Imagine trying to plug a critically flawed dam with your fingers. That's what the WT is doing. It's going after these leakers to no avail. There are obviously many JWs at the source ("mother") that have lost their faith in the GB--that is why they leak to the public. The sources of the leaks are internal. They desire to see the house of cards fall. A big media storm is incoming, and the GB will be powerless against it when it starts. Just as they have been powerless to stop the Bethel leaks. They are so thoroughly incompetent that they can't even keep their own ones loyal. I can only imagine the atmosphere at Bethel now. It will be witchhunt-level paranoia. 

Instead of focusing on the leaks, those taking the lead should be turning inward and acknowledging the severe problems they have promoted. The problems that are causing earnest-hearted JWs to become whistle-blowers on the organization they once staunchly protected. But the GB is too prideful to take accountability for their mistakes. They constantly twist the narrative to make the questioning of abuse as attacks by apostates. So, it will all fall down. Pride is before a crash. The GB has demonstrated its true colors...they would rather legally fight victims of abuse to protect their image than make reforms for the better.

6 hours ago, Anna said:

I just can't bring myself to understand this to mean that they are attempting to copyright the Bible. I mean when they say they are the exclusive source of spiritual food, who do you think they are talking to? Surely not people in general? Do you think that Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Catholics etc. view our publications and the website as true spiritual food? So aren't they logically just talking to Jehovah's Witnesses?

Can they copyright the Bible? No. But connect the dots...claims of copyright ownership + their view as the sole channel of spiritual food. It is clear that they feel they own Biblical interpretation and Biblical discussion in a "legal" way, and feel they have the right to police how this "food" is used. Maybe it's not legally enforceable, but in the hearts of JWs it is. And that's what matters.

"Funny. People can discuss whatever they like, as long as they don't misquote the org. But there is such a thing as "fair use" as well." Maybe legally that's true, but is that how the org feels? Or didn't the article say JWs who discuss on websites with comments disrespect God's name? And doesn't the org's direction matter more than just man-made law? We're supposed to believe there is a higher law controlling all of this.

"Surely not people in general?" Of course. That's why I said in the "eye of JWs." Who cares what the audience is? There aren't differen't shades of the truth. The org purports itself in different ways to different people, but it's most upfront about its views to its adherents.

22 hours ago, Anna said:

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

Legally, the WT has a basis to protect their literature from the few embittered ones who manipulate it to mislead others. But most anti-JW websites I see are pretty focused on referencing WT literature exactly as it is...they have no desire to twist it. They completely disagree with the core views of JWs, so cheap tactics like manipulation/photoshoppery aren't necessary. And to falsify content would discredit their own cause.

I'm not arguing against the validity of copyright law, but copyright doesn't come from the Bible. It's a man-made law. The Bible doesn't come with copyrights. It was offered free to all by God, and no one can say "I own this book so don't use it in a way I don't like."

The org has made 2 statements that when combined are concerning:

1. It is the exclusive source of true spiritual food. 

2. Its content is copyrighted.

If the org truly believes both of these things, then they must believe they legally own true Bible discussion and interpretation. But they're actually blending the Bible and man-made laws to achieve this control. It feels icky. And they also feel they can police organic discussions on the internet. I'm sorry, but I can't help but see that as a control grab.

57 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

This is the real reason the 2nd Mid-week meeting, usually in someone's home ... commonly known as the "Tuesday Night Book Study" was eliminated, years ago.  It in reality had NOTHING to do with saving gasoline, which was the lame excuse for it's being cancelled globally, among other lame excuses.

People were having "Goodie Nights" about once a month with cakes and pie, and other goodies, afterwards ... AND DISCUSSING THINGS AMONG THEMSELVES, after the  Book Study.

Malignant, evil things, like "That paragraph six made no sense to me... did it make any sense to you?"

I particularly remember the "Commentary on the Book of James" ... longer by far than the actual Bible Book of James ... that made no sense to me ... but I thought at the time  it was my spiritual state being so poor EVERYBODY was "getting it" ..... except me.

I am sure JW Insider has more details than I about who wrote it, and why .... but many years later I found out that the book we studied globally, once a week, was written by a group of Brothers as an inside joke to see what they could get away with ... and the entire writing committee was several years DF'd later for apostasy. 

This explanation may or may not be true ... I wasn't there ... but THIS explanation made perfect sense to me.

I do know that I have brought up the "Commentary" several times with Elders who were there at the time, merely stating it was longer than the Bible Book ... and they did not want to talk about it.

Perhaps I should have offered then a piece of pie.

... for MANY reasons ... it  goes well beyond sad ....

 

That's pretty interesting, and it sounds convincing, but do you have any proof of it?

This most significant, concerning point for me from this article is the emphasis on copyright. Yes, the org has the right to claim legal ownership over its literature, but all JW literature is supposed to be Bible-based. The Bible was given freely to mankind and no one can say "I own it, so don't use it in a way I don't like." For nonJWs, the org's stance makes sense from a secular standpoint--guarding your properties. But as an active JW, I understand that the org teaches the only sources of spiritual food are in approved literature and websites. People won't look to other sources. So, basically, the organization has claimed legal ownership of all Bible discussion and Bible interpretation. That's very concerning to me. Copyright is a man-made law, and when the org emphasizes it it makes the JW org feel like a company rather than a religion.

38 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

No. They are fighting ones who reproduce it. 

You can reference it all you want. You can quote their writings. It is in accord with "fair use" doctrine. Whether they like it or not is immaterial. It is not illegal and you can do it. But to reproduce it is illegal and you cannot do it. @admin in my eyes has elevated his stature to that of Solomon with his wise observation: "Geez, you guys are a piece of work."

Several verses speak against the futility of debates. Several verses say stay away from that. By allowing their copyrighted material to be reproduced by people who want to do just that, it gives the appearance than they themselves don't put stock in those verses. 

They did say the first. They did not say the second. That is your own projection speaking. You qualify it by saying "even if their intentions were pure." Is there one person on this forum who would say his/her own intentions are not?

This is very close to the old churchy slogan that says "it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere."

Admin takes first place for being a modern-day Solomon. My dad takes second place for his wise counsel when he was driving the family car on those seemingly endless trips of my childhood: "If you kids don't stop crying back there, I'll give you something to cry about!"

 

I get what you're saying, but that nuance is not included in the article. I think many would take away that they shouldn't share JW content at all...even quoting it. Apostate websites "use our publications" in what way? Usually, they're quoting and crediting the WT. To dismiss the credibility of any websites that isn't approved...that's a control measure in the uncontrollable world of the internet. 

And this additional point 'Furthermore, posting our publications on websites that allow comments provides a place for apostates and other critics to sow distrust of Jehovah’s organization. Some brothers have been drawn into online debates and thus have brought added reproach on Jehovah’s name. An online forum is not an appropriate setting for “instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed.”' Sounds like another control grab. They don't want people having online discussions independent of the org, and that's sad. 

15 hours ago, The Librarian said:

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

BUT....

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

 My thoughts exactly @The Librarian

So many concerning takeaways from this article.

1. It's a-okay for the org to completely restrict an entire area of preaching (social media). Social media is a huge part of human interaction nowadays, but they're telling people they can't share JW.org content on their pages or in a discussion? Huh?

2. The emphasis on copyright. Since JWs feel that their "spiritual food" comes exclusively from JW.org and the approved apps, the org has essentially claimed legal ownership of all Biblical discussion. Think about that. They're restricting JWs on where they can speak about the good news! And to suggest that JW literature based on God's word and given freely by God can be claimed by the org. 

3. Many JWs sell JW.org buttons or post covers of Kingdom melodies on the Internet. The JW buttons have been used as a method of preaching, because they invite a discussion (another method of preaching that will be negatively affected). This article states that using trademark materials is flat-out wrong and their will certainly be an army of JWs who attack these ones (even though their intentions were pure).

4. They clearly state that they are fighting "opposers" who reference JW content on their sites. That's the main point of this article. They are trying to use copyright laws as a way to suppress free discussion of the org. If the truth is truth, shouldn't it be able to stand up to criticism? Fighting criticism with threats of lawsuits is a cheap attempt to roll back the tide.

17 hours ago, Anna said:

Well duh!

Can't you see the double standard?

17 hours ago, Anna said:

No it's not lost, but I'm afraid you have misunderstood. The article is mainly concerned about websites and apps posing as genuine official JW websites or apps.  Posting links to JW.org on a website such as this is fine. There is absolutely no reason to shut this or any other website such as this down. It's obvious it's not posing as an official JW website, lol. 

But obviously what you have done (or someone else) with overwriting worldnewsmedia.org over a copyrighted WT picture is misleading therefor a misuse of copyright. 

The article does not mince words when it says JWs who engage in online debate are besmirching God's name.

It's interesting that the org uses man-made laws when it supports their control, but when those same laws hurt them it's either Satanic or the work of opposers.

15 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The cool things about recruiting Jehovah's Witnesses is that they work free.

You gotta admit, there is a parallel.

The movie was on pause when I posted last, so my wife could make popcorn which we will throw my daughter's dog a few kernels.

You would like it even without knowing about the game

I'm a simple man. I see a dog...I upvote.

There have been quite a few videos, talks, and WT lessons talking directly to parents about protecting children from sexual predators. A lot of it is available on JW.org. Is this what you're referring to? 

On 12/10/2017 at 6:51 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

I will not blow off as nothing the theocratic accomplishments I see playing out today. Perhaps I should wait for oceans to part so GB members can walk to wherever they are going, but I will settle for what I see now.

It is not nothing that a people are gathered internationally who are entirely undivided by nationalism, by racism, by social or educational class. It happens nowhere else on any scale. I will not take it for granted and not give credit where it is due.

I will not blow off as nothing that there is one and only one organization that will put a modern Bible without charge into the hands of whoever desires it anywhere. They have to completely circumvent the world's profit-driven distribution channel to do it, inventing their own channel. And in 900 languages, no less. Given time, the Bible translation will approach that figure - you know it will. It is already massive. 

The smooth functioning and meshing of diverse peoples to attain a common and undiluted spiritual goal - there has been no greater worldwide example of 'you received free, so give free.' It doesn't just happen. Somehow God has enabled humans to accomplish it.

Human things are not perfect? Timing has been off? That should be a shocker? Jesus said: "Keep on the watch, but don't overdo it?" I don't think so.

There is fierce opposition today? As though, with a capable leadership, Jesus words would be wrong and the world would love Christians? As though the worse 'wicked thing they would lyingly say' about Jesus' followers is "They woke me up Saturday morning when I was sleeping?" No.

IF Srecko hehehe :))))))) headed up something with anything to show for itself, minus the missteps, I would investigate it closely. The same with our house annointed person. But there is nothing but crying, muttering and bellyaching from all of them - at least they have pointed to nothing of significance. All they can do is cry that the doers are doing it wrong. Until humans are perfect, who can't do that?

Regarding authorization by miracles, Paul said such gifts would pass away. What if he had said it on this forum? What responses would he get? "Well - okay, BE that way if you are going to be. But don't expect anything from us! We're not budging unless we see plenty of razzle-dazzle!"

What we do see ought to be enough.

Sorry for the delay in response.

You're using the actions of millions to give evidence to the divine support of a small group of men. Do they deserve that credit? Couldn't it be easily argued that Jehovah God is blessing the entire group's actions? The worldwide preaching work, the racial unity, the technological advancement--is that all the product of the GB? In fact, the GB committees are made of many JW "helpers" that produce content--the GB puts a stamp of approval and may offer revisions or additional input. For human purposes, a centralized GB is advantageous, but from a spiritual perspective Jehovah God can impart his spirit to whoever he pleases (and he certainly does).

As I've said before a GB makes sense from a human perspective, but where is the scriptural basis for unquestioned authority? The type-antitype thinking has been thrown out the window in recent years, so why hasn't the FDS parable also been thrown out as non-prophetic? Are we not supposed to notice that a parable that remains prophetic deals with the GB/FDS?

Does the GB even believe it is the FDS? Think about it! Have they are come out and said it? They imply it, but they never state it outright. If the GB themselves can't say outright that they are FDS, then why should all JWs believe they are? And their public relations/legalese speak with governments and courts--doesn't it sound dishonest? When you hear the org say that JWs are never forced to refuse blood and that it would be presumptuous of the GB to claim to be sole representatives of God...these statements just don't ring true! Imagine saying these things at a KH or assembly! You would have a stern talking-to by the elders. Why can't the GB just be upfront with the media/governments/courts on the organization they lead? Is it because they are ashamed or feel they have something to hide?

If Jehovah God the Almighty is using the GB to achieve his purpose, why do they need to constantly rely on plausible deniability and general shadiness? When the GB is under fire, why they are so quick to remove accountability from themselves? Look at how they deal with the sex abuse. That's suddenly not on the elders or the org, but it's on the parents. The GB can't claim credit for all the good things and remove credit from all the bad! You can only pick one. That's a kind of self-preserving, shady attitude that I don't like. It's not Christian--it's businesslike.

Wish I knew of this mild organization that doesn't pressure anyone to reject a transfusion. I'd like to join it. Why not just come out and say the truth if you stand behind it? Why the legal safe-speak? It seems two-faced. The org detests blood transfusions and will totally shun an adherent who breaks from this direction. This comes in addition to the threat of extermination at Armageddon and eternal death. That's the truth. 

12 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Alright. YOU account for them wanting to return to Egypt, where they'd experienced nothing but misery,  just a month after crossing the Red sea - and being ready to stone whoever would stand in their way!

Give me an explanation for THAT! Let me see if I think you actually believe what you are saying.

I don't back down a word. If people want to bitch, they will bitch.

I don't think we are in disagreement that the murmuring and revolting of the Hebrews was ridiculous. But you seem to indicate in your post that the murmuring could have been the result of God's wonders being questioned as valid. That's preposterous. The Hebrews had unquestionable, miraculous evidence that supported Moses' divine backing. To compare their murmuring to questioning today is a stretch, because it's not nearly as black-and-white. 

18 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Says who? Only he himself. People on this forum would waste no time concluding he was just covering his rear end - he had no idea what he was doing, so he kicked the can down the road 40 years. Maybe he was some sort of swami or something to do the cloud and fire trick, but after 40 years, it would get old with everyone here.

His leadership could easily have been disputed, even during the plagues. He was just in the right place at the right time, that's all. It would have happened in any case because  'all of Jehovah's people are holy.' Once he crossed the Red Sea, there were 40 years in which to get fed up with him. In fact, they got fed up with him within the month, cloud or no cloud. That is the lesson we ought to take away, I think, and see if we can avoid doing the same. 

At any rate, where else will you go? Srecko may be starting up something. hehehe :)))))))) But unless you want to join him, you may do best to get your head around the present routine to the extent you can. Where you can't, then don't. You don't have to, unless you enjoy privileges, in which case there are some things in which have to adhere more closely - the same as you would if you were the representative of any outfit.

People apply their full powers of critical thought to the present. But if they did it to the scriptural record, nothing would stand up. In fact there are people who do that and they have concluded that every other paragraph was written by someone new.

I don't even think you really believe what you're saying.

2 hours ago, Anna said:

Someone already posted this at the beginning of this thread.

It is up in the air because it can be appealed. Which no doubt it will be...until it reaches the US supreme court. They have always treated us fair. Ok, most of the time. So there is a possibility this will come to nothing at all.

So this is going to a higher court?

5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Watchtower Loses Appeal of $4000 Per Day Fine

 

This says it's dated November 11...everyone was saying it was still up in the air? Was a decision made a month ago?

21 minutes ago, Anna said:

Should be able to go to edit at the bottom of your first post..and from there you can change the title....

Adjusted  ?

9 minutes ago, Anna said:

@Noble Berean did you move this topic over here or was it the @The Librarian? I was wondering if the title could be changed to "doctrinal" or "spiritual" hierarchy,....or something like that, because I don't think the organizational aspect of it is the problem, is it?

I didn't create the new topic, but is there a way to change titles?

37 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Moses made so many missteps that if you trace his footsteps in the Sinai over 40 years, it looks like he was drunk.

I'm confused by this comparison. Moses didn't intentionally wander for 40 years. Jehovah God sent them on that path so that the older generation would die off. It was a punishment for their lack of faith in God's power to protect them against the Canaanites. 

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If it were all hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But now God has arranged each of the body members just as he pleased.  If they were all the same member, where would the body be? - 1 Corinthians 12:17-19

I know you think that my complaints are fault-finding, but I'm seeking truth just like anyone else on here. And things just don't always add up to me. I've given a lot of my time and energy to this organization, and I need to know that my decisions are right.

Comparing the GB to Moses? Moses was a prophet of God. He performed miracles. Murmuring against him was inexcusable. The GB has made missteps in direction that have negatively affected people. Again and again we must give the GB free passes for their errors in direction and continue giving them unquestioned loyalty. Do other JWs have that luxury? If we're all "equal" then why is their a double-standard?

I think a spirit of working together is important, but it's so difficult to work together with this organization when there's basically no room for personal conscience.

We've all worked with someone that is dogmatic and micromanaging. It is frustrating. Personal research has taught me that many matters are gray rather than black-and-white. Accepting the GB as the group taking the lead is not my issue. I understand that for an organization to function there has to be a person or group taking the lead. I just can't shake my belief that the GB has gone too far in its control. I would praise the GB if they allowed for more areas of personal conscience. That would show a trust in their fellow Christians to follow God to the best of their ability...according to their own Bible-based conscience. Instead, we have a system in place that shows a mistrust of Christians, because we all need to live on a short-leash. We are punished if we question the status quo. Are JWs genuinely motivated to find spiritual truth or stay in line with a human organization? These are concerns I have.

Working together as a body implies collaboration...does one organ have absolute authority over the entire body? The way the human organization is now...one group directs and the 7+ million other members obey. Does that sound like a body working together?

The GB's attitude toward its role in the congregation is frustrating. They feel that they are the definitive authority on doctrinal understanding, but where does it say that in the Bible? I need a little more than just trust us. The FDS parable has always been a claim of authority, but now the organization states that most of Jesus parables are not prophetic. So, why would the FDS parable be any different? This new thinking weakens the GB's authority.

16 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

Yes, very neatly laid out. But it still misses the point. The attaching of relative value to people just because they occupy this or that functional role in an arrangement of humans, even if it's theocratic,  is where the problem lies. Everybody does it we know, and as @JW Insiderdeftlly points out:

Jehovah puts it more bluntly when He says that the inhabitants of the earth "are like grasshoppers" at Is. 40:22.

Jesus gave clear counsel at Matt.20:24-27 when he instructed his disciples: "Jesus called them to him and said: “You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them and the great men wield authority over them. This must not be the way among you; but whoever wants to become great among you must be your minister, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave".

There will always be problems when the waiter starts to think he is more important than those at the table, just because he has the job of handing out the food. Even Harry Callahan observed of a "waiter" with deluded self importance "You're a legend in your own mind".

There is much that could be said on this matter. But to stay on topic, the '75 brouhaha was(is) the product of the minds of "grasshoppers" in the heat of the sun. One starts jumpin'.... they all start jumpin'........

Thankfully, it's all cooled down a bit now, on that front at least. 

This is veering off the 1975 discussion, but I never suggested God places higher value on certain individuals because of status. That's contrary to everything he stands for. I am suggesting that humans have placed higher importance on themselves.

You said that there isn't a hierarchy in the organization, and that's not true. The R&F phrase is used by the organization to describe publishers at the bottom of the organizational pyramid. It isn't used to describe those at the top. And JWs at the bottom of the pyramid have no right to question the direction of those at the top, because they do not have the special capacity to interpret the Bible for themselves. JWs rely on the GB to get a proper understanding of the Bible. They have definitive authority on Bible understanding.

So, there is a disparity between R&F JWs and the specially chosen ones. If everyone was truly equal, wouldn't we all be able to interpret the Bible for ourselves? That idea is actually discouraged in the organization.

1 hour ago, Gone Fishing said:

This reveals a basic characteristic of those who "observe" JWs from the sidelines. The presumption of a sort of heirarchy along the lines of typical human organisation.

Actually, all JW's are rank and file. Any other "heirarchical perception" exists only in the minds of those men who hold it I'm afraid, whoever they are.. So in reality, 1975 enthusiasm, (other than enthusiasm for just another "last days" year nearer the end than 1974), was generated by some rank & file JWs. And there were some other rank & file JWs who did not share that enthusiasm.

a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority.

Edit:

Quote

First, it is Scriptural for “the faithful and discreet slave” through its Governing Body to appoint men to positions of responsibility, and some men are appointed to exercise authority over other appointed men. (Matt. 24:45-47; 1 Pet. 5:1-3) Second, all of us, including appointed men, should honor those who have authority over us. What, then, are some practical ways in which we can honor those who hold positions of oversight in the worldwide Christian congregation? (w08 10/15 pp. 21-25)