been folded into the mid-week meeting, which itself has been rewritten to be more focused. Though people cry about everything under the sun here, I have never heard a cry over that - all agree the new format is an improvement. (having laid down the challenge, I am sure someone like  Srecko will start to complain about it - hehehe :)))))

Plus it is obvious that you have saved plenty of 'gas,' and you pour it into graphics and complaints that you lodge here.

You would think that if someone does not want to be 'spoon-fed' - and no one fits that description more than you - they would rejoice over this major relinquishing of "control." If you just cry that you still want to be spoon-fed and not actually preside over your own program, then yes - I can see why you might bellow. But they are very serious about this Family Study - they highlight the importance of it often - it is not a folding up of the tent just because someone wants to tighten their grip. It is encouraging family heads to step up to the plate with their headship.

 

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Interesting "spin", TTH ...... but "spin" it is.

It makes me lament I never took up "moonwalking".

[Anna]

13 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

In fact, they actually empowered you. For they didn't merely ax a meeting. They replaced it with a Family Study' night over which you, as family head, preside.

Not only that, but you can also invite others to your family worship. Before you know it, you can have yourself a little dissident group, that you can preside over @James Thomas Rook Jr.! But somehow you don't strike me as someone who would be interested in that. It seems like letting off steam on here is sufficient for you

My 2 cents? I have understood this whole wt article this way: I don't see any control factor in there whatsoever, as long as you quote the WT and then cite the source  (i.e. post a link to the article and/or page paragraph) all is ok. I can understand there is a concern over " Some brothers have been drawn into online debates and thus have brought added reproach on JehovahÂ’s name" as I have seen people's comments to worldly people or opposers in the comments sections of a public news article and I have sometimes cringed and thought they shouldn't be allowed to do this. Stop them, shut their mouths for heavens sake before they cause us more embarrassment.  I am sure some of you have seen the same thing. When I find an example I will post it here. The Org. is concerned that we don't bring reproach to Jehovah. What does that mean? It means that worldly people will read that crap that some friends post, and then think Omg these Witnesses are either wacko/unchristian/mean/etc. and it either puts them off, or confirms what they've thought all along. In other words, we don't give a good witness at all!

However, discussion forums such as this one, as opposed to news articles, are rarely visited by worldly people or by people of other faiths I imagine. I feel they have better things to do than to try and make head or tail of our discussions. How many Witnesses have visited a Catholic forum for example? Probably not many, we are just not interested.

Also, the mention of a list of official  jw.org websites as the only source of spiritual food, (note; for witnesses or interested ones, not the whole population of other faiths and atheists and any Tom Dick a Harry) is to remind us that anything else that is not official, well....ummm....is not official, and therefor cannot be guaranteed to represent OUR beliefs. As it says: "It has also been observed that fraudulent social media accounts and websites have been created in the name of the organization". Concern over this is understandable.  It does not mean we cannot discuss things in an unofficial capacity. Notice the picture above the caption " No one may post our copyrighted publications on other Internet sites" shows someone's blog page, or internet page entitled..."something...something...the best life ever" and has a picture of Caleb and Sophia, and the other picture has what looks like a mobile phone app. probably some WT library set up by a brother or sister.  So what it's saying is that brothers and sisters who wish to set up their own blog or website may not use WT copyrighted publications. That's all. There are many websites set up by the friends. Some missionaries have these to post experiences and photos from the field. Some like @TrueTomHarleyhave one to post their literary works and stories. It's extremely easy to set up a website. I have one for my business.

So all in all the concern is that we don't mislead those who don't know any better into thinking some Web site is the official website, or that we don't get involved in discussions that make people who don't know any better think that what we say is the official view.

Of course I think this article will be misunderstood by many, as has been already on here, to mean we should stop all online discussions, and only read material from JW.org.

[Anna]

On 12/31/2017 at 10:45 AM, Noble Berean said:

So, basically, the organization has claimed legal ownership of all Bible discussion and Bible interpretation.

No, that is not at all what it means. The Church of Christ's Holly Slippers can claim legal ownership of their Bible discussion and Bible interpretation, as can the WT claim legal ownership of their Bible discussions and interpretation. But to mix the two together, or exchange them whereby it is unclear who says what, could constitute a legal breech of the other party.

[TrueTomHarley]

12 hours ago, Anna said:

I have seen people's comments to worldly people or opposers in the comments sections of a public news article and I have sometimes cringed

Same here.

 

12 hours ago, Anna said:

However, discussion forums such as this one, as opposed to news articles, are rarely visited by worldly people or by people of other faiths I imagine. I feel they have better things to do than to try and make head or tail of our discussions

Yes.

Even so, I am not quick to think I am in the clear, although what I say is unfailingly supportive. For all I know, someone is saying "what do you make of that squirrely Tom fellow on the WNMF?"

I remember a District Overseer dismayed that whatever he had said last time had been ignored. When he inquired, he was told it had been assumed he was speaking of others. He ended by saying: "No, brothers, that counsel was for you - and not those bad brothers of Pennsylvania."

12 hours ago, Anna said:

There are many websites set up by the friends. Some missionaries have these to post experiences and photos from the field. Some like @TrueTomHarleyhave one to post

I don't even say that I am a Witness on my site. Obviously it can be read between the lines, but it is not plainly stated. I do get emails asking if I am or not. I don't link to the jw.org website, either, though I can. I don't do it because I think it imputes my idiosyncrasies - we all have some - upon them. I don't wear any of those pins or logos or designer prints. It's just me, but I don't like them. I am not a billboard. I don't wear any commercial advertising either.

I didn't care for the notion of wearing the badge cards the complete day of the convention. I did it because they asked me to, as a means of advertising the convention. I got used to it and do so without any muttering at all. The cause is right.

In general, the internet is a terrible place to witness. Yet our people do it all the time. A brother will say online: "Do you want to know the truth about the cross?" The answer is 'NO.' Secular people do not care, and religious people do not wonder. The only people who come along are ideologues who live to argue. As often as not, it leads to name-calling.

People think they can assemble their own congregation on the internet. They can't. There is no way to gauge spirituality. There is no way to tell if you are speaking to a liar or a saint. There is no channel to dispense spiritual food. Nobody knows if I am a circuit overseer or if I am disfellowshipped. It is "uncontrollable," as @Noble Berean said, the land of the liars. And yet our people are inherently trusting - guileless. Sometimes it blows up in their face. Even if I am now a "good guy" who is to say I always will be? If a writing brother goes bad at Bethel, they can yank him and insert someone who has not. But if I have built a "following" and I go bad? No wonder the GB is not thrilled when our brothers dive into social media. 

 

[Ann O'Maly]

12 hours ago, Anna said:

Of course I think this article will be misunderstood by many, as has been already on here, to mean we should stop all online discussions, and only read material from JW.org.

"Stick with what we have authorized. You'll be safe." The article just underlines AMIII's admonishment and warning that 'unauthorized' internet activity exposes JWs to "spiritual danger."

Is this forum and those like it GB authorized and approved? Of course not. 

And remember the Question Box from the km 9/07?

Quote

Does “the faithful and discreet slave” endorse independent groups of Witnesses who meet together to engage in Scriptural research or debate?—Matt. 24:45, 47.

No, it does not. ...

... “the faithful and discreet slave” does not endorse any literature, meetings, or Web sites that are not produced or organized under its oversight.

"Stick with what we have authorized."

There will always be those who love to research and openly discuss their views online, and thereby have to rationalize away the GB's clear counsel. I say GOOD! because this new article is another attempt at information control.

Quote

Information, knowledge, is power. If you can control information, you can control people.

Tom Clancy

 

[Witness]

“you wanna go out there…it’s at your spiritual risk”.  Sounds like fear-mongering. 

What spiritual risk.  Being disfellowshipped for uncovering a lie, or two or three…and not keeping quiet about it.   

“If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.”   Albert Einstein

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

13 hours ago, Anna said:

Not only that, but you can also invite others to your family worship. Before you know it, you can have yourself a little dissident group, that you can preside over @James Thomas Rook Jr.!

I got that now!

I used to have seven dogs, but two recently died of old age, so now I have only five ... a rebellious lot ... as we have a fenced in yard, and they romp about STARK NAKED ... their collars with rabies tags hanging on a nail on the front porch.

When I was a Boy Scout (back when it was an honorable institution without "gay" scout leaders and teenage girls along on camping trips), I never progressed beyond "Tenderfoot", (the lowest Rank), and it never occurred to me to want to.

If I wanted to bind people into slavery to me (and I don't...) I would like to think I am a decent enough man not to do it with a million words, and social pressures ... that I would have the decency to use a gun.

[JW Insider]

On 1/1/2018 at 7:18 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

In fact, they actually empowered you. For they didn't merely ax a meeting. They replaced it with a Family Study' night over which you, as family head, preside. It is on the premise that you, as head, know specifically what your family will most benefit from, and can tailor your family study to that. There is no elder at all to monitor what you say at this meeting

Exactly! Have to say that this is something to take advantage of.

*** w11 3/15 pp. 11-12 pars. 20-21 Receive God’s Spirit, Not the World’s ***

• 20 Know the Bible well. When resisting Satan’s direct attack on his faith, Jesus quoted the Scriptures. (Luke 4:1-13) When confronting his religious opposers, Jesus used God’s Word as his authority. (Matt. 15:3-6) Jesus’ whole life revolved around knowing and fulfilling God’s law. (Matt. 5:17) We too want to keep feeding our mind with the faith-strengthening Word of God. (Phil. 4:8, 9) Finding time for personal and family study may prove to be a challenge for some of us. Rather than find time, though, we may have to make time.—Eph. 5:15-17.
• 21 “The faithful and discreet slave” has helped us to have time for personal and family study by arranging for a Family Worship evening each week. (Matt. 24:45) Are you making wise use of this arrangement? To help you gain the mind of Christ, could you include in your study session a systematic consideration of what Jesus taught on subjects of your choice? You could use the Watch Tower Publications Index to locate informative discussions of the subject you are pursuing. For example, from 2008 to 2010, the public edition of this magazine carried a series of 12 articles that had the theme “What We Learn From Jesus.” You may want to use these articles as a basis for study. Beginning in 2006, Awake! carried the feature “How Would You Answer?” This quiz was designed to help broaden and deepen your knowledge of God’s Word. Why not include material from such features in your Family Worship program from time to time?

Can't see anything wrong with these suggestions. Don't care what the original motives were. I noticed that it freed up a couple of evenings at the Hall so that a 4th congregation could immediately share the same Hall with plenty of time between meetings, when it was difficult for 3 congregations to do that previously.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I know a contractor who cannot calculate concrete volume (Length x Width x Height divided by 27 for cubic yards of concrete), who told me one time he had SERIOUSLY miscalculated the amount of concrete he estimated and bid on some work ... and ended up making an additional $5,000.

Every once in awhile ... even a blind pig ... finds an acorn.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

"Stick with what we have authorized. You'll be safe." The article just underlines AMIII's admonishment and warning that 'unauthorized' internet activity exposes JWs to "spiritual danger."

He is exactly right.

 

1 hour ago, Witness said:

“you wanna go out there…it’s at your spiritual risk”.  Sounds like fear-mongering. 

Somewhat. It is because he knows the overall world is not Winnie-the-Pooh friendly toward Christian values. What is it with those who would disparage such counsel? They are exactly out of harmony with Scripture, in that they present the world as though it was.

I have the greatest respect for him, because he says what needs to be said, despite knowing that villains will beat him over the head with his own words and JTR will photoshop tight pants on him.

His counsel is exactly what public safety people will tell the public - hang up on the scammers. Don't think you can outsmart them. They do it 24/7 and you do it 10 minutes a month.

Don't be cocky thinking you will outwit the loudmouth car dealer & beat him at his own game. It is possible, but not likely, for the same reason.

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

and thereby have to rationalize away the GB's clear counsel.

This is not aimed at me, but I rationalize away nothing. It is counsel, not law. Also, I have plainly said I am being a bad boy in this regard. In all other significant areas, I would hope I can say I am exemplary. But not this one, and I do fret about setting a bad example for others. I do it for reasons not necessarily spiritual. Sometimes I just like to brawl. Even when I think I have "won" I have demonstrated an un-Christian trait. Even if I display clever argumentation, I distract from Scriptures that says it is primarily heart that counts. Charles Russell say 'if you stop to kick every dog that barks, you will not get very far.' Sometimes I like to kick them. And no, I haven't gotten very far.

Rightly or wrongly, to me, this forum is where spiritual themes play out and where hearts manifest themselves. This is where it can be seen "they went out from us, because they were not of our sort." "Sorts" can be seen here. Like the person who gags at the mention of "the greater good" when it is exactly pursuit of the greater good that is integral to Christianity as shown in Scripture. Like the person who argues doctrine or prophesy till the cows come home but never once gives indication whether they actually apply Christ-like traits in their own life. Like the person who wears like a badge of honor the #1 apostate trait Peter identifies: a contempt for authority.

Ann is routinely cutting in her remarks. "I am amazed (but maybe I should not be)" she hurls at someone who has resisted her instruction on another thread. She so plainly views herself as one of the intelligentsia with her patience being sorely tried as she talks down to the dumbbells. There is a time and place to say "sometimes people disagree - I can live with that."

Witness has revealed beyond all doubt her craving for audience and authority. @Arauna has nailed it pretty well.

Srecko has chosen to represent himself here as a moron, with his inane giggle hehehe preceding each imagined coup de grace, and his absurdly smilelys at the end. :)))) It reveals someone extremely clever in his own eyes as he taunt those he thinks he outwits.

These characters will scream about ad hominem attacks. Within reason, there is nothing wrong with ad homenem attacks, though I can see why they would not want any leveled at them. Jesus said a Christian should be a living example of Christianity, therefore an ad hominem attack should find little to latch onto. If it does, it is an indication that one is lacking in spiritual qualities and therefore possibly not the one you want to hitch your wagon to.

An internet forum is a battle of the wits and the Bible says it is the heart that matters. No wonder Anthony Morris is not enthused with it.

[Anna]

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

so now I have only five ... a rebellious lot ... as we have a fenced in yard, and they romp about STARK NAKED ... their collars with rabies tags hanging on a nail on the front porch.

Sounds like a fun group!