Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/02/2018 in all areas

  1. 7 points
    Here is the weekly material for the weeks of April 29 and May 6, 2019 TB Watchtower April 29, 2019–May 5, 2019.pdf Watchtower April 29, 2019–May 5, 2019.doc MEETING WORKBOOK week of April 29–May 5 , 2019.doc MEETING WORKBOOK week of April 29–May 5 , 2019.pdf MEETING WORKBOOK week of April 29–May 5 , 2019 text only.doc MEETING WORKBOOK week of April 29–May 5 , 2019 text only.pdf CBS April 29–May 5, 2019.pdf CBS April 29–May 5, 2019.doc Additional Highlights -April 29–May 5, 2019.doc Additional Highlights -April 29–May 5, 2019.pdf Watchtower May 6-12, 2019.doc Watchtower May 6-12, 2019.pdf MEETING WORKBOOK week of May 6-12 , 2019.doc MEETING WORKBOOK week of May 6-12 , 2019.pdf MEETING WORKBOOK week of May 6-12 , 2019 text only.doc MEETING WORKBOOK week of May 6-12 , 2019 text only.pdf CBS May 6-12, 2019.doc CBS May 6-12, 2019.pdf Additional Highlights -May 6-12, 2019.doc Additional Highlights -May 6-12, 2019.pdf
  2. 6 points
    Here is the material for the next 2 weeks-- May 13-19, and May 20-26 , 2019. TB Watchtower May 13-19, 2019.doc Watchtower May 13-19, 2019.pdf MEETING WORKBOOK week of May 13-19, 2019.doc MEETING WORKBOOK week of May 13-19, 2019.pdf MEETING WORKBOOK week of May 13-19, 2019 text only.doc MEETING WORKBOOK week of May 13-19, 2019 text only.pdf CBS May 13-19, 2019.doc CBS May 13-19, 2019.pdf Additional Highlights -May 13-19, 2019.pdf Additional Highlights -May 13-19, 2019.doc Watchtower May 20-26, 2019.doc Watchtower May 20-26, 2019.pdf MEETING WORKBOOK week of May 20-26 , 2019 text only.doc MEETING WORKBOOK week of May 20-26 , 2019.pdf MEETING WORKBOOK week of May 20-26 , 2019.doc MEETING WORKBOOK week of May 20-26 , 2019 text only.pdf CBS May 20-26,2019.doc CBS May 20-26,2019.pdf Additional Highlights -May 20-26, 2019.doc Additional Highlights -May 20-26, 2019.pdf
  3. 6 points
    Here is the material for the weeks of the memorial April 15-21 & April 22-28, 2019. TB Watchtower April 15-21, 2019.pdf Watchtower April 15-21, 2019.doc Watchtower April 22-28, 2019.doc Watchtower April 22-28, 2019.pdf MEETING WORKBOOK week of April 22-28 , 2019 text only.pdf MEETING WORKBOOK week of April 22-28 , 2019 text only.doc MEETING WORKBOOK week of April 22-28 , 2019.pdf MEETING WORKBOOK week of April 22-28 , 2019.doc Additional Highlights -April 22-28, 2019.pdf Additional Highlights -April 22-28, 2019.doc CBS April 22-28, 2019.pdf CBS April 22-28, 2019.doc
  4. 6 points

    UN Compact 2018

    Interesting article and video..... On 11 December most countries will sign the UN Compact in Morocco. It is part of the "Agenda 21" plan for the 21 st century started in 1992. Read up about Agenda 21, agenda 2030 and about this Compact for Migration which will criminalize anyone saying anything against the UN plan. Those countries who signed are obliged to assist migrants financially and basically all people have a right to migrate....(no more borders). About 20 nations are now fighting it and will be forced by fines for not complying. It is part of the UN plan for one world government... Is this real? Or a conspiracy.... ? Watch this little video and give comments of the implications. I have the original documents and on this Youtube link you can also download the UN document "agenda 21". NGOs have already been receiving funds to implement it for the past 20 years and both republican and democratic governments has been changing laws to implement is..... It has been going on under our noses and the general public does not know. My interest in this is the fulfillment of prophecy which indicates the UN or coalition of governments to rule for short period of time before Armageddon. There are huge implications to this .... but first watch this little video to begin the discussion.... here is the link.....
  5. 5 points
    @BillyTheKid46, You seem to spend an inordinate amount of energy trying to provoke persons into fighting with you. It is as though you have a NEED to fight. I have seen this from you (and yours) for quite a while now. In a recent thread about Brother Morris visiting a liquor store, I agreed with you completely that the post was irrelevant and irreverent and it tried to make something scandalous out of a potentially innocent activity without 100 percent proof. (And I thought your pun was good, too. See page 4 of that topic.) You and Melinda Mills spoke about the Venezuelan economic issues under Maduro. You helped to clarify the picture that Melinda posted, the one with worthless money in the gutter, when you provided a link to the explanatory SNOPES article. I mentioned that I appreciated that same SNOPES link you provided because it gave details about how and when those pictures came about, and I quoted verbatim from your link. Then you inexplicably decided to reject the explanation from your own link, and claim that I was somehow attacking the vision that your mother had told you about in the 1960's. What made this so odd was that I had already agreed that the picture was related to that same expectation. My own mother referenced that point from Ezekiel 7:19, as did Melinda's. You said: BTK: "What was fasinating to me, My mother pointed it out to me in the '60s as a devout JW that would happen, and it sure the hell did. There is no photoshop on that. It's not a tale." To which I responded, that in spite of the propaganda use that was presented in SNOPES that, Yes. . . : JWI: "It was still related to Maduro, and is still related to money becoming worthless. It is still supportive of the idea that people will be throwing their money (even their gold) in the streets, because money is of no value as a savior in the day of Jehovah's fury. It shows how bad things can get." To which you responded: BTK: "I understand you are trying desperately to delegitimize my mother’s vision. Do that with your own mother, lay off mine." I didn't bother to respond, after which you added: BTK: "Its unfortunate someone like JWinsider decided to insult and denigrate a relative, and James thinking it’s funny to do just that, makes them the biggest AH’s in this forum." I'm sure that a few people didn't realize that you had made up the whole thing about someone "denigrating a relative" just to provoke a fight in the same way worldly people do when they hurl insults about each other's mother, and call each other "AH," which has been used as an abbreviation for a**hole. When you provoke and the other party doesn't respond in kind, I'm sure it can be frustrating. But please don't bring these same worldly attitudes and posturings into every topic. You end up discrediting yourself instead of your target. "A slave of the Lord does not need to fight." (2 Tim 2:24)
  6. 5 points
    Where did Adam get his?
  7. 5 points
    That's why he's called God's son God completed the rest of the DNA for him
  8. 5 points
    It is understandable for me to see your disappoint about R.F. or similar characters inside JW. Yes, perhaps your view about him is correct. But for many of us is of less concern why he wrote a book about GB and WT. We can feel sorrow for him or we can say he is/was hypocrite. Nevertheless, information's we get from his inside insight about WT GB mechanism are more important then he alone. Because "The Truth" is in question, not he, not me, not you. He was the one who has must struggle with HIS conscience why he stay inside and support all wrongs he knew about, despite knowledge he had. He was the one who has been responsible for covering this too long and so on. I do not care, in final stage of matter, what was his motive. Only important thing for me is; Is it that or this, what he said, true?
  9. 5 points
    Just a little more longwinded opinion here. I think his tone and most of his words were intended to portray himself as someone who recognizes that there were and are human rights issues to take care of now and to avoid in the future. He also is is to be seen as a source of wise advice, giving the impression that if he had just known some of these issues in advance that he would have known better ways to handle these things. But he also recognizes that some issues are too complex to make snap decisions about on the spot. He gives the impression that he is generally knowledgeable, perhaps had an idea about some of these issues, but was really just now learning the specifics, either on the spot or from reading the papers provided in preparation for the meeting. Otherwise he would be portraying himself and therefore the Russian nation as knowingly culpable in any of the errors that had been made in the name of the state. That's the big difference in using the term to mean "prosecute" vs "persecute." If he had intentionally used the term to mean "persecute" this would have been very much at odds with that tenor -- it admits national culpability -- and that he KNOWS there is national culpability. That's why it is very different from "prosecute" which admits only procedural error at most, e.g., too strict a definition being put on the word "extremist," and therefore something that could potentially be redressed merely through a change or adjustment in judicial procedure, if deemed necessary. To me, his words indicate that he would not be averse to a positive change in the procedure against "extremist" groups, especially when these are generally seen as "Christian" groups. It seems he would be more forgiving of first time offenses of trying to proselytize. I don't get the impression that he, on his own, will want to make a big deal of what happened with the Witnesses. But he will no doubt be informed again of the JW status and will be more knowledgeable each time he is re-informed, and this could easily lead to a situation very soon where he asks for a change to the procedure against JWs. The JWs may have to "compromise" in the sense of being more of an autonomous religious group in Russia that doesn't give the impression that it merely takes all marching orders from outside of Russia (New York). To work well in Russia, the state wants to know that tens of thousands of people are not going to suddenly begin carrying "Religion is a Snare and a Racket" signs in the streets, or drink Kool-Aid, or collect money for a corporation in Wallkill, New York where instruction will trickle down through other branches to update rules about where new Halls will be built, what to do about national anthems, military service, blood transfusion policy, or look to an internal judicial system that could be seen as competing with or overriding that of the state. When he is advised again about the JWs, he will be concerned about how it looks to his own nation, outside international organizations, how it reflects on himself, and therefore, if making a change is useful or worth the effort. I don't get the impression he is anxious to make a big deal about it. I see it very possible that his own advisors on these issues could talk him out of doing something, even if he thinks it is advisable. I see right now as a good time for the WTS HQ to help orchestrate the leverage of human rights organizations. Getting 8 million people to write the same set of letters is not as impressive to him as it seems to us, because it only proves that the very thing he doesn't want in a Russian religion, exists to the nth degree in our religion: that everyone follows orders from the same HQ outside of Russia.
  10. 5 points
    In Russian "преследовать" can be translated as "prosecute" or "persecute". Maybe it is better to ask the president what did he mean by saying this :D
  11. 5 points
    . “When you give … do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing” (Matthew 6:3) Matthew 6:1 (BBE) Take care not to do your good works before men, to be seen by them Matthew 6:4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. Personaly i think IF you seeking for blessings its bettet to do hours with out telling anyone.
  12. 5 points
    JW Insider

    In Defense of Shunning

    From what I can gather here about you, I think that most of the 130 do not believe you are evil, and probably do not wish to treat you badly, but as you say, they THINK they are following the rules. Also, they will not merely treat you this way just because they feel you were concerned about the "child abuse" issue. If you have told the whole story then it is pretty clear that you are treated as someone who has formally disassociated, and we are told to treat that person the exact same way as someone who was disfellowshipped. (I think that is an abuse of power by the way on the part of the WTS policy.) It's probable that someone has added a few other "details" for the ears of the congregation, real or imagined. The more likely concern is that you have somehow become a spiritual danger because you are actively seeking out false information from apostates to spread it among the congregation in order to sow divisions and contentions. Many in the congregation must believe that your current motive is to promote such apostasy, even if you are personally still "salvagable." They are told that to treat you like this is a way to save you. I personally would not follow the rules in this regard when it is a person I have known and if I feel that my continued association is more likely to be scriptural than unscriptural. There have been two persons where my opinion of them and my association with them didn't change a bit after they were disfellowshipped. One stayed out and one came back. I don't advertise this to the rest of the congregation, for fear of stumbling others, and for my own fear of the same kind of unscriptural disciplinary treatment that others have been subjected to. But there is also a certain kind of friendship we build up with others that goes beyond rules and regulations. We show a certain type of loyalty (loyal love) to the other person, and they to us. In the Bible, if David had become a murderer and an adulterer, Jonathan would have still loyally stuck by him. "There is a friend that sticks closer than a brother." (Prov 18:24) I have seen several friendships like this, and would hope that no human rules would ever get in the way. I had a roommate at Bethel who joked that his friend who had recently been invited to Bethel, was like this. He claimed that even if he murdered someone, that this friend would never change. I thought about that and decided that he should move out and room with this arriving friend. If we truly have love, even for our enemies, we should have no problem dealing with tax collectors and sinners. How much more should we show love to someone who is in dire straits for a reason we already understand and one we can help them understand. This does not mean that I would go out of my way to seek out such a person, unless I was sure I could help them feel better with some encouragement. Often they truly put themselves in a situation where the best thing they to do is to find their way back into the organization and I will often encourage that. But I would never encourage family members to disfellowship themselves from that disfellowshipped person. It has been rare, but as I said, I have had a couple of occasions to "break the rule" in this regard. I like a lot of what the GB and the JW org are doing, and I love many of my fellow associates in the congregation. But, YES, I really mean it. Speaking out is what I am doing right now. I often speak out against unscriptural policies, or discuss them here to help make sure whether my own reasoning is wrong. I don't have to speak out in front of my local congregation, nor do I cause divisions. I speak out on this forum, and I will sometimes speak frankly and honestly with people who approach me in person. I also send a couple letters a year to the GB and JW org. For the past few years, these have been anonymous. I have used this site to try to formulate the scriptural reasoning behind these letters. I have already spoken out against abuse and bad policy in this regard for about seven years now -- not just on forums but in person. This is why I cannot completely understand the treatment you are getting. At several opportunities over the last 30 years, I have spoken out against a policy of tolerating spousal physical abuse against wives, because my own sister had an experience like this with the usual requested cover-up from authorities and hospital personnel. I have even turned in a young 20 year old brother who showed serious problems in this regard at gatherings. He is not quite a person of full mental capacity, but this won't matter to an abused sister who would feel traumatized if he takes these types of actions any further. And it's quite possible he already poses a criminal danger when not in public. There should be heightened awareness of these problems to protect all potential victims, and where necessary, secular authorities and law enforcement need to be involved.
  13. 5 points
    I understand your points and you have expressed them very well. I will address each point you raised separately, but first I just want to mention a few general things which have perhaps shaped the perception of people like you and me. I grew up in the "truth" in the early 80's when the GB was mostly an anonymous mystery, at least to many who were living outside of America. The "truths" people like me assimilated during those years were turned into dogmatic doctrines by people like me. We always talked starting a phrase with "we KNOW....." as if we could never make a mistake. We had a general attitude of superiority. WE had the truth and therefor WE were somehow better than other people. WE had an answer for "everything". And then came the age of the internet. It was a kind of "Internet enlightenment". It had been around for a while before that, but soon everybody had access to it, and was using it. Information that the ordinary person wouldn't have had before, became available to them at the touch of a button. There were things that were "discovered" by the ordinary brother and sister that were there all along, but that were only known by more prominent brothers and sisters, which included those involved with Bethel, but also ordinary brothers and sisters which happened to live closer to the "source" . But now the ordinary brother came to know things that at times "shocked" him, because in their little personal world they had built a picture, but that picture wasn't always correct. As I mentioned, dogmatic opinions on various subjects were formed, which actually were not intended to be understood that way. Here is an example of what I mean; I am sure you know of instances yourself, where a elder giving a talk would expound on something he felt strongly about. A kind of "pet" subject of his. Most of the time the audience would take what he said as gospel truth, and talk about it like it was fact and part and parcel of "official" teachings. But all it actually was, was the brothers opinion. This happened many times in the days of only a brief outline of a talk, giving the speaker much freedom to practically say anything he wanted. A classic and famous example is that of Charles Sinutko giving the talk about 1975. He wasn't just an elder, but a district overseer, and he gave that misleading talk in front of an audience of thousands. Similar talks were given around the world no doubt. I was too young at the time but @Outta Here remembers such talks, and also the almost "fanatical" approach of some in the congregations. Was this all the GB's doing? It wasn't, but it shows the freedom that existed with regard to expressing ones opinion in an "official" setting, by means of talks etc. As you probably know, now there are strict outlines for talks. Not only that, but elders are instructed to Only give the Bible's advice when serving in a shepherding or judicial capacity, and never give their personal opinions. I am sure this new approach became a necessity because of the damage personal opinions had caused in the past. One I want to focus on specifically is the handling of child abuse. The congregation was well equipped to prevent child abuse on the surface. But it was all contingent on members actually reading and applying what was in the publications that discussed those issues. The JW congregation has always been very strict on upholding moral standards. In comparison, the rest of the world was in a moral decline (think "free love" that started in the 60's) and with it no doubt came problems associated with loose morals. Secular authorities were ill equipped to handle accusations of rape and child sexual abuse, as you yourself can testify. In this environment Elders were trying to handle something that was disgusting and shocking and should have never occurred in the Christian congregation in the first place! Some Elders got confused and misapplied WT 1973/11/15 "question from readers" regarding the application of 1 Cor 6:1-7, and the interpretation of 1Timothy 5:19. Many Elders were stuck between a rock and a hard place with regard to reporting to the police because of the way the police handled (or not handled) these cases, and because many victims and their families did not want to report to the police. It was almost like an attitude of: "this is our private problem, and we will handle it as our private problem". Finally today, secular authorities are educated and equipped enough to address these issues properly, and I would say we are at the pinnacle of "enlightenment" with regard to CSA, at least in the western world. Victims are at last able to come forward and be heard. Abusers are being tried and punished. This has also spilled into historic sexual abuse of women as in the #metoo brigade. BUT despite all this, CSA and the abuse of women is as rampant as ever unfortunately.... You have a good heart John and I feel you have unnecessarily thrown the baby out with the bathwater. But I do want to address those issues individually that you mentioned, but I will have to do that tomorrow now as I am running out of time and have to go and cook dinner....
  14. 4 points
    Here is the material for the next 2 weeks May 27–June 2 and June 3-9 , 2019. TB Watchtower May 27, 2019–June 2, 2019.doc Watchtower May 27, 2019–June 2, 2019.pdf Watchtower June 3-9, 2019.doc Watchtower June 3-9, 2019.pdf MEETING WORKBOOK week of May 27–June 2 , 2019.doc MEETING WORKBOOK week of May 27–June 2 , 2019.pdf MEETING WORKBOOK week of May 27–June 2 , 2019 text only.doc MEETING WORKBOOK week of May 27–June 2 , 2019 text only.pdf MEETING WORKBOOK week of June 3-9 , 2019.pdf MEETING WORKBOOK week of June 3-9 , 2019.doc MEETING WORKBOOK week of June 3-9 , 2019 text only.pdf MEETING WORKBOOK week of June 3-9 , 2019 text only.doc CBS May 27–June 2 ,2019.doc CBS May 27–June 2 ,2019.pdf CBS June 3-9, 2019.pdf CBS June 3-9, 2019.doc Additional Highlights -May 27–June 2.doc Additional Highlights -May 27–June 2.pdf Additional Highlights -June 3-9.doc Additional Highlights -June 3-9.pdf
  15. 4 points
    JW Insider


    That's true. You can. That's the nature of social media. You could tell the truth, and no one needs to believe you. I could tell the truth, and no one needs to believe me. Someone could just as easily make something up and no one needs to believe them. Hypothetical example that would probably never happen: I could claim that Charles Taze Russell was the first Vice President of the Watch Tower Society (which he was, and this is something I'm sure you already know) and you could get angry and claim that he was never the first Vice President, only the first President. If people believed you, I'd have less credibility. If people believed me, you'd have less credibility. But even if no one believed me now, someday they might buy a book by B. Schulz, for example, and see that a seemingly unbiased source agreed with me. You might then remember how angry you were, and begin to re-evaluate other things I claimed. But I might never know that a small trivial item like that might have made you positively re-evaluate some less trivial things that you once fought against. This is why, I have no problem bringing up lesser known items that you treat as merely conjecture at the moment. Perhaps one day you will run across one of Covington's relatives, or a former Bethelite who knows more about it. Or perhaps it will be for another reason altogether, perhaps when/if the Society changes its stance on a certain doctrine or two. And perhaps none of these things will ever happen, and you will be suspicious of me for the rest of your life. It's not a problem as long as my own conscience is clear, between me and Jehovah. As you already admitted, nothing is "proven." How, for example, do you know that he was DF'd for excessive drinking? Did you see this, or did someone claim it, and it made sense to you? Did you know for a fact that he was officially reinstated? Perhaps you heard his funeral talk. Was something said about his "drinking" in that talk? The funeral talk (1978) mentions that he was now considered one of the anointed, which surprised many at the time. Do we take Brother Colin Quackenbush's word for it? What if Brother Quackenbush thought he needed to say this to protect the reputation of the newly defined "governing body" since it had long been associated with "the board of directors." The GB was already claiming that it was "representing" the entire 10,000 or so members of the "faithful and discreet slave" as they were still defined in 1978. Could Quackenbush have been trying to gain some extra credit for himself as a good friend of Covington, as if the one who had talked him out of doing something rash and stupid? I didn't know that a "tell-all" piece had been referenced on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Also, I'm not worried about how I'm quoted elsewhere. I'm still semi-anonymous, so what does it matter? I've been asked several times if people can quote me on their sites. I always say yes, and that they don't even have to credit me. But I have also found things I've written used in ways I didn't like, so that last part might have been a mistake. Always feel free to correct any mistakes. According to A. H. MacMillan, and as substantiated by others, this was only to happen in the event of C.T. Russell's death. True. And not just from the "corporation" through its bylaws. There were organizational "harvest siftings" and the equivalent of both organizational and congregational "excommunications" well before the 1947 Awake! that condemned excommunication as a pagan practice. (Look at Olin Moyle's disfellowshipping, for example.) The only thing that changed in the early 1950s was that there were now consistent organizational procedures for both congregational and organizational disfellowshippings. Consistency can result in better justice, so this should not be a completely unwelcome development. I gave him no input about apostates, and I don't know what recanting of his you are talking about. As I recall, I only skimmed some of what he had already written the way a proofreader or copy-editor might read it. I found a few minor errors like typos, mostly, and made a few suggestions about using statistics in such a way that they would NOT be vulnerable to attack by apostates. Of course, just as you said at the beginning, that you could say a million things, but without proof, it's all just conjecture.
  16. 4 points


    I'm just trying to be fair, and I believe the truth is the truth and a lie is a lie no matter who says it.
  17. 4 points
    We have got a great way to minimise our Not-At-Homes. We've been doing it for years: Not Homes.mp4
  18. 4 points
    I could be in serious trouble. They just finished remodeling the Kingdom Hall, and there are two quarter walls, one left of stage and one right. Gulp. Will the brother start entering and exiting the platform via those quarter walls, just like I saw them do in the other congregation?
      Hello guest!
    The circuit overseer was visiting, so I started pumping him on it. “‘Don’t let the brothers walk behind the quarter wall to go on-stage,” I told him. I was not too insistent, one mustn’t overdo it on these things. I mean, I don’t want to be the brother who meets him in the parking lot to tell him that all the brothers are no good, and they aren’t loving at all, and they are deadwood in the ministry, and come to think of it, they don’t even like God, and so he, the circuit overseer, has a lot of work to do here, and he says “Yeah, I think I’ve found the problem already.” I did about as much as I could. He seemed to be sympathetic. “Yeah, I know,” he said. “You see them, then you don’t as they walk behind the wall, and then you do as they emerge from the other side—it IS a little funny.” So I gave it a good try. But he was just biding his time to get away from me. He is not going to do anything at all, I don’t think, other than tell the brothers to go on the platform when it is their turn to speak. What does he care how they do it? It doesn’t bother HIM any one way of the other. It’s ME it’s driving nuts, and then he will say “Well, you were mostly there already.” I have always tried to stack the deck. Those elders way back in the day would have a meeting coming up and I would pump various ones separately over multitude of picayune things, so that one of them said at their meeting (as I was told later) “Wait a minute. Who’s running this congregation? You, me, or Tom Harley?” But lo! A miracle has occurred. Never never never NEVER did I think I would EVER agree with @Jack Ryan. But I do on something. Jack Ryan! who if a Bethel brother so much as farts, he starts a derogatory thread on it. Jack Ryan! who has been known to start as many as a dozen critical threads in a single day. Jack Ryan! who I think regards himself as some sort of a secret agent/freedom fighter. What is it with this character? Yet, I saw, yes—I witnessed it while visiting another congregation, brothers clapping after each and every exchange that took place up front, whether li8ve or on video, just the way Jack was complaining about. Suddenly he becomes as a prophet from on high. That too, drove me nuts!—all that clapping. You don’t clap over every single skit of one sister offering a tract to another, who, of course accepts it a just little too eagerly, it seems to me, from what I recall in the actual ministry. You clap spontaneously when something really knocks your socks off. You clap when a child or even anyone gives his or her first talk on the school. You clap when the spirit genuinely moves you, for anything. You clap after the public talk, even giving the speaker the benefit of the doubt if it wasn’t that—um—good. But you don’t clap for every minor exchange of trivial words! It only cheapens the times that there really is something to clap for. I know where this comes from, just like I know where walking behind the quarter walls came from. Some pious brother doubtless wanted to “show appreciation” for everything under the sun and so started up the habit, thinking he was setting a ‘good example’ and that others would follow, and those others, not wanting to seem unappreciative, did follow, even some half-heartedly. However, it is possible that it is not the pious brother at all who is responsible, but rather the one who is too swayed by the new-agey mantra that you have to lavish praise on children non-stop just for showing up, for the sake of building self-esteem, and so they clap if a brother so much as clears his throat. I mean, don’t go pinning this one on “theocracy,” Jack—it could just as well be that trendy “world” that you are so enamored with. This will not the easiest habit to break. I mean, you can hardly sit there and scowl, so as to provide the counter-example. The best strategy is just to contain it, as you might strive to do with a measles outbreak. Don’t send speakers to that congregation for awhile, until the illness passes. I doubt I can even enlist the circuit overseer in any serious capacity on this one. He will probably just roll his eyes when I meet him about it in the parking lot. C’mon, DO IT RIGHT, BROTHERS!
  19. 4 points
    The Librarian

    Baptismal questions

    *** w1955 7/1 411 Christian Baptism for the New World Society *** 15 A Christian, therefore, cannot be baptized in the name of the one actually doing the immersing or in the name of any man, nor in the name of any organization, but in the name of the Father, the Son and the holy spirit. This shows, among other things, that Christianity is not a denominational affair, that sects have nothing to do with it. “Does the Christ exist divided? Paul was not impaled for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I am thankful I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name.”—1 Cor. 1:13-15, NW. *** w1966 10/1 603-4 Serving with Everlasting Life in View *** 15 This is what we mean when we dedicate our lives to Jehovah. We do not dedicate ourselves to a religion, nor to a man, nor to an organization. No, we dedicate ourselves to the Supreme Sovereign of the Universe, our Creator, Jehovah God himself. This makes dedication a very personal relationship between us and Jehovah. -------------------------------------- *** w1958 8/1 478 Baptism *** 22 It is essential that with the mouth a public declaration of faith be made. Two questions are therefore asked the candidates: (1) Have you recognized yourself before Jehovah God as a sinner who needs salvation, and have you acknowledged to him that this salvation proceeds from him, the Father, through his Son Jesus Christ? (2) On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for salvation have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as he reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the enlightening power of the holy spirit? 23 Everyone who can answer “Yes” to these questions is eligible for baptism and should take this step without hesitation or delay. *** w1960 5/15 308 "What Prevents Me from Getting Baptized?" *** 23 The first question is: Have you recognized yourself before Jehovah God as a sinner who needs salvation, and have you acknowledged to him that this salvation proceeds from him, the Father, through his Son Jesus Christ? 24 The second question is: On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for salvation have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as he reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the enlightening power of the holy spirit? 25 Everyone who has answered “Yes” to these two questions is eligible for baptism and should be baptized at that same circuit or district assembly of Jehovah’s witnesses. *** w1973 5/1 280 Baptizing Follows Discipling *** we suggest that you consider the following two questions, which are asked of candidates for baptism: (1) Have you repented of your sins and turned around, recognizing yourself before Jehovah God as a condemned sinner who needs salvation, and have you acknowledged to him that this salvation proceeds from him, the Father, through his SonJesus Christ? (2) On the basis of this faith in God and in his provision for salvation, have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to God to do his will henceforth as he reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the enlightening power of the holy spirit? If you find that you can answer “YES” to these questions, then it would be appropriate for you to speak to the presiding overseer in the congregation of Jehovah’s witnesses with which you associate, with a view to getting baptized. ------------------------------------ *** w1985 6/1 30 Subjecting Ourselves to Jehovah by Dedication *** The first question is: On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will? The second is: Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization? Having answered yes to these questions, candidates are in a right heart condition to undergo Christian baptism. *** w1987 4/15 12 Gaining Peace With God Through Dedication and Baptism *** By baptism you identify yourself as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s worldwide congregation. *** w87 4/15 12 Gaining Peace With God Through Dedication and Baptism *** Recently the two questions addressed to baptismal candidates were simplified so that candidates could answer with full comprehension of what is involved in coming into intimate relationship with God and his earthly organization. *** w1989 1/15 13 What Prevents You From Getting Baptized? *** for the first of two questions the speaker asks them is: “On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?” Only if the individual answers in the affirmative and also understands that his dedication and baptism identify him as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization can he acceptably undergo water immersion. *** knowledge 176 18 Make It Your Aim to Serve God Forever *** Baptism ‘in the name of the holy spirit’ signifies that the baptismal candidate recognizes Jehovah’s holy spirit, or active force, as God’s instrument for carrying out His purposes and for empowering His servants to do His righteous will in association with His spirit-directed organization.
  20. 4 points
    Anybody heard of poetic licence? Def. "The freedom to depart from the facts of a matter or from the conventional rules of language when speaking or writing in order to create an effect."
  21. 4 points
    Srecko Sostar


    Hi, I also wonder, why @Foreigner giving me so much red arrows too ? ...... and not giving any comments on my post, just downvote reaction :))))) perhaps man only know to read and not to write. Even i can write with my poor English :))))))) Thank you very much, to all who reading my comments and have understanding and patience for my grammar
  22. 4 points
    Being as tall as I am, living in the future is no picnic. Keep getting hit by flying cars.
  23. 4 points
  24. 4 points
    Why not ask Brother Morris, then the issue is resolved. Everything else is just embarrassing! April 19th is our MEMORIAL ceremony ❤ ♥ ☼ ♥ ❤ Thank you....
  25. 4 points
    Take note, @The Librarian. Take a screenshot. Save it for posterity. Show it to your grandchildren. JWI made a comment and he only used ONE WORD! I’ve heard of turning over a new leaf before, but this takes it to a whole ‘nother level. ”There were too many...um...uh....notes,” the prince told Mozart.
  26. 4 points
    "The best sign of truth is simplicity and clarity, the lie is always intricate, tawdry and eloquent." - Tolstoy "The lie does not kill with the mallet, but it runs through blood vessels like poison, slowly and cautiously, so it does not even notice how it works" - Ivan Cankar
  27. 4 points
    God made Adam. He made Eve from Adam's rib. Must be a miracle.
  28. 4 points
    The first one sounds just like a label, the second sounds like the person is living the faith.
  29. 4 points
    It's nice to see children dedicating their lives to Jehovah, unfortunately they are also dedicating their lives to an idol called the wtbts in a contract for life.
  30. 4 points
    The problem with everything legal, people don’t see the downside of the government’s action. It’s always the victim and the perpetrator. Then, vultures disguised as lawyer’s go after an institution without giving the failures of the government, and the responsibility they had to a certain situation any thought of their role and accountability. When a victim wants to hold the government accountable, they can’t. It’s protected. But it’s very easy for the government to pass laws to hold institutions accountable, but not the governmental institutions or departments. Sandusky is a good example of such governmental failures. Assistant Coach Mike McQueary was the first independent witness to say he personally saw Sandusky abusing a child in a football locker room shower in 2002. He also provided a firsthand account of how university officials failed to pursue legal action against the coach. When McQueary testified, he did not know about the 1998 incident, in which Sandusky admitted showering with an eleven-year-old boy. Although Penn State police and the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare had investigated the claim in 1998, as in 2002 nothing of consequence was done about it. The Freeh report also made damaging claims against Joe Paterno. Paterno, Penn State Officials hid ‘Critical Facts’ Regarding Sandusky Abuse
  31. 4 points
    I don’t admire him. I use him. And I think he is okay with that. I also have sought to understand him. If anything, I admire you & and a few other very similar personas, for the tenacity to defend the current governing arrangement, which I also defend. But admiring or not admiring has little to do with anything. If my goal is to admire and not admire and to demonstrate my loyalty or lack thereof, then I hang out exclusively with the real flesh and blood people of my circuit, who all like me, barring perhaps a few who think me a windbag. (but how can they be faulted for that?) He spills a lot of dirt. I would never spill the dirt that he does. And lest John B start frothing over this, it must be pointed out that everyone everywhere in every field of activity has some dirt that they could spill. It will always be a question of whether they choose to do it or not.) But the fact is that he is not going away. So how do I come to grips with that? Should I simply repeat ‘Liar! liar!’ when the tone of his writing does not suggest lying? Notice what I said (and you quoted): I didn’t say that his information was accurate. I said that HE deems it accurate. I didn’t say that John was right. I said that there were times when HE thought he was right. There is much I like about JWI, but also much I don’t like. I think he is too swayed by the pretentions of journalism that the cockroaches disappear when you shine the bright light of journalism upon them. I think they just go somewhere else, leaving the illusion that something has been solved, which presently enough generally turns out to be but an illusion. I hate to say it. I really really really really hate to say it, but I think someone I might truly like in person is @James Thomas Rook Jr.if you could only muzzle him, which seems unlikely at present. He is unpretentious, and that is a quality I am drawn to. The Internet is not the congregation. You cannot make it behave as though it is. Brothers look like fools when they insist upon it. In a sense of strict organizational loyalty, none of us should be here, you no more (or less) than JWI. (or me) I hope that the brothers enjoy what I write, but rarely are they my main intended audience. Nor, when I address villains, are they my intended audience. It is the unaligned & often misinformed people that I seek to address, and the relative success or futility of this will probably never be known.) To that end, I sometimes distance myself from certain loyal ones who declare their loyalty (often with heat) but otherwise bring little to the table. (and I don’t think of you as one of them- you bring plenty to the table) In real life, I would hang out with them. But the Internet is not real life.
  32. 4 points
    RECHERCHONS DES PERLES SPIRITUELLES - SEMAINE DU 18 FEVRIER 2019 - ROMAINS 7-8.docx RECHERCHONS DES PERLES SPIRITUELLES - SEMAINE DU 18 FEVRIER 2019 - ROMAINS 7-8.pdf JOYAUX DE LA PAROLE DE DIEU Recherchons des perles spirituelles (8 min) : Romains 7-8 Romains 8:6 : Quelle différence y a-t-il entre « fixer sa pensée sur la chair » et « fixer sa pensée sur l’esprit » ? (w17.06 3) « En effet, fixer sa pensée sur la chair mène à la mort, mais fixer sa pensée sur l’esprit mène à la vie et à la paix » Celui qui pense à la chair se concentre sur ses désirs et ses penchants imparfaits ; il parle constamment des choses de la chair et s’en délecte. Celui qui pense à l’esprit donne la priorité aux choses qui sont en accord avec Dieu et ses pensées ; il se laisse diriger par l’esprit saint. « Penser à la chair » conduit à la mort ; « penser à l’esprit » conduit à la vie et à la paix – w17 06 Avant d’effectuer une action, bonne ou mauvaise, nous y avons forcément pensé. Celui qui fixe constamment son attention sur les choses de la chair ne tarde pas à développer une attitude mentale axée uniquement sur elles. Celles-ci finissent en général par avoir entièrement prise sur ses opinions, ses centres d’intérêt et ce qu’il affectionne. “ Penser à la chair [...] signifie la mort ” — spirituelle aujourd’hui et physique dans un proche avenir. Pourquoi ? “ Parce que penser à la chair signifie inimitié contre Dieu, car elle n’est pas soumise à la loi de Dieu, et même, elle ne peut pas l’être. Ceux donc qui vivent selon la chair ne peuvent plaire à Dieu. ” “ Penser à l’esprit signifie vie ”, la vie éternelle dans l’avenir, “ et paix ”, la paix intérieure et la paix avec Dieu dès aujourd’hui. Dans la pratique, qu’implique “ penser à l’esprit ” ? Fixer constamment son attention sur les choses de l’esprit de manière à développer une attitude mentale axée sur elles. Notre façon de penser est alors “ soumise à la loi de Dieu ” et s’harmonise avec la sienne. Ainsi, lorsque se présente une tentation, nous n’avons aucun doute quant à la conduite à adopter. Nous sommes poussés vers le bon choix, un choix guidé par l’esprit de Dieu. Il est donc essentiel de fixer nos pensées sur les choses de l’esprit. Pour y parvenir, ‘ mobilisons nos facultés mentales pour l’action ’, mettons au centre de notre vie des activités spirituelles régulières, comme la prière, la lecture et l’étude de la Bible, les réunions et la prédication Ne permettons pas aux choses de la chair d’être une source de distraction. En pensant aux choses de l’esprit, nous continuerons à marcher selon l’esprit. Cela nous vaudra des bénédictions, car penser à l’esprit signifie vie et paix - TG2011 15/11 p14 §15-18 Etre une personne spirituelle n’est pas une simple question de convenance personnelle ou de tendance naturelle. Il s’agit en réalité d’une question de vie ou de mort. En quel sens quelqu’un de spirituel reçoit-il ‘ vie et paix ’ ? D’après la Bible, une telle personne est, dès à présent, en paix avec elle-même ainsi qu’avec Dieu et, dans l’avenir, elle recevra la vie éternelle en récompense. – TG2007 1/8 p4 Romains 8:26, 27 : Comment Jéhovah peut-il répondre aux « gémissements qui ne sont pas exprimés » ?(w09 15/11 7 § 20). « Pareillement, l’esprit aussi vient à notre aide quand nous sommes faibles ; car le problème, c’est que nous ne savons pas toujours ce qu’il nous faut demander dans nos prières, mais lorsque nos gémissements ne sont pas exprimés, l’esprit lui-même intercède en notre faveur. 27 Et celui qui examine les cœurs sait quelle est l’intention de l’esprit, parce que c’est selon la volonté de Dieu qu’il intercède en faveur des saints ». 20 Il peut nous arriver de ne pas savoir quoi dire dans nos prières personnelles. “ Le problème, explique Paul, le voici : ce pour quoi nous devons prier comme nous en avons besoin, nous ne le savons pas, mais l’esprit [saint] lui-même sollicite pour nous avec des gémissements qui n’ont pas été exprimés. Cependant, celui qui scrute les cœurs [c’est-à-dire Dieu] sait quelle est l’intention de l’esprit. ” (Rom. 8:26, 27). Jéhovah a fait consigner dans les Écritures de nombreuses prières. Il considère que ces requêtes inspirées correspondent à ce que nous aurions souhaité lui demander, et il les exauce. Dieu nous connaît intimement et il comprend les sentiments que les écrivains de la Bible ont décrits sous l’impulsion de l’esprit. Jéhovah répond à nos supplications quand l’esprit “ sollicite ”, autrement dit intercède, pour nous. Mais à mesure que notre connaissance biblique s’affine, nous trouvons plus facilement les mots pour exprimer nos requêtes. – TG2009 15/11 p7§20 En Romains 8:26, 27, Paul explique que les serviteurs de Dieu ne savent pas toujours exactement quoi demander comme ils en ont besoin quand ils prient. Cependant, Dieu sait qu’ils désirent que sa volonté soit faite. Il sait aussi de quoi ses serviteurs ont besoin. Par le passé, Dieu a fait consigner dans sa Parole de nombreuses prières inspirées, qui expriment sa volonté ou sa pensée à leur égard. Il agrée donc ces prières inspirées comme étant ce que son peuple aimerait dire et ce pour quoi il aimerait prier, et en conséquence il les exauce. Dieu connaît les cœurs sincères et il connaît aussi la “ pensée ” des choses qu’il a fait dire à son esprit par l’intermédiaire des rédacteurs de la Bible. Il sait “ quelle est l’intention [la pensée] de l’esprit ” lorsque celui-ci “ sollicite ”, ou intercède, pour eux. - it-2 p524-525 Nos gémissements intérieurs demeurent souvent inexprimés parce que nous ne comprenons pas totalement la situation dans laquelle nous nous trouvons ou parce que nous ne savons pas que dire à Jéhovah. C’est dans ces moments-là que l’esprit saint peut intercéder pour nous. Paul a écrit: “Le problème se pose: ce que nous devons demander dans nos prières comme il le faudrait, nous ne le savons pas, mais l’esprit lui-même sollicite pour nous par des gémissements inexprimés.” (Romains 8:26). Comment cela? La Parole de Dieu renferme des prophéties et des prières inspirées qui se rapportent à notre situation. Jéhovah les laisse en quelque sorte intercéder pour nous. Il considère que c’est ce que nous dirions si nous comprenions comment elles s’appliquent à notre cas, et il nous exauce en conséquence. – TG1991 15/12 p18 §18 Parfois, nous avons du mal à savoir exactement quoi demander dans la prière. Dans ce cas, Dieu peut même voir les sentiments que nous n’avons pas su exprimer ; il fait appel à sa connaissance parfaite de notre situation pour répondre précisément à nos besoins (Romains 8:26, 27). Quand nous nous rendons compte que Dieu est intervenu dans notre vie, même de façon discrète, nous nous sentons attirés par lui. – TG2014 1/ 4 p4 Qu’est-ce que la lecture biblique de cette semaine t’a appris sur Jéhovah ? Nous sommes tous issus d’Adam. Que nous le voulions ou non, nous avons hérité de lui un corps imparfait, soumis au péché et à la mort. Paul décrit bien notre triste condition. « Je suis charnel, écrit-il, vendu sous le péché. Homme misérable que je suis ! Qui me délivrera du corps voué à cette mort ? » Paul répond lui-même à sa question : « Grâces soient rendues à Dieu par Jésus Christ notre Seigneur ! » (Romains 7:14, 24, 25). – TG2015 1/3 p4 Jéhovah est conscient du pouvoir du péché. Sa Parole présente le péché comme une force qui tient l’homme dans son étreinte mortelle. Et quelle étreinte ! Dans sa lettre aux Romains, l’apôtre Paul explique : nous sommes “ sous le péché ”, comme des soldats sont sous les ordres de leur commandant (Romains 3:9) ; le péché “ a régné ” sur les humains comme un roi (Romains 5:21) ; il “ réside ” en nous (Romains 7:17, 20) ; sa “ loi ” est constamment à l’œuvre en nous, cherchant à diriger nos actions (Romains 7:23, 25). Quelle terrible emprise le péché exerce sur notre chair déchue Romains 7:21, 24. cl chap26 §5 Satan veut détruire notre amitié avec Jéhovah. Il aimerait détruire notre relation avec Jéhovah, que ce soit en nous attaquant frontalement par la persécution ou sournoisement en rongeant lentement notre foi. Le découragement est une de ses tactiques sournoises les plus efficaces. C’est efficace, car cela détruit peu à peu notre amitié avec Jéhovah. Parfois Paul était découragé. Un jour il a dit qu’il était un « homme misérable ». Il pensait qu’il ne valait rien. (Romains 7:21-24) Pourtant Paul avait une belle amitié avec Jéhovah, et il faisait sans doute partie du collège central. Alors pourquoi était-il découragé ? C’était à cause de ses points faibles. Il voulait faire le bien mais ce n’était pas toujours facile. Si nous sommes découragé à cause de nos points faibles, nous serons rassuré de savoir que Paul a eu les mêmes sentiments. – TG2014 15/9 p12 §12 L’apôtre Paul a encouragé tous les chrétiens à ne pas banaliser, ou considérer comme ordinaire, la liberté que Jéhovah nous a donnée par le moyen de son Fils, Jésus Christ. Paul était profondément malheureux et avait la conscience troublée parce qu’il était captif du péché et de la mort. Mais il a déclaré avec reconnaissance : « Grâces soient rendues à Dieu [ou : Je remercie Dieu] par Jésus Christ notre Seigneur ! » Pourquoi ? Il a expliqué à ses compagnons chrétiens : « Car la loi de l’esprit qui donne la vie en union avec Christ Jésus vous a libérés de la loi du péché et de la mort » (Rom. 7:24, 25 ; 8:2). À l’exemple de Paul, nous ne devrions jamais oublier que Jéhovah nous a libérés du péché et de la mort. Grâce à la rançon, nous pouvons servir notre Dieu avec une conscience nette et y prendre vraiment plaisir – TG2018 Avril p8 §7 Paul s’est exclamé : « Homme misérable que je suis ! » (Rom. 7:24). Beaucoup d’entre nous se disent la même chose. Pourquoi ? Parce que même si nous désirons réellement plaire à Jéhovah, nous n’y arrivons pas toujours à cause de notre imperfection, et cela nous décourage. Mais la Bible nous assure que «ceux qui se réfugient en Jéhovah» n’ont pas à se sentir écrasés par la culpabilité – TG2017 Novembre p8 §1,2 Romains 7:21-25. Paul savait bien comme cela peut être dur de lutter contre de mauvais désirs et des faiblesses. Mais il était sûr qu’il pouvait gagner le combat s’il priait Jéhovah pour lui demander son aide, et s’il manifestait sa foi dans le sacrifice de Jésus. Et nous ? Pouvons-nous gagner le combat contre nos faiblesses ? Oui, si comme Paul nous comptons entièrement sur la force de Jéhovah et pas sur la nôtre, et si nous avons foi en la rançon. – ws2016/9 p8 §14 Jéhovah n’acceptera notre culte que s’il est saint, ou pur. Notre culte ne peut pas être pur si nous faisons des choses que Jéhovah déteste, comme la violence, les actes sexuels immoraux et tout ce qui a un lien avec le spiritisme (Romains 8:13). Mais si nous nous divertissons avec ces choses, cela ne plaira pas non plus à Jéhovah. Notre culte ne sera pas pur et Jéhovah ne l’acceptera pas. Cela mettra sérieusement en danger notre amitié avec lui. – lvs chap6 p75 §6 Tous ceux qui sont fidèles à Jéhovah et à son organisation recevront des bienfaits. Les chrétiens oints seront rois avec Jésus dans le ciel. (Romains 8:16, 17) Les autres chrétiens recevront la vie sans fin dans le Paradis. Tous les adorateurs de Jéhovah ont la belle mission de parler aux gens de ces bienfaits. Si nous rendons notre amitié avec Jéhovah plus forte et si nous continuons à progresser spirituellement en avançant au rythme de l’organisation de Jéhovah, en marchant constamment à son allure, nous aussi nous pourrons recevoir des bienfaits extraordinaires. – ws2014 15/5 p21 §16 Dieu ne manifeste pas son amour uniquement en comblant nos besoins physiques. Il nous a aussi accordé de l’honneur et de la dignité en mettant en nous des besoins spirituels et en nous donnant la capacité de les combler. Grâce à cela, les humains qui obéissent à Dieu peuvent espérer faire un jour partie de sa famille, être ses « enfants » (Romains 8:19-21).- TG2014 1/3 p3 Romains 8:21 nous garantit que le monde nouveau viendra bel et bien. Ce verset promet que « la création elle aussi sera libérée de l’esclavage de la corruption et aura la liberté glorieuse des enfants de Dieu ». La question est de savoir si nous y serons, si nous obtiendrons la récompense – TG2016/12 p13 §4 Quand nous rendons témoignage, nous pouvons expliquer que, sous le règne de Christ, l’humanité bénéficiera de l’application complète du sacrifice rédempteur et sera progressivement amenée à la perfection. La Bible déclare : « La création elle aussi sera libérée de l’esclavage de la corruption et aura la liberté glorieuse des enfants de Dieu » (Rom. 8:21). Cela sera possible uniquement grâce à la faveur extraordinaire de Jéhovah. – TG2016/7 p30 §18 L’amour de Dieu pour les humains est si grand qu’il ne leur refuse pas le bien, quoi qu’il lui en coûte. Son amour est éternel. Nous pourrons toujours compter dessus. Tout humain sensible à l’amour de Jéhovah et qui se soumet avec obéissance à sa domination connaîtra un avenir merveilleux « Je suis convaincu, a écrit Paul, que ni mort ni vie, ni anges ni gouvernements, ni choses présentes ni choses à venir, ni puissances, ni hauteur ni profondeur, ni aucune autre création ne pourra nous séparer de l’amour de Dieu qui est en Christ Jésus notre Seigneur » (Rom. 8:38, 39). – TG2015 15/11 p16 §15 Quelles autres perles spirituelles as-tu découvertes dans la lecture biblique de cette semaine ? Satan sait que nous avons des points faibles. Parfois il profite de nos points faibles pour nous pousser à faire des choses mauvaises. Alors cela devient difficile de rester fidèles à Jéhovah. Il y a des signaux qui nous avertissent d’un danger. Par exemple, ne plus prier, ou prêcher moins, ou aller moins souvent aux réunions. C’est dangereux de penser que ce n’est pas grave. Nous risquons peu à peu de ne plus entendre ce que Jéhovah nous dit. Satan va en profiter et il va nous pousser à obéir à nos mauvais désirs. Finalement, nous risquons de faire une action mauvaise que nous ne pensions jamais faire. (Romains 7:15) Mais cela n’arrivera pas si nous faisons des changements dans notre conduite dès que nous voyons le signal d’un danger. Si nous écoutons bien la voix de Jéhovah, nous n’écouterons jamais la voix d’étrangers. – ws2014 15/8 p21 §8 Tout le monde peut être tenté, même des adultes. En effet, la tentation peut se manifester de différentes façons. L’apôtre Paul n’était pas tout jeune quand il a écrit : « Je prends en effet plaisir à la loi de Dieu [...], mais je vois dans mes membres une autre loi qui fait la guerre contre la loi de mon intelligence et qui m’emmène captif vers la loi du péché » (Romains 7:22, 23). Si Paul a résisté à l’envie de céder, nous aussi nous pouvons y arriver ! Et puis, pourquoi devenir esclave de nos désirs ? (1 Corinthiens 9:27). Si nous sommes jeune et si nous apprenons dès maintenant à résister à la tentation, nous allons nous épargner bien des soucis et cela nous sera également utile quand nous serons adulte. – RV2014/10 p8 La liberté que l’esprit de Jéhovah procure est plus qu’une libération d’un esclavage physique. L’esprit de Jéhovah libère de l’imperfection et de la mort, ainsi que du faux culte et de ses pratiques (Romains 8:2). Quelle liberté extraordinaire ! Même quelqu’un qui est en prison ou esclave peut en ressentir les bienfaits – TG2018 Avril p8 §5 Les chrétiens oints pensent toujours au Royaume céleste de Dieu et à leur espérance d’être « cohéritiers de Christ » (Rom. 8:14-17). Et ceux qui ont une espérance terrestre ? Comment les paroles de Paul s’appliquent-elles à eux ? Comment les « autres brebis » peuvent-elles penser toujours aux « choses d’en haut » ? Bien qu’elles n’aient pas l’espérance céleste, les autres brebis aussi peuvent penser toujours aux choses d’en haut. Comment ? En accordant la priorité à Jéhovah Dieu et aux intérêts du Royaume. Notre chair imparfaite nous porte à nous adonner à des choses qui flattent nos sens (Romains 7:21-25). Sans l’action de l’esprit saint de Dieu dans notre vie, nous pourrions céder à « des œuvres des ténèbres » Pour rester vigilant spirituellement, il nous faut donc penser toujours aux choses d’en haut. Nous pouvons le faire sous trois rapports. Notre conduite, notre mentalité, notre soutien à la prédication – TG2014 15/10 p28 Dans le monde d’aujourd’hui, le chagrin, les souffrances et la mort sont partout. Les humains gémissent, souffrent et meurent (Romains 8:22) C’est pour cela que nous avons besoin du monde nouveau de Jéhovah où la guérison physique complète promise par Dieu aura lieu. Dans ce monde-là, tous les humains auront ce que Jéhovah a promis : une santé parfaite. Notre reconnaissance sincère envers Dieu et notre foi profonde dans ses promesses devraient dès maintenant nous pousser à faire tout notre possible pour être dignes de vivre dans le monde nouveau. – TG2015 15/6 p12 §18 Une image nette de notre récompense invisible nous aide à persévérer, à être joyeux et à prendre des décisions en fonction de notre espoir de vivre éternellement. Paul a écrit à des chrétiens oints : « Si nous espérons ce que nous ne voyons pas, nous continuons à l’attendre avec endurance » (Rom. 8:25). En fait, ces paroles s’appliquent à tous les chrétiens qui espèrent vivre éternellement. Bien que nous n’ayons pas encore reçu notre « récompense », notre foi est si forte que nous continuons à l’attendre patiemment. Comme Moïse, nous ne considérons aucune année passée à servir Jéhovah comme du temps perdu. TG2014 15/4 p3
  33. 4 points
    When was it ever anything else? From my point of view, that is almost the sole purpose of this site. Come, come, we must not squabble. We have the same goal, even if we go about it in different ways. I will allow that I am probably too flippant, and post in that spirit what you take seriously. For example, I did a quick & fictional snippet of Fred. That is my bad, and I apologize. JWI deals with egghead stuff that I only skim. Things dealing with dates are not my thing. These are not the ‘motivating’ things that cause people to develop a bad heart. Rather, if some have already developed a bad heart, they latch onto the fact that people ‘at the top’ disagree (Duh) and make maximum hay out of it. Or they find that there has been much hashing out over what eventually comes out as a unified whole, and they bail on that account. The one of good heart sees such disagreement & says ‘Ah, well, they’ll figure it out,’ and carries on without undo fuss. Since we have been wrong many times before, it seems a little foolish to insist that it will never happen again. ‘If they are on the wrong side of this or that bit of prophesy, they’ll figure it out and get on the right side,’ says the one of good heart. No. I don’t care about such things. Why some do I’ll never know, but it’s a good thing that they do. Everyone has a gift. I like to focus on what I think is more relevant - the qualities attributed to ‘apostates’ in Jude and 2Peter—an insistence on self-determination, and a disdain for authority. I am in my element when I get to kick back at those who would capitalize on genuine tragedies, such as CSA, to seek to destroy the ones preaching the good news. With a major ‘reform,’ making clear that there is absolutely no reproach in reporting vile things to the authorities, some of the most virulent of our critics lose something huge to them - a little like ‘what is Tom Brady going to do with himself after he retires?’ Some face withering away like Roger Chillingsworth. They almost have no choice but to find some pissy little thing that could conceivably allow something bad to yet happen and harp on that to the cows come home. Since I don’t care about the aspects of theocratic life that you do, I have probably overstepped in some places and drawn your reproof. I apologize. One of the prime things Jehovah hates is anyone spreading contentions among brothers. I won’t do it. When I once ‘liked’ a post of Captain Zipzeronada, a brother who was solid but rigid was stumbled. I apologized to him and didn’t do it again for the longest time - until the old pork chop said something to reveal that beneath his breathtaking pig-headedness, he was likable in some respects and I couldn’t resist. Our people do not typically do well online. They take shots at each other for not toeing the line in this or that aspect of service. Or they say: “This is what Jehovah has said:” to people who don’t necessarily care what he has said. They look ridiculous as they try to make the Internet behave like the congregation. As much as I appreciate your goal, if you told your circuit overseer that you were having a hard time purifying the Internet, what do you think he would say? You have to cut brothers some slack online. If they shouldn’t be here to say it, you shouldn’t be here to hear it. You know very well that Bethel isn’t thrilled about any of us being here.
  34. 4 points
    I don't think that title is a bad mantra at all. If you are looking for perfection, that's great. If you are expecting perfection, then you will be without any kind of brotherhood at all, and Christianity requires a brotherhood. Everyone will be different. For me, it's not so difficult. Just review all the topics that you are sure of, at least sure enough so that you can express agreement. Emphasize these. On all other topics just say to the study or householder that 'among Jehovah's Witnesses you will find that most of them accept this particular interpretation of the topic, but that it is a difficult topic for many to understand and if they don't understand it or accept it, that a good understanding of the topic may come in time.' Remind them that Jehovah is more concerned with motivations and our love for one another than any particular teaching or specific action. This is clear from Jesus: (Matthew 7:22, 23) . . .Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’ (Matthew 25:34-40) . . .“Then the King will say to those on his right: ‘Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world. 35 For I became hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you received me hospitably; 36 naked and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous ones will answer him with the words: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and receive you hospitably, or naked and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 In reply the King will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ (John 13:35) 35 By this all will know that you are my disciples—if you have love among yourselves.” Once you know which things you want to emphasize in your ministry, then focus on those things. My motto, difficult as it is for me, attempts the following: (Philippians 4:8, 9) . . .Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things. 9 The things that you learned as well as accepted and heard and saw in connection with me, practice these, and the God of peace will be with you. We have a lot more freedom in our personal ministry than you imply. The most difficult times will likely be the times when you will be inevitably be asked to take on more responsibility. To hold the title of elder, for example, or to take on the assignment of certain talks that must hold strictly to an outline. But the Witnesses still offer a brotherhood in which it is very possible and enjoyable to succeed in a humble ministry of helping others related to you in the faith. For me it is a brotherhood in which I find friendships and a fellowship of believers who will not kill one another in wars, who will not threaten with violence, who will not judge one to a fiery hell, and who see God as a knowable, loving entity we can approach, and who generally share in a common sense of morality. Imperfect? Yes! But who knows? One might even be able to be a force for good from within without really trying.
  35. 4 points
    Not hardly!! Did you take note at how I knocked the formidable JTR out of the ring? I’ll have you for lunch! By the way, I’m reading a new author of science fiction, Darth Dethway. In a very exciting chapter, the evil alien says: ”Surrender, earthlings! You have no chance! Zip...zero...nada!” Do you think?
  36. 4 points
    Kosonen, thanks for your efforts in searching for WT quotes and presentation of same materials! This reveals how GB operates. "Blind" people have one more chance to see The Real Truth.
  37. 4 points
    16 Not all who have the heavenly hope are part of “the faithful and discreet slave.” (From the same 2016 Watchtower as quoted above by Kosonen) Who has the right to say this ? Who has the right to put that in print ? Note is does not say 'those that might think they have the heavenly hope'. It actually says Not all who have the heavenly hope ... The GB of the JW org approve of this being written and used at meetings of JW's. So the GB themselves are judging the other MEMBERS OF THE BODY OF CHRIST'S BRIDE. The GB are judging those of the 144,000 chosen ones. Has God or Jesus Christ given the GB the right to do the judging ? I would not think so.
  38. 4 points
    Look here for example how the GB wants that local anointed would be treated. You are not even allowed to ask the anointed about their anointing!!! I guess you could get disfellowshipped for that? How crazy is not that? And paragraph 11 insinuates that the local anointed could well be "false brothers" and imposters. GB just says that to make sure you don't trust your local anointed. That is wicked! Now the GB really discourages to do anything specially for the local anointed. Just the opposite what Jesus told. I wonder how many Jehovah's witnesses will continue that fatal course until the end? Here are the recent instructions from GB:
      Hello guest!
    10 How can we show appropriate respect for those whom Jehovah chooses to anoint? We would not ask them personal questions about their anointing. We thus avoid meddling with what does not concern us. (1 Thess. 4:11; 2 Thess. 3:11) We should not assume that the parents, spouse, or other relatives of one of the anointed would also be anointed. Genetics or marriage play no part in the process. (1 Thess. 2:12) We should also resist the urge to quiz spouses of anointed ones about how they feel knowing that they will live without their mate in the future earthly Paradise. Rather than raise questions that may cause pain, all of us can have full confidence that Jehovah will open his hand and “satisfy the desire of every living thing.”—Ps. 145:16. 11. How do we protect ourselves if we avoid “admiring personalities”? 11 Those who treat anointed Christians in a proper manner protect themselves from an insidious danger. The Scriptures tell us that “false brothers” can slip into the congregation. (Gal. 2:4, 5; 1 John 2:19) These impostors may even claim to be anointed. In addition, some anointed Christians might fall away from the faith. (Matt. 25:10-12;2 Pet. 2:20, 21) If we avoid the trap of “admiring personalities,” we will not be drawn away from the truth by such ones; nor will our faith suffer a crippling blow if a prominent or long-serving Christian becomes unfaithful.—Jude 16, ftn.
  39. 4 points

    UN Compact 2018

    Will you allow that an interest in history is permissible? Politics is current history, that’s all, or history in the making. All human governments will drop the ball & usually it is a bowling ball. As people ponder the vulnerability of their right and left toes, thus defines their politics. What is important for the Christian is to avoid taking sides. It is not necessary to be ignorant of it. signed.....Tom Harley - resident scholar (not pseudo-scholar)
  40. 4 points
    JTR: I agree with you here. If you look at the entire meeting, the word "prosecute" was used in the translation a few of the other times, even in similar contexts. Judicial prosecution was already the topic here in nearly every case discussed, but the overall topic is a wider context than the auto-translator AI looks at. The fact that the name of a minority was used in the sentence, "Jehovah's Witnesses," and that the word "Christians" was in the immediate context, this is what probably triggered the translation, "persecute" instead of "prosecute." Of course, this is still a very important admission as @Outta Here has said, and it's in line with what you were thinking about Putin being the one to get it straightened out, if it reaches to a high enough priority. There were several interesting admissions in the meeting, and Putin comes across as very professional, careful, knowledgeable and "wiley." He is just defensive enough to protect himself from various questionable decisions by judges, admits problems with some laws, understands some of the PR issues with the rest of the world, etc. But he also doesn't commit to overturn questionable actions, and doesn't want to give in too much, to avoid the impression, for example, that future amnesty can be counted on, based on past or current amnesty.
  41. 4 points
    Outside of the context of the Christian organization, anybody can say that they are anointed. I can say it. You can say it. Anyone can say it. They might be genuine. They might be deluded. They might even be lying through their teeth, angling for future prominence. How would anyone ever know? In theory, that could also be true of any member of the Governing Body. In practice, it is next to impossible. They have supplied evidence of their anointing through decades of time. They have supplied a track record. They are not people who, though supposedly 'godly,' really couldn't get along with anybody, but they have submitted their faith to practical full-time and unpaid test. They have proven their Christian qualities. Usually they have served in areas far more lowly than that of the ones whom they will later lead. No phony is going to do this....full-time, long-term, and unpaid...but only the genuine article. In contrast, the case seems far weaker with so-called anointed who pop up with unique views and presently begin to separate themselves because they can't get along, grumbling that nobody is listening to them. I'm sorry...I just cannot get my head around renegade anointed roaming in the wilds.
  42. 4 points
    Yes of course, Satan is in control of the world, and that perfectly explains the "mess", but by discussing these things we are not making ourselves a part of it are we? Not only that, but notice that my reason for my initial comment was because I have someone who is interested in the Bible, but who is actually involved in one sector of what we are discussing. The reason for me to "educate" myself, at least with what the various terminology means, is so that I can better understand what this person is talking about. If I have no idea, then how can I address anything they say properly? Besides, there is no harm in educating ourselves, no matter what it is. Being ignorant can make someone believe things are false to be true, or conversely, things that are true they may believe are false, and that in turn can lead to bad decisions and as a consequence a host of other undesirable things. So I don't think anyone is trying to sidetrack or smokescreen. On the contrary, these kind of conversations help to establish facts. No one knows everything, so although you say you are uneducated, you probably know a host of things others don't. I wouldn't say I am educated, but I do have a thirst for knowledge, and I crave facts Of course a Christian's prime focus should be in gaining accurate knowledge about God and his purpose. That's a given.
  43. 4 points
    JW Insider

    In Defense of Shunning

    Expelling is Biblical. That's true. But what is the method and are Christians under some kind of rule of law that needs to be applied uniformly in all situations? What if it was a principle that is good, but the way it was executed even in Bible times turns out not to have been a Christian method. For example, the Bible allows for a husband to disfellowship his wife. (The Bible never allows for a wife to disfellowship (divorce) a husband, by the way.) But are we under Mosaic rules for divorce just because it is Biblical? In fact, Jesus said that even though it was Biblical, it wasn't what Jehovah really wanted. (Matthew 19:7, 8 ) 7 They said to him: “Why, then, did Moses direct giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” 8 He said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but that has not been the case from the beginning. Jesus doesn't say Moses wasn't inspired when he made the Biblical concession for divorce as one of the laws in the "perfect" Law covenant. But Jesus rejects this particular "jot and tittle" of the Law as a mere concession for human hard-heartedness, especially because it was being misused in practice. "Hard-heartedness" is a form of having "no natural affection." (See my earlier post on this topic.) There is an even more obvious case where the Governing Body now rejects something that is definitely Biblical. In the Bible, it's OK to "beat" your children, physically. When asked about this, GB member Geoffrey Jackson, in front of the Australian Royal Commission, said that the GB now believe that the "rod" of correction is not a physical rod, but that it is the "virtual" rod of righteous corrective discipline. Of course, what do we then do with the Mosaic Law that says that if you beat your slave to death that there is no punishment as long as it takes the slave a day or two to die? (There is a punishment if the slave dies within in a shorter time period.) (Exodus 21:20, 21) . . .“If a man strikes his slave man or his slave girl with a stick and that one dies by his hand, that one must be avenged. 21 However, if he survives for one or two days, he is not to be avenged, because he is someone bought with his owner’s money. The way in which the point was made in front of the ARC was for the GB member to avoid this Scripture: (Proverbs 23:13, 14) 13 Do not hold back discipline from the mere boy. In case you beat him with the rod, he will not die. 14 With the rod you yourself should beat him, that you may deliver his very soul from Sheʹol itself. Instead, he used another verse, from the previous chapter, which was more ambiguous: (Proverbs 22:15) 15 Foolishness is tied up with the heart of a boy; the rod of discipline is what will remove it far from him. Of course, all of these verses use the same Hebrew word for "rod/stick" and the same Hebrew word for "beat/smite/strike." Same word for "rod" or "stick" is used here too: (Proverbs 26:3) 3 A whip is for the horse, a bridle is for the ass, and the rod is for the back of stupid people. I'm not in favor of the physical beating of children. There are times when the principle is correct, but the methods used were "hard-hearted." The Governing Body says we have updated our understanding to that of the world here, and I think everyone knows that Brother Jackson is not so stupid as to think that the Bible was not really referring to physical beatings with these Hebrew expressions. It's time we progressed in our understanding of what it means to disfellowship, too. You've argued that other religions see familial DFing, for example, as Biblical. But so what? In other religions they might still beat their children, beat their wives and servants, promote racism, divorce on any ground, and promote a lack natural affection, too.
  44. 4 points
    I've used this argument at the door and with Bible studies, too: that supposedly Christians, even if they claim they are not worshiping the item, should still find it wrong to carry around a model of the "murder weapon" that killed Jesus Christ! I've even heard the additional example from other Witnesses, such as: "If your own father had been murdered with an AK-47, or a .38 revolver, would you ever think about carrying around a small model of an AK-47, or a .38 revolver, on a chain around your neck?" Of course, this seemed quite fair until I learned that a member of the Governing Body who had worn a cross in the past, remembered that it was the way in which they felt they were showing their agreement with the idea in Mark: (Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [STAUROS] and follow me continually." It was the Bible that treated the STAUROS as a "symbol." And we would never have complained that Jesus was saying (Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [MURDER WEAPON] and follow me continually." Similarly, the apostle Paul would have been saying: (1 Corinthians 2:2) For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and [his MURDER WEAPON]. Jesus and Paul knew that the STAUROS (whether cross or stake) was a proper symbol that could remind us of Christ's sacrifice, and it would remind us of our own need for daily sacrifice, and even a similar sacrifice to the death if need be. But this is not an external symbol like baptism by which we show we have dedicated our lives to God and associate ourselves with Christians of like faith. For we walk by faith and not by sight, and need no ongoing piece of jewelry to state our Christian status.
  45. 4 points
    That is an EXTREMELY good example .... that fact rock solid hard evidence, not agenda based fluffery and fuzzy thinking! I am as critical of all the crap going on as anybody here is ... and probably know as much or more than most well educated people about such things .... but I have learned through interactions with MANY kinds of "organizations", not to expect too much from people in groups. The example I most often recall to mind is this: If you understand the Mission of the United States Marines, and their necessity in the real world to defend what is honorable, true and righteous ( ... in a very limited absolute sense ...), then for some, that mission was what you were born to do .... be a "Sheepdog", with fangs and claws ... to be the "point of the spear", to protect your fellow sheep ... who are many times scared of you. It entails willingness to die, or live the rest of your life mangled and broken. That's what the job IS. But as the "Peter Principle", a VERY famous business principle states (paraphrased) "Everyone rises in rank to their own level of incompetency". You could be a very good Marine Sargent, and rise to be an incompetent Marine Lieutenant, etc., ad infinitum. A committee is a peculiar life form with at least six legs, and no brain. This is ESPECIALLY true in fuzzy subjects such as Theology, where everyone is jousting for favor and position with God, and gets used to great piles of free money .... considering it their due. The Governing Body is NOT the exception, and they have 16 legs. This is ESPECIALLY true with anyone claiming to speak for God, whether it is kissing the Pope's ring, or admiring the Governing Body's Rolex watches and gold pinkie rings. When you begin to live like Kings, that vow of poverty becomes irrelevant. That bears repeating, over and over ... as there is a VERY important core principle embedded in that innocuous rock solid and true observation. I personally fully understand that, and though I sigh and cry over all the unnecessary burdens and smelly crap we have to carry ... that I personally have been expected to carry over the years ... and silly irrelevant drivel we are expected to swallow, hook-line-and-sinker ... I still want to be a "Marine" .... just not an Officer. The biggest problem we have ... is HAVING to recruit from deeply flawed but presumably well intentioned humans. .... sigh. ... so does the United States Marines ... and THEY have rifles.
  46. 4 points
    According to the record from the Watchtower Society itself, this is about right, if you don't count some interim corrections to typos, page headings, and grammar inconsistencies. (These are minor, but there have been at least 16 additional versions if you count these minor printing updates.) For example the original NWT of Psalms in the 1963 and 1964 "Fat Boy" NWT had a big bold typo (Psalm 17 was marked as Psalm 71). The large print (bi8) printed in 1971 had some typos, such as switching the font of the verse number itself from regular to bold and back to regular --most noticeable in Hebrews 9:27 where the 2 is bold and the 7 is regular, and even a couple of subject-verb agreement errors that were fixed up until 1984, well before the 2013 Revised came out. When the 2013 came out a heading on a page 267 was wrong, Psalm 51:4 was changed, and there were still some inconsistencies with capitalization and usage. Here's one example with the capitalization of "Ark" [of the Testimony]. Exodus 25:22 still has one remaining inconsistency: (Exodus 25:16-22) 16 You will place in the Ark the Testimony that I will give you. 17 “You will make a cover of pure gold, two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. 18 You are to make two cherubs of gold; you will make them of hammered work on the two ends of the cover. 19 Make the cherubs on the two ends, one cherub on each end of the cover. 20 The cherubs are to spread out their two wings upward, overshadowing the cover with their wings, and they will face each other. The faces of the cherubs will be turned toward the cover. 21 You will put the cover on the Ark, and in the Ark you will place the Testimony that I will give you. 22 I will present myself to you there and speak with you from above the cover. From between the two cherubs that are on the ark of the Testimony, I will make known to you all that I will command you for the Israelites. (2013 NWT) Exodus 25:22 (1972 bi8) . . . the two cherubs that are upon the ark of the testimony . . . (1972-1984) Exodus 25:16 And you must place in the Ark the testimony that I shall give you. (1984) Note that in 2013 every instance of "the Ark" is capitalized except this one in verse 22. Also verse 10 does NOT capitalize it in 2013, but did capitalize it in 1984. And you can see above, in verse 16, that Ark was capitalized in 1984, but in no places was testimony ever capitalized. As far back as the 1953-1961 versions of the NWT, "Testimony" was capitalized, but "ark of the testimony" was not always, even in the same context, or sometimes just Ark and not testimony: (Numbers 7:89) he would hear the voice conversing with him from above the cover which was upon the Ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubs [upon the cover].” (1953) (Exodus 16:33,34) Moses said to Aaron: ‘Take a jar and put in it an omerful of manna and deposit it before Jehovah as something to be kept throughout your generations.’ Just as Jehovah had commanded Moses, Aaron proceeded to deposit it before the Testimony as something to be kept. (1953) (Num. 17:10) Subsequently Jehovah said to Moses: "Put Aaron’s rod back before the Testimony as something to be kept for a sign to the sons of rebelliousness, that their murmurings may cease from against me, that they may not die." (1953) Also note that in Deuteronomy, the term "ark of the testimony" is never used; it's always "ark of the covenant," (a different Hebrew word) but this doesn't ever get capitalized in any NWT of any date. (There are exceptions in quotes from the Watchtower in the 1950's, 1960, and 1976, but not in the NWT itself. ["ark of the covenant" "Ark of the covenant" or "Ark of the Covenant".] Of the hundred or so references, there has been no capitalization since the 1970's.) (Deuteronomy 31:26) “Take this book of the Law and place it at the side of the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God. . . (2013) (Deuteronomy 31:26) “Taking this book of the Law, YOU must place it at the side of the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God. (1960-1984) In fact, between 1961 and 1964, there were literally hundreds of pages that needed re-pagination along with the page headings, dozens of footnotes with the wrong J-references, cross-references, footnote letters skipped, wrong hyphenation breaks, a couple of misspellings, mismatched single/double quote marks, and at least a couple of grammar changes. There is some evidence of these changes in one of my "Fat Boy" Bibles where you can see that certain pages were updated, and these resulted in a brighter light-green edging on the updated pages (which includes Psalm 17, of course). See the pictures below:
  47. 4 points
    Thank you JW Insider, for providing absolute proof. BillyTheKid46 would deny the existence of a car if it ran over his foot, because all his friends don't believe cars were ever invented. I was there .... and as you know, there are literally whole CHAPTERS on this subject that have been posted in the past seven or so years, here on the Archive. Any idea if it is possible to download the whole archive, since the beginning, to a large USB 4 TB hard drive? It might come in handy to have some off-site copies, since the format and such has changed so many times... I am having trouble keeping track of my cartoon and meme collection. Thanks for the "heavy lifting".
  48. 4 points
    You are doing a great deal of work in rummaging through archives of old material like this. I hope you realise that the time and effort and expense that you are putting in to this, like all the others so engaged, is actually only providing us with some entertainment? It is only fair to point this out in case you thought you were accomplishing something else more serious. But given that, carry on please. When there is time to read through these old ideas, it provides a light diversion from the more serious business of living, and indeed, saves some valuable time in avoiding the necessity for doing the same thing twice.
  49. 4 points
    I think that hits the point exactly. The elders, especially during previous years, were directly taught at KM school (Elder Training) that the first time that there is suspicion of two persons of the opposite sex spending hours of time alone together, that there should be some kind of very strong counsel and even sanction due to the appearance alone, even if the elders were convinced that they were innocent of loose conduct. It was the same at Bethel, because there was a rule against being alone with a sister in your room unless the door was open, this meant that as soon as the door was closed, there should be strong counsel and even sanction. I knew that the rule was often broken, and I think that very few would turn someone else in, yet multiple infractions of the rule could mean dismissal. If a couple of the opposite sex ever were seen to have contrived to be alone together, it was simply assumed that they went too far in their conduct with one another. The elder training gave examples of appropriate questions to ask, even if it was not overnight, and these questions assumed the worst, and would try to draw out a confession of "loose conduct." There would be a probation or loss of privileges of some kind, even if both vehemently denied any misconduct. If the time spent together appeared contrived, and was overnight, especially if reported by a third party who saw a car parked overnight in front of the other person's house, then the assumption was always that fornication had occurred and that any denial means the two are lying. The types of questions to be asked gave away the assumption of immorality and dishonesty. If they had previously been counseled, this could immediately escalate to disfellowshipping. Having been raised in the truth, and having gone to school in Missouri, I didn't realize until I went to college that many of our assumptions were similar to many of the fundamentalists around us. It wasn't just JWs but most old-time religionists, assuming that leaving two persons of the opposite sex alone together was always an instant recipe for fornication and/or adultery. If you listened to radio preachers you'd hear the same assumptions. Witnesses were also assuming that there was nothing else that young people could possibly be interested in. It wasn't until after Bethel when I went to college that I realized that many persons were immoral, but also that many had morals likely superior to ours. And most surprisingly that many persons of the opposite sex actually lived together as roommates and still didn't ever worry about the topic of sex/fornication ever coming up. Now, I have seen statistics that show that teenage pregnancies were always much higher in the "Bible Belt." Perhaps part of the problem was in the assumption that young people have nothing better to do.
  50. 4 points
    He tends to focus on the religious clubs. This was a post in the secular part of the website.... I have noticed but don't really care as much as he does if people go off on crazy topics completely unrelated to anything. I blame this on our infrastructure not allowing threaded replies. Maybe someday forums will grow up and learn from social media.  .... oh wait I'm sure there is already a thread about this in here somewhere. Ooops

  • 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.