"STANDING WHERE IT DOES NOT BELONG"

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

28 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

This one shows, how a person got up close and personal to KH sign. How in the world can you do that if you’re not inside the property? Therefore, I don’t need an Elder to speculate this person was trespassing, and God knows what else.

Billy ... you are asking the WRONG QUESTION.

You should not be asking how did the photographer got so close to the building ... he walked through the gate.  The video does show him walking around inside the perimeter fence.

The question should be, how did he get past the heavy steel bars on the WINDOWS to put the flag BEHIND the metal bars and glass.

I have a Canon SX60 Camera that I can zoom in and take pictures of the SIDES of the mountains on the Moon, as they curve around the other side of the  Moon. I could take a picture of a small bug on that window from the center of the street, through the fence.

It's NOT what can you possibly imagine .... It is about what a non-agenda driven person, a reasonable and rational person ... a person who is not suffering from WDS delusions would consider MOST probable.

We all bet our lives on how we interpret facts .... and the bill, either has to be paid mentally, emotionally, intellectually, or with blood and gore. The REAL Universe does not indulge our delusions.

Intellectual INTEGRITY has to come FIRST. ... or nothing else REAL can we see.

[Witness]

22 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is like when I pointed out that the Geoffrey Jackson on Twitter was not the real Geoffrey Jackson and @Witness took a breather from bludgeoning everyone with irrelevant scriptures to say 'How do you know that it is not him?' It has his picture, doesn't it? 'He' even said'pray for our brothers in Russia.

Duh. You know it is not him because she says that it is. Presently it was revealed that he didn't give a hoot in hell for 'our brothers is Russia.' - kill them all as far as he is concerned. It was all a ruse so as to capture the attention of naïve brothers and redirect it to unflattering reports elsewhere.

All fantasy, which drives your world.  I am so sorry because I thought you were beginning to see light.  I actually reintroduced your name in prayer.  You stood out among my generalized plea for all JWs to wake up.   Besides the fact that you love thrusting a knife in my stomach and giving it a good twist, please, point out the irrelevant scriptures and why they are irrelevant.  Was it my last post?  Which Watchtower quote upset you?  My comments were in harmony with the Insight Book’s statements. 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

From my perspective,  ... Intellectual Integrity, or the lack thereof ... is what this ENTIRE thread is actually about.

We have Liberty, and Freedom, and opportunity as Jehovah's Witnesses ...  unmatched in the history of civilization.

It breaks  my heart to see us turn ourselves into a nation of  delusional fools.

[Srecko Sostar]

38 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Let’s face it Srecko, just like in Russia, anything can happen in a country run by communism. This is why I don’t need to show evidence to make a point.

You gave strong evidence of your inside attitude and standpoint. Must be neutrality issue reasoning.

[TrueTomHarley]

6 hours ago, Witness said:

I am so sorry because I thought you were beginning to see light.  I actually reintroduced your name in prayer.  You stood out among my generalized plea for all JWs to wake up.  

This just says it all. It really does.

 

6 hours ago, Witness said:

Besides the fact that you love thrusting a knife in my stomach and giving it a good twist 

It is a little mean for me to do this. I agree with you on that and I’m not necessarily proud of it. I apologize.

But for the sake of drawing out such a remark as you made above that clearly shows you regard yourself as a shining light in the darkness, even as you miss no opportunity to malign the GB, (although you have offered nothing tangible to establish your own authority,  other than an ability to quote scripture, as anyone can do) it was worth it.

 

6 hours ago, Witness said:

please, point out the irrelevant scriptures and why they are irrelevant.  

You quote  so many long passages that I would have to make my reply a mile long—nixxing this and okaying that—and I just won’t do it. 

It reminds me, though it is not exactly the same, of Jesus telling ones that they were searching the scriptures because they thought that by means of them they might find life, when all the time he was there among them. They were reading scripture far more than the ones who actually chose to follow Jesus, many of whom doubtless could barely read, but their obvious high self-regard for themselves torpedoed most of their search.

[Anna]

20 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I ask this, because some issues in congregation are handled exactly by Votes of all baptized congregants. In the same time there is also questions that is matter of interest for all members but elders body not making matter public, to make Resolution, but they push own decision. This i see as discrepancy and intended changing of rules of those who have power when they see  it is in their "interest" or if they perhaps not have "faith" in members.    

it's a difficult situation and you make some valid points. What I do know is that congregations are not "policed" from HQ but that each congregation has some relative autonomy, depending on local practices and customs of the country they are in. A typical example is that of beards. It is the elders as a body, who decide whether brothers with beards will be given privileges or not, not HQ. Also, one of the reasons the CO visits every 6 months is to make sure that the congregation is happy, and that the elders are not "lording it over the flock". There are congregations that are thriving and doing very well, and then others that are not. There are reasons behind that. And those reasons will be made known to the CO. (By either some elder, who does not agree with some decision, or publishers). Let's say for example that the elders decided it's ok to fly a flag, but most in the congregation are upset about it. So some publishers move away, or stop going, or stop answering, or stop field service etc....The CO will detect the spirit of the congregation and will see something is wrong.   The CO knows one important thing that all elders must do, and that is consider the congregation's spiritual interests first. As shepherds, they must treat the flock with care. So when the CO comes back in 6 months, and the congregation is the same or worse, then the CO knows things did not get resolved and some further action has to be taken.

 

20 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

In last sentence you mentioned how they will take in account conscience of others. This is possible to found or to get to know by; Voting system or by Referendum or by some sort of Survey. 

That is one way of doing it. But the elders should know their flock well, and they should know how individuals feel. And I can tell you, if someone complains (about an important matter) then the elders WILL know about it. (Unless they are blind and deaf).

20 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Letter from HQ say nothing about this, but put on elders body exclusivity to decide. Well again, what sort of system is Congregation? Religious/democracy shape where people sometimes have privilege to vote and sometimes they don't? Management established by WT HQ in Elders body structure? Theocratic structure where all persons making unite decision UNDER lead of holy spirit?  Or something else? 

I already partially answered it above. It depends on what it is. But regardless of how it's done, it should always be done in the spiritual interest of the congregation. And if it is not, then the congregation will show signs of suffering and this will be seen by the CO and will be remedied. But I do agree with you, some things should be put before the whole congregation.

[Srecko Sostar]

13 minutes ago, Anna said:

it's a difficult situation and you make some valid points. What I do know is that congregations are not "policed" from HQ but that each congregation has some relative autonomy, depending on local practices and customs of the country they are in. A typical example is that of beards. It is the elders as a body, who decide whether brothers with beards will be given privileges or not, not HQ. Also, one of the reasons the CO visits every 6 months is to make sure that the congregation is happy, and that the elders are not "lording it over the flock". There are congregations that are thriving and doing very well, and then others that are not. There are reasons behind that. And those reasons will be made known to the CO. (By either some elder, who does not agree with some decision, or publishers). Let's say for example that the elders decided it's ok to fly a flag, but most in the congregation are upset about it. So some publishers move away, or stop going, or stop answering, or stop field service etc....The CO will detect the spirit of the congregation and will see something is wrong.   The CO knows one important thing that all elders must do, and that is consider the congregation's spiritual interests first. As shepherds, they must treat the flock with care. So when the CO comes back in 6 months, and the congregation is the same or worse, then the CO knows things did not get resolved and some further action has to be taken.

It is known to me too how congregations (read elders) in the same town have different views about same things. Wearing suits or not in summer time, long or short shirt sleeve, organized excursions to the assembly or nothing similar, whether the party is organized in a private house or brothers and sister would like to rent some place, beard you mentioned is mostly forbidden in every cong., or if you (not you but some bro :))) want to have it such person is almost less then sister,because sister can have presentation on stage, beard man not. Wearing a beard, for example, was/is in fact doctrinal matter,not just  local, folkloric issue,  because that was mentioned in study editions of Wt magazine and similar internal publication for week meetings. I just have unproven assumption how this issue was from Russel - Rutherford period. And dragging it to this days. 

Flag issue was raised to highly doctrinal matter because of significance for  Neutrality Issue. And it is General Issue and not just Local Elders Dilemma. In this i have little different view than You. If elders by decision they made stumble congregant or more than one it is too long for waiting 6 or more months to solve matter. Bible say "before sun went down" aka sunset :))) 

 

42 minutes ago, Anna said:

That is one way of doing it. But the elders should know their flock well, and they should know how individuals feel. And I can tell you, if someone complains (about an important matter) then the elders WILL know about it. (Unless they are blind and deaf).

:)))))) too many of them are blind and deaf and mute, only humans but on powerful position. Haha, complains comes to their ears because of whistlers.

Thanks for correspondence. 

 

[JW Insider]

Well I got an answer from the brother with connections to Chile and elsewhere in South America, but it's very hard to believe. The answer is so odd that I hate to offer it yet as an explanation.

So I also called about 12 different KH numbers, including an Assembly Hall number and the main number for Chile on JW.ORG (which matches the number on the "infamous" letterhead). I recorded the messages I got on each number. Some rang 'forever' and some had "no service" messages, and two had recorded messages after which I could have left a call-back number, but didn't. I am still going to have to call again next week, to attempt further verification.

The friend I met with definitely knows about the Internet "hoopla." The son-in-law who was a Circuit Overseer there has come back to the USA more than once with his wife (my friend's daughter) due to a medical condition treated here. They have gone back, but each time to a different assignment, sometimes in different countries of South America. So I couldn't get an exact response about "a firsthand" experience with the topic in Chile since 2014. Neither of his daughters (or sons-in-law) are currently in Chile. 

So here was the answer that still needs more verification (mostly because I find it hard to believe). He stated it very matter-of-factly, and didn't seem to see a problem with it at all.

Circuit Overseers are evidently told to strongly encourage the display of the flag on specific mandatory days ONLY in those areas where there have been past legal issues in the area regarding enforcement. Enforcement is not uniform, even though it applies to all buildings. Other circuit overseers have been told to strongly discourage the display of the flag on the premises of a KH, with certain exceptions regarding property ownership by individuals volunteering a property's free use as a KH.

I asked about why he thought an inconsistent policy would be encouraged. His answer to that question was what really seemed more disconcerting:

"Because if some congregations do and some don't, the government will see that this is a matter of conscience, and will realize that they [local JWs] aren't being ordered to handle the matter one way or another [based on a directive] from the [Watch Tower] Society."

I didn't have the heart to point out that this is a strange way to prove that something is really a matter of conscience.

[Anna]

42 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

beard you mentioned is mostly forbidden in every cong., or if you (not you but some bro :))) want to have it such person is almost less then sister,because sister can have presentation on stage, beard man not

Actually that is not true. One of the brothers in my mum's congregation has a full beard and is an elder and WT conductor. Then there is another brother, a ministerial servant with a goatiee. He does the microphones. I would post a picture of them but can't because of privacy reasons. Also I have a number of friends in England who have short beards. Now it's coming to the USA as well. There are brothers in some congregations who have beards. So far no privileges, but they go out in field service. 10 years ago you would have not seen that here (USA).  I guess it's because of this Sept 2016 WT : ¹⁷ What about the propriety of brothers wearing a beard? The Mosaic Law required men to wear a beard. However, Christians are not under the Mosaic Law, nor are they obliged to observe it. (Lev. 19:27; 21:5; Gal. 3:24, 25) In some cultures, a neatly trimmed beard may be acceptable and respectable, and it may not detract at all from the Kingdom message. In fact, some appointed brothers have beards. Even so, some brothers might decide not to wear a beard. (1 Cor. 8:9, 13; 10:32) In other cultures or localities, beards are not the custom and are not considered acceptable for Christian ministers. In fact, having one may hinder a brother from bringing glory to God by his dress and grooming and his being irreprehensible.—Rom. 15:1-3; 1 Tim. 3:2, 7.    After that WT our CO at the time said that he is expecting some beards soon. And he was right.

53 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Flag issue was raised to highly doctrinal matter because of significance for  Neutrality Issue. And it is General Issue and not just Local Elders Dilemma. In this i have little different view than You.

Saluting the Flag was raised to a highly doctrinal matter. The flag itself is not the problem. Its just an emblem, or identifier of a country. Just like money is not the problem, it's the love of money.

57 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Bible say "before sun went down" aka sunset :))) 

True. But with some things it is not possible. Sometimes patience is the way to go.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

too many of them are blind and deaf and mute, only humans but on powerful position. Haha, complains comes to their ears because of whistlers.

Not the elders I know! But yes, there can be some that are not very good. But I have only met about 3 in my life time. Things always get sorted out in the end though. Yes, the whistlers are good sometimes.

[Anna]

36 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

"Because if some congregations do and some don't, the government will see that this is a matter of conscience, and will realize that they [local JWs] aren't being ordered to handle the matter one way or another [based on a directive] from the [Watch Tower] Society."

I didn't have the heart to point out that this is a strange way to prove that something is really a matter of conscience.

If this fact, then the WT really needs to revisit the definition of conscience!

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

If this fact, then the WT really needs to revisit the definition of conscience!

In some ways, I am impressed that it's a step in the right direction. Allowing for some differences on conscience matters is still better than saying everything must be done a specific way because that's the only way a Bible-trained conscience should allow for. 

The brother is probably 75 to 80, so I didn't press him, but he was the one who used the terms "strongly encouraged" and "strongly discouraged." It's true that it implies that no one was told they must do it this way or that way, but it also implies that "loaded" or "leading" language would be used. We all know that this produces the implied idea: "I'm not telling you what to do, but you you know what you need to do . . . 'wink, wink,' . . . 'nod, nod.' "

[Anna]

4 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

In some ways, I am impressed that it's a step in the right direction. Allowing for some differences on conscience matters is still better than saying everything must be done a specific way because that's the only way a Bible-trained conscience should allow for. 

The brother is probably 70, so I didn't press him, but he was the one who used the terms "strongly encouraged" and "strongly discouraged." It's true that it implies that no one was told they must do it this way or that way, but it also implies that "loaded" or "leading" language would be used. We all know that this produces the implied idea: "I'm not telling you what to do, but you you know what you must do . . . 'wink, wink,' . . . 'nod, nod.' "

Right. So they are effectively being told what to do, (in order to show the government it's a matter of conscience for the congregation) therefor where does the matter of conscience come into this? It's another one of those paradoxes! Actually it's more like a contradiction.