Noble Berean

I see the Mark of the Wild Beast as a symbolic mark that civilians will receive when they throw their support behind the Image of the Wild Beast. In the time of the end, the Satanic one-world government (likely the UN) will demand civilians give their full allegiance to it. This will put true followers of Christ in a trialsome situation, because they can only give their allegience to Jesus Christ.

How many suppositions are made in the WT quote? The org states that they 1. have special anointed ones with access to exclusive info from heaven 2. this info is specifically being imparted by heavenly anointed ones 3. this connection has led to correctly identifying the great crowd.
We're just supposed to "take it at their word" in 3 different ways. That's a lot of faith with no evidence to back it up. How can we know their info is correct? 

I agree completely. I gave Anna a big up-vote on her comments because she pointed this out when she said: "then technically and legally the JW lawyer did not lie, but allowed others to assume something else, therefor it could be said that he was misleading."
I understand that the entire point was to mislead, and I hope everyone will see that this simply means that the Society's representative here knows that we should not be proud of our current practice. Therefore we are ashamed.
I know these things always take too long, but we (mostly the WTS leaders) have been shown to be ashamed about our stance on things before, and it has resulted in changes. I think we can now be almost 100 percent in agreement with our current stated stance on CSA procedures, for example. We have been shamed into admitting that corporal punishment of a violent nature against children is wrong. I think we will soon stop saying, as Brother Herd has said, that shunning our disfellowshipped children is analagous to casting out demons.
Also, I know it's another controversial topic that many will strongly disagree with, but in the last few years I have also come to realize that we are wrong to have a policy of "disfellowshipping" children, by allowing them to die, when their temporary life on earth could very likely be lengthened through blood-related medical treatments. In one recent case I know about, it has been clear that if those medical treatments can lengthen a child's temporary physical life on earth, we are to tell the parent that no matter what their own conscience says, their conscience is not allowed to allow the child to receive the treatment. The Biblical principle of pulling a small lamb out of a pit even on the Sabbath is too strong for me to think we should impose the WTS's rule on our own conscience and then on a child's conscience so that they are disfellowshipped through death. It's a way in which we practice having no natural affection, and is related to our acceptance of Brother Herd's comments. 

You’re being an apologist. It doesn’t matter if he didn’t technically lie (which I still believe he is doing). At best, it’s intentionally VERY misleading. Someone outside of the org will easily misunderstand this Bethelite lawyer’s  comments to believe the org is more tolerant than it actually Is.  It’s no different from the org saying similar things about disfellowshipped family in the JW.org FAQ section. They know what they’re doing. The org has a public and private voice and they’re very different. If the org has the truth, it should speak the truth instead of hiding behind legalese.

You’re being an apologist. It doesn’t matter if he didn’t technically lie (which I still believe he is doing). At best, it’s intentionally VERY misleading. Someone outside of the org will easily misunderstand this Bethelite lawyer’s  comments to believe the org is more tolerant than it actually Is.  It’s no different from the org saying similar things about disfellowshipped family in the JW.org FAQ section. They know what they’re doing. The org has a public and private voice and they’re very different. If the org has the truth, it should speak the truth instead of hiding behind legalese.

Evidently this is "Normal family relations" according to Watchtower:

A disfellowshipped person is completely SHUNNED. AND any person that leaves the JW organisation is completely SHUNNED.
Grown up children are asked to leave the family home. Grown up children that do not live at home are completely SHUNNED. 
Any person can walk into a Kingdom Hall as it is for public to visit and listen to talks, BUT a person that is being SHUNNED will not be spoken to by anyone, and they are made to feel dirty and evil. They are put to shame by everyone else in the hall. It's horrible and definitely not Christian. 
But JW legal dept will of course believe that deliberately lying is part of serving God. Yes, it's called 'spiritual warfare', and they are told it is right. 
How low the JW Org has sunken. What shame it brings on God Himself. 

Well, there were 2 inaccurate points that lawyer made, they have to seat in the second room or at the back of the hall and not allow to enter the hall before prayer and they have to leave the hall before the closinprayer er, also the only thing i know is that if the person lives at home they can still have some sort of interaction at home but if the disfellowshiped person lives not at home there will be not relationship at all till he is reinstated.

On the contrary, the org should value the people who can respectfully discuss and critically examine doctrine like what is done here...Berean-like ones that test out the expressions they hear against the Bible. Instead, direction is not up for debate and people are told to even submit to “illogical” direction from the organization. So what the org will become is a bunch of yes-men who don’t know how to think for themselves.

And yet, here you are. Face it, you’re a bad, bad boy! 🤣

On the contrary, the org should value the people who can respectfully discuss and critically examine doctrine like what is done here...Berean-like ones that test out the expressions they hear against the Bible. Instead, direction is not up for debate and people are told to even submit to “illogical” direction from the organization. So what the org will become is a bunch of yes-men who don’t know how to think for themselves.

On the contrary, the org should value the people who can respectfully discuss and critically examine doctrine like what is done here...Berean-like ones that test out the expressions they hear against the Bible. Instead, direction is not up for debate and people are told to even submit to “illogical” direction from the organization. So what the org will become is a bunch of yes-men who don’t know how to think for themselves.

Yes, his last name is Bond

Any data that an organization keeps with respect to a policy or prior practice is always considered fair game in a lawsuit, because these lawsuits seek to find out whether the prior practice matched the stated "public policy." The claim, if one goes after an organization for damages, is that the practice has been different from the policy.
For example, a particular city or jurisdiction claims that their policy is to always change the lead (Pb) pipes in all areas where the levels of lead reach a certain threshold, and they have kept data on all lead level complaints, and data on every area where they have changed pipes (or fought against changing the pipes).
If the city is proud of their record, and wants to prove that their stated policy was honest, they would be happy to have this record made available to the courts. And even if the courts say that they only need it to determine the probability of organizational wrongdoing in one particular case, there is a chance that this document/database will be leaked, or that the knowledge of such a document/database will cause it to be requested for multiple future cases, for as long as it is still viable to sue the water district or organization. If the water district has done a commendable job, they might even be happy that the document/database gets leaked. They might even leak it themselves.
Of course, no organization is perfect, and there will always be items in such a database that make organizations concerned, or even ashamed. The fact that over a thousand cases of abuse in the Australian Branch were NEVER reported to authorities, and that not even one was reported, produced powerful circumstantial evidence that there may have been pressure from somewhere to keep such crimes unreported. It may have shown that almost any excuse will be grasped at to keep such crimes unreported, even in areas where reporting is not only ethical, but mandatory. The Australian database was therefore very important to show a pattern, in the event that a new case would claim that such a pattern actually existed.
The other concern, of course, is that, if the database cannot be redacted, that some well-known names of brothers at the highest levels of responsibility in the organization could be revealed, bringing shame on the organization, and the families of those brothers. The Australian database had two names, I'm told, that went to the very top of the Branch in Australia (still living), and one name that went to the very top of the US Branch (a person no longer alive who was moved around after accusations surfaced). If this is true, it would give a whole new dimension to why it is suspected that the US Branch will never release the US database.

Yes that was just one part of it. There's an entire drive of information. Here you go: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BwbiWY5ulihhbUtHMExCMElWRjA?usp=sharing

Sure. Jump to page 82: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwbiWY5ulihhSDI5MkxMbGJnR0E/view?usp=sharing
 

Sure. Jump to page 82: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwbiWY5ulihhSDI5MkxMbGJnR0E/view?usp=sharing
 

Sure. Jump to page 82: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwbiWY5ulihhSDI5MkxMbGJnR0E/view?usp=sharing
 

https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/quotes/rape-fornication.php
Here you go, I'm only providing the link to the watchtower articles that state if a woman doesn't scream while she is being raped, she is guilty of fornication.

Your illustration would work if the changes through the years have been only greater refinement. The reality is that the organization has vacillated back-and-forth on its doctrines (organ transplants, the meaning of "superior authorities," and the understanding of fornication come to mind). This vacillation is a serious issue. Think of the people that died refusing organ transplants or the women that were falsely accused of "consenting" to rape due to their inability to yell out.

(At this stage, haven't words like GB, organization, and Jehovah become conflated?)
What you're saying here is very true, but does the history of the organization reflect that? The GB has already admitted to giving incorrect direction to its members. Throughout all of these changes, JWs have remained staunchly loyal to the GB in the old thinking and the new.
The GB can hand-wave away their errant direction. I am sure they would say it's direction has never truly conflicted with God. But there aren't variations of the truth -- there is only right and wrong. If a change is made, then that means there was something false with the previous direction. You might see that as an overly critical mindset, but I am only scrutinizing the GB with the same level of scrutiny that they impose on all of us.
Now, I know that there have been JWs that recognized an incorrect doctrine ahead of an "adjustment" by the GB. I say that with certainty, because I have hardcore JW family that experienced this personally. That is why Jackson's comment is highly disingenuous, because JWs have never had the right to act in harmony with their own views. Again, I'll direct you to the organization's comments:
"At the same time, we recognize that our knowledge of God's purpose is not perfect; our understanding has undergone adjustments over the years. Loyal Christians are content to wait on Jehovah for all such refinements." (W04 Feb 15 p.17)
"Some may feel that they can interpret the Bible on their own. However, Jesus has appointed the ‘faithful slave’ to be the only channel for dispensing spiritual food. Since 1919, the glorified Jesus Christ has been using that slave to help his followers understand God’s own Book and heed its directives. By obeying the instructions found in the Bible, we promote cleanness, peace, and unity in the congregation. Each one of us does well to ask himself, ‘Am I loyal to the channel that Jesus is using today?'" (Nov. 2016 WT)
The WT makes it clear that it is not our place to form our own understanding of doctrine. Jackson's statement is illogical from a WT perspective -- that's not how the organization has ever functioned. Direction has always been revealed through the organization since it is "spirit directed" by God. If we have personal doubts, we are instructed to wait for the GB to make an adjustment. At no point do we act on our own understanding. This can never change, or the GB will lose its control over members. Control is of utmost concern to them - that is their chief priority.
 

Your illustration would work if the changes through the years have been only greater refinement. The reality is that the organization has vacillated back-and-forth on its doctrines (organ transplants, the meaning of "superior authorities," and the understanding of fornication come to mind). This vacillation is a serious issue. Think of the people that died refusing organ transplants or the women that were falsely accused of "consenting" to rape due to their inability to yell out.

Your illustration would work if the changes through the years have been only greater refinement. The reality is that the organization has vacillated back-and-forth on its doctrines (organ transplants, the meaning of "superior authorities," and the understanding of fornication come to mind). This vacillation is a serious issue. Think of the people that died refusing organ transplants or the women that were falsely accused of "consenting" to rape due to their inability to yell out.

Your illustration would work if the changes through the years have been only greater refinement. The reality is that the organization has vacillated back-and-forth on its doctrines (organ transplants, the meaning of "superior authorities," and the understanding of fornication come to mind). This vacillation is a serious issue. Think of the people that died refusing organ transplants or the women that were falsely accused of "consenting" to rape due to their inability to yell out.

Your illustration would work if the changes through the years have been only greater refinement. The reality is that the organization has vacillated back-and-forth on its doctrines (organ transplants, the meaning of "superior authorities," and the understanding of fornication come to mind). This vacillation is a serious issue. Think of the people that died refusing organ transplants or the women that were falsely accused of "consenting" to rape due to their inability to yell out.