Srecko Sostar

Hence, this observation lacks a coherent conclusion as it veils the fundamental veracity of embracing the word of God through genuine comprehension, rather than allowing oneself to be swayed by a desire to triumph in an argument. A genuine scriptural debater abides by the boundaries set by scripture. I know, these kinds of questions are very uncomfortable. Because whatever answer the interlocutor gives, it will get him into trouble. :))

I listened to the PR representative of JWorg in India who was interviewed after the explosions at the Congress in which 3 people were killed and many wounded. Several things stand out. -He, Joshua David, says that JWs love the country they live in. He says; "We love India". This is the first time I have heard such a thing from the mouth of a JW. Saying it publicly like this speaks about a new twist on WTJWorg public policy and propaganda. -He says that the core messages when JWs preach is to explain to people why there is so much suffering and why God allows suffering. On the contrary, according to the JWorg page, it is said that one message is core, and that is; "In fact, we may summarize the core message of the Bible this way: Jehovah sanctifies his name by means of the Kingdom ruled by his Son and restores righteousness and peace to the earth. - https://www.jw.org/zib/search/?q=core+message -His explanation to the public regarding the attitude of JW believers towards the doctrines of the Organization/Bible is worrying. From his explanation, one gets the impression that there is a great deal of individual freedom and decision as to which doctrines and instructions an individual JW will choose to follow or not to follow. He mentioned that this also applies to blood transfusion. -When it comes to the hymn, he says that the JWs stand during the hymn. He did not delve into all the possible versions that are explained on the website about it. -https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/School-and-Jehovahs-Witnesses/Flag-Salute-Anthems-and-Voting/ All in all, this representative of WTJWorg in India is really misleading about some important things about the Organization and the position of followers inside this religious system. From the article I found on the official site that explains the flag and anthem and how JW adults or JW children behave in a variety of situations, it doesn't say at all that it is left to their personal decision, but rather everything is elaborated in quite a bit of detail as expected from JW how to react and behave without any other choice or conscience involved. Because JW conscience have to be trained by organizational rules of WTJWorg. ----------------------- The next thing I noticed was from an article that, among other things, includes an interview with an eyewitnesses to the event who was at the Congress and has been a JW since childhood. One is named Prakash and other is Poly. “ What is preached in Church doesn’t often match the Bible,” said Poly. He, too started questioning his beliefs and turned to the Biblical text for guidance. After learning more about the Witnesses from his wife and daughters, he decided to formally join." His statement is identical to the one Geoffrey Jackson made before the ARC in 2015. It is also regarding some of the posts on this forum regarding WTJWorg doctrinal things and the opportunity for members to personally test and question them. Prakash said ; “We’re a peaceful community, and we don’t blindly follow rules — we do what is best for us and for God.” How contrary to this; “All of us must be ready to obey any instruction we may recieve whether these appear sound from a human standpoint or not" -Watchtower Nov. 15, 2013 pg. 20 The curious thing is that neither in the case of the attack in Hamburg nor here in India did I read in the JW official news that the perpetrators were ex-JWs. link to article - https://theprint.in/india/no-birthdays-no-blood-transfusions-jehovahs-witnesses-have-a-committed-way-of-life/1829912/ link to video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoU9Apc_Oj0

Quote: “If the very things that I once threw down I build up again, I demonstrate myself to be a transgressor.”—Gal. 2:18. It is a serious matter to represent God and Christ in one way, then find that our understanding of the major teachings and fundamental doctrines of the Scriptures was in error, and then after that, to go back to the very doctrines that, by years of study, we had thoroughly determined to be in error. Christians cannot be vacillating—‘wishy-washy’—about such fundamental teachings. What confidence can one put in the sincerity or judgment of such persons? - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1976361 May we conclude that WTJWorg and all its members can think, based on this quote, how the less important doctrines can be changed, and the most important, fundamental ones must not be touched and changed? Is there even such a thing that the teaching of the Bible, primarily contained in the teaching of Jesus, can be separated into two groups; more important and less important doctrines, lessons, commands, instructions? This passage from the WT supports that idea. But what it does not support is changing theological/doctrinal teaching, in general. WTJWorg has been doing just that for decades. Is the changed teaching about "generation" important or unimportant doctrine?. Is the instruction on "recording the number of hours" (field service) an important or an unimportant instruction? If the answer is YES, it is irrelevant, unimportant, it means that accepting or rejecting obedience to WTJWorg in this things should be based on personal decision, interpretation and free will. But, this would not be tolerated by WTJWorg and individuals would be sanctioned in one way or another. If the answer is NO, both things are crucial, core teachings of the Organization, then those who changed it are lawbreakers, "transgressors" as Paul says. Thus, WTJWorg, and/or GB, become "apostates".

I think all this WTJWorg talk about blood fractions is silly. Then this should also apply to the blood in the meat that is for food. The butcher should separate the main fractions and things would be fine. So, the first and basic thing is to educate the butchers on how all the steps in the procedure/process should look like. Maybe the JW committee (Hospital Information Services) that deals with this could do a series of courses tailored to butchers. :))

But only temporarily. Temporarily stopping evil. Nothing else. God doesn't even have an aversion to blood. Liters of blood were used for the altar. While the animals are being slaughtered and the blood is sprinkled on the altar, weren't the hands, face and body of the people present "defiled" with the blood? Well, remember how we react when blood stains our hands or clothes. Also. Deuteronomy 14:21 New King James Version (NKJV)“You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to the alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a holy people to the LORD your God. So the blood remained in the body. And blood can be eaten, without possible health risks. Or did God intend to "kill the unbelievers" with rotten food and clotted blood? .........and you can create a profit too.

It is a difficult task. Because the Sanhedrin did not change doctrines every few months, years. Even Jesus said that the people should do according to the oral instructions of the Pharisees and teachers of the law. That's a little strange to me, but that's what it says that Jesus said. If the Sanhedrin interpreted the Scriptures correctly and the people were supposed to obey them, then I don't know why the apostles refused to obey? So the problems are hidden or people don't see them, when JWs don't question themselves about their "Sanhedrin" in the USA. The apostles challenged their Sanhedrin.

Regarding information testing. It is true that WTJWorg is writing something about it. However, what JWs fail to do is that they do not apply these methods to their own "source of spiritual food", which is their Organization. Fear of the "outside world" is spreading among the members. Danger for JWs is that they are already so well "trained" by the WTJWorg, that any information that comes from "worldly people", from the media or from the authorities, is highly suspect, because the whole world is under the power of Satan, so almost all this information from that world is colored by "satanic lies", as David Slane explained on JWTV. JWTW and other WTJWorg digital persuasions successfully manipulate and control information. Success is also guaranteed by the method of sowing fear of the so-called "apostates" who lie as soon as they open their mouths. "Don't listen to the apostates, it's all lies. Listen to us (GB) we love you .....". haha

What is not clear in the commandment. ""We must obey God rather than human beings!"? The apostles were not to obey the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was the highest Church body. Who is the highest Church body above JW members today? Somehow the same level of authority, regardless of how they got to their position. Is there any "if" in command, if someone is an elder, a Bethel elder, CO, GB member, then such a person must be obeyed? If it's a policeman or the Court, then obedience is "relative"? JWs please, think about. ------------------------------------ The next question is, does FDS aka GB have legitimate authority? Also ,what is it authorized for? If we want to believe the claims about how Jesus chose them in 1919, we can develop that assumption as a possibility and continue the discussion. But then we will face the following. In the previous interpretation, the same FDS claimed that Jesus placed them "over all Jesus' belongings" in 1919. We all know what WTJWorg explained to include "Jesus' property". But now let's stop and remember that the illustration, from Matthew 24, to which FDS refers is exclusive in the task for FDS. And that is to share food, nothing else. The task of FDS is to distribute food, not to manage property, not to govern people, not to interpret Word. This "prophecy" as WTJWorg called it, says absolutely nothing about the "position of authority", nor about the "position of interpreters" as the role the Lord has given them. Finally, in the illustration, Jesus uses the word "servant" and not "manager or director, steward". Jesus did not say a word about alleged task for FDS - the ability or authority to interpret God's Word. There is no such thing in a single letter, not even in a comma. -------------------------------- A further problem that the FDS has caused itself is the reinterpretation of the first interpretation about 1919. They claim today that Jesus will put them only in a position in the future from where they will "manage all Jesus' property". That means only one thing today. That they are illegally in a place that Jesus did not assign to them. Or perhaps even worse. They gave, handed over Jesus' property (over which they ruled illegally for over 100 years), to the people whom Jesus did not authorize for that task (because that is some future event according to interpretation). This happened when they decided to separate the FDS aka GB from the formal Management, Administration (the various power structures in the WTJWorg )and distributed all that management and financial powers to people who were not included/provided by the promise of Jesus to deal with it at all. Because, the assumption is that FDS is not 144000 or 144000 is not FDS (or people who are even not part of that class, but are now in role to manage property) but only GB. Jesus did not give FDS aka GB authority to interpret the Bible. He did not give them authority to rule over property and over people. If we want to believe something.., then He gave them the task of printing and distributing Bibles around the world and through that spread the gospel. Sharing food does not mean that FDS should cook and bake it. Because we see quite clearly how it turns out when GB cooks and bakes it.

I came across this article. Interesting questions and dilemmas arise in the relationship between the state and religious communities. "When does freedom become totalitarian?" Also in the case of JW in Norway, a dilemma arises: What to do with those who break the law and use the law as a justification for breaking it. https://norgeskristnerad.no/2023/08/17/nar-blir-frihet-totaltaert/ Google translation of Letter: Decision on loss of registration chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.statsforvalteren.no/siteassets/fm-oslo-og-viken/folk-og-samfunn/tros--og-livssynssamfunn/vedtak-om-tap-av-registrering.pdf JEHOVA'S WITNESSES Røyskattveien 25 1914 YTRE ENEBAKK Att. Tage-André Olsen Decision on loss of registration We refer to the notice of possible loss of registration of 25/10/2022. In the notice, Jehovah's Witnesses were given a period of four weeks to respond to whether you wanted to rectify the conditions that led to the refusal of state subsidies for 2021 in the decision on 27.01.2022. In a letter dated 09/11/2022, Jehovah's Witnesses asked for a postponement of the deadline by a further four weeks. The deadline was set for 20.12.2022. However, we informed in a letter of 12/12/2022 that the answer had to be available by 15/12/2022 if we were to have the opportunity to process the case before the end of the year. We received a response from the community on 15/12/2022 by letter dated 14/12/2022. Jehovah's Witnesses were registered with the State Administrator on 15/10/1985, and are registered until 01/01/2023 according to the transitional rules in the new Religious Communities Act § 23 second paragraph. On 21 October 2022, we received an application for registration under the new Religious Communities Act. We also process the application in this decision. Resolution We withdraw the registration of Jehovah's Witnesses as a religious community, cf. the Religious Communities Act § 4 third paragraph cf. the same act § 6, cf. the Religious Communities Regulations 6 first paragraph. We reject new registration of Jehovah's Witnesses as a religious community, cf. the Religious Communities Act § 4 third paragraph, cf. the Religious Communities Regulations § 4 fourth paragraph. Background of the case On 15 April 2021, the State Administrator in Oslo and Viken received an inquiry from the Ministry of Children and Families regarding Jehovah's Witnesses. We were asked to assess whether the inquiry from Rolf Furuli contained information of importance for the registration of and state subsidies to Jehovah's Witnesses, cf. the Religious Communities Act § 6. We were also asked to assess the need to carry out further investigations, cf. the Religious Communities Regulations § 10. In a decision of 27/01/2022, the State Administrator refused grants for 2021 for Jehovah's Witnesses on the basis of the information that emerged in our investigations. The Ministry of Children and Families confirmed our decision to refuse state subsidies on 30 September 2022. The state administrator sent a notice of possible loss of registration on 25 October 2022. In the notice, we asked for feedback on whether society wants to correct the conditions that led to the refusal of state subsidies for 2021. As a result of the notice, Jehovah's Witnesses asked for a meeting with the State Administrator. The meeting was held on 01.12.22. The community wanted to tell about its exclusion practice. We stated that our case management is in writing, and that what emerges in the meeting, and which Jehovah's Witnesses believe is relevant to the case, must also be sent to us in writing. In a letter dated 14/12/2022, Jehovah's Witnesses responded to a notice of possible loss of registration. The society does not want to correct the conditions that led to the refusal of state subsidies for 2021, and disagrees with the decision of 27/10/2022. The society asked for deferred implementation of any decision on loss of registration, cf. Section 42 of the Public Administration Act. Legal basis Section 4, third paragraph of the Religious Societies Act reads as follows: "Section 4. Registration of religious and religious societies The religious or religious society can be refused registration, or the registration can be withdrawn, if one or more of the conditions for refusing grants in § 6 are met." Section 6 first paragraph of the Religious Communities Act reads as follows: "Section 6. Grounds for refusing grants If a religious or religious community, or individuals acting on behalf of the community, use violence or coercion, make threats, violate children's rights, violate statutory prohibitions on discrimination or in other ways seriously violates the rights and freedoms of others, the society may be denied a grant or the grant may be curtailed. Grants can also be refused or cut short if society encourages or supports violations mentioned in this section. (...) Grants can also be refused if the faith or belief community does not meet the requirements that follow from the law. (…)" The Religious Communities Regulations Section 6 first paragraph reads as follows: "Section 6. Loss of registration If the religious or religious community no longer fulfills the registration conditions or other conditions and requirements laid down in or based on the Religious Communities Act, the state administrator can decide to withdraw the registration. The community must be notified in writing and with a deadline of at least four weeks to rectify the situation. The rules on the state administrator's investigations in section 10 apply. In the assessment of whether a community should be deprived of registration due to conditions mentioned in the Religious Communities Act § 6 first to third paragraph, particular emphasis must be placed on measures the religious or life-view community has implemented to prevent such conditions. Emphasis must also be placed on how serious the relationship is and whether it appears intentional. Systematic, persistent or intentional violations mentioned in section 6 first paragraph of the Act shall, as a general rule, result in the registration being withdrawn. The state administrator's assessment According to § 4 third paragraph of the Religious Communities Act, registration can be withdrawn if the religious community has violated § 6 of the Religious Communities Act. In our decision of 27.01.2022 we refused state subsidies on the basis that the religious community had violated §§ 2 and 6 of the Religious Communities Act. As we concluded that the conditions to refuse grants was fulfilled, the society's registration as a religious community can also be withdrawn. This was the background for the notice of possible loss of registration in the letter of 25 October 2022. In the assessment of whether a community should be deprived of registration due to conditions mentioned in the Religious Communities Act § 6 first to third paragraph, particular emphasis must be placed on measures the religious or life-view community has implemented to prevent such conditions. Emphasis must also be placed on how serious the relationship is and whether it appears intentional. Systematic, persistent or intentional violations mentioned in the Act § 6 first paragraph shall, as a general rule, lead to the withdrawal of the registration, cf. the religious community regulations § 6 second paragraph. Our letter of 25/10/2022 was answered by Jehovah's Witnesses in a letter dated 14/12/2022. In the letter, the society states that they do not wish to rectify the conditions that led to the refusal of state subsidies in the decision of 27.01.2022, cf. page 4, point 23 of the letter. Quote from the letter: "We want to make it absolutely clear that Jehovah's Witnesses will not change their religious beliefs and practices in Norway in response to the State Administrator's decision dated 27 January 2022." In our decision of 27/01/2022, there were two factors that led to the refusal of grants. The first was that, in our opinion, the society prevents free expression for its members. This contravenes the Religious Communities Act § 2, the Basic Law § 16 and ECHR art. 9. We refer to our decision of 27/01/2022: Jehovah's Witnesses have previously explained their exclusion practice in a letter of 04/03/2021 to the Ministry of Children and Families by then Minister Kjell Ingolf Ropstad. The letter was attached to the Jehovah's Witness statement received here on 23/06/2021. In the letter, questions are asked "whether Jehovah's Witnesses try to avoid those who no longer belong to the religious community". In their answer it is stated that: "Those who have been baptized as Jehovah's Witnesses, but who no longer preach to others and who may also have stopped coming together with their fellow believers, we do not stay away from. Someone who violates the Bible's moral standards is not automatically excluded. But if a baptized Jehovah's Witness makes it a habit to break the moral standards of the Bible and does not want to change himself, he or she is excluded, and we stay away from that person. This practice is based on the teachings of the Bible. All Jehovah's Witnesses accept to live by these standards when they make a well-considered choice to be baptized.” (letter to Ropstad 04.03.21) However, it appears in the book "Organised to do Jehovah's will" that a member who has chosen to withdraw is treated in the same way as one who is excluded: "The expression "to withdraw" denotes that a baptized Jehovah's Witness deliberately refuses to acknowledge a Christian position by declaring that he no longer wishes to be known as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Or he may renounce his place in the Christian congregation by his actions, for example by becoming part of a worldly organization whose purposes are contrary to the Bible, and therefore condemned by Jehovah God. But if a Christian person chooses to withdraw, a brief notice is given to the congregation that reads: "[Person's name] is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses." Such a person is treated in the same way as someone who is excluded." 1 The consequence of leaving the congregation is that the person concerned is no longer allowed to have contact with family and friends in the congregation. The religious community is clear that members should not have contact with excluded members. 2 As we see in the section above, this also applies to members who have withdrawn. This practice can mean that members feel pressured to remain in the religious community. In the Assessment Administrator's assessment, the practice is an obstacle to the members' right to free expression, and in violation of the Norwegian Religious Communities Act, section 2, second paragraph. According to section 11 d) of the religious community regulations, this can provide grounds for denying the religious community a grant. If a member of Jehovah's Witnesses changes their religious beliefs and wishes to leave the religious community, the person concerned shall, according to the above, be treated as if they were excluded. This means that the members can no longer have contact with family and friends in the religious community without this having consequences for the remaining members. We refer to "Be shepherds of God's flock" ("Eldsteboken") chapter 12 point 17 (1) on "Unnecessary association with excluded or those who have withdrawn". In our opinion, this practice constitutes a form of sanctioning of both former members and remaining members. Against this background, the religious community has not ensured that a withdrawal can take place unconditionally and without obstacles from the religious community's side, cf. the preparations for the Religious Communities Act § 2, page 254. Since our decision of 27/01/2022, we have received several inquiries from members and former members of Jehovah's Witnesses. Among these are inquiries from members who support the practice of Jehovah's Witnesses and who disagree with the decision, and from members who state that they want to leave the religious community, but choose to stay because they do not want to break with family and friends. The latter group of members say that their choice to leave the congregation will mean that friends and family cannot have contact with them, even if they leave the congregation voluntarily, and not because of exclusion. They state that this is what makes them stay in the congregation. They also say that Jehovah's Witnesses encourage members to "keep an eye on" each other and inform "the elders" (the management) if they know that someone in the religious community is in contact with disaffected or excluded people. The second factor that led to the refusal of state subsidies for 2021 in the decision of 27/01/2022 was that children's rights were violated by the exercise of negative social control of children in the congregation, including due to the exclusion rules for under-age baptized children, and social isolation of unbaptized children who do not behave in line with society's rules. This contravenes the Religious Communities Act § 6 first paragraph, the Constitution § 104 third paragraph and the Convention on the Rights of the Child art. 19. We refer to the decision of 27/01/2022: Exclusion of underage baptized preachers In a letter from the ministry, the State Administrator was asked to take a closer look at Jehovah's Witnesses' exclusion practice of children. In a letter to the then Minister for Children and Families Kjell Ingolf Ropstad dated 04/03/2021, the society has explained how the society treats an underage baptized preacher who breaks the society's rules. "If a baptized Jehovah's Witness, regardless of age, makes it a habit to break the moral standards of the Bible and does not repent, the same practice as previously mentioned applies." In the quote above, Jehovah's Witnesses refer to the practice of exclusion described earlier in the same letter. The book "Organized to do Jehovah's will" elaborates on how baptized minors are treated: "When baptized minors commit serious sins, the elders should be informed of this. When the elders deal with cases of serious sins committed by a minor, it is best that the young person's baptized parents are present. They should cooperate with the sentencing committee and not try to shield the young offender from necessary disciplinary measures. The sentencing committee will step in to reprimand him and reinstate him, as they do when dealing with cases involving adult offenders. But if the minor does not repent, he is excluded."3 A decision on exclusion is made by the Council of Elders in the congregation. An exclusion means that the person concerned is no longer considered a Jehovah's Witness. This decision is notified to the congregation where the person is a member, and the congregation is told to stop "associating with the person concerned". The society describes exclusion as a "strong form of correction". In the preparations for the Religious Communities Act § 6, negative social control of children is used as an example of a violation of children's rights that can provide grounds for refusing grants.5 The state administrator understands the concept of negative social control as various forms of supervision, pressure, threats and coercion which is exercised to ensure that individuals live in line with the family's or the group's norms. The control is characterized by the fact that it is systematic and can violate the individual's rights in accordance with, among other things, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Norwegian law.6 The religious community itself describes this practice as a strong form of correction. Children in the congregation must follow a number of rules, and the consequence of not following them is being ostracized by the congregation, including being isolated from family and friends who are told not to associate with the excluded. It appears in their statement of 19/11/2021 in section 19 that the family bond does not end with exclusion, as long as they live in the same household. However, we understand it to mean that the child cannot have contact with other close family (including grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins) or friends. This comes as a reaction to the child having broken the religious community's own rules. We believe that this can be experienced as pressure or coercion to make children behave in a certain way. We therefore consider the consequence of breaking the rules to be a form of punishment. On this background, exclusion of baptized minor members is to be considered negative social control and a violation of children's rights according to § 6 of the Religious Communities Act. According to the Religious Communities Regulations § 11 first paragraph a) this can provide grounds for denying the religious community a subsidy. Exclusion, social isolation of unbaptised minors (unbaptised preacher) Children who have not yet been baptised, but who are members of the congregation, can be given the status of "unbaptised preacher". If an unbaptized preacher commits a serious sin, these children can also be "banned" from the fellowship of the congregation. The child is not excluded, but the congregation is told that they must be careful about associating with the child. In the book "Organized to do Jehovah's will" the following is written about minor unbaptized preachers: "Children can also be qualified to become preachers of the good news. …. "It would be appropriate for one of the parents to approach one of the elders in the congregation's service committee to discuss whether the child is qualified to be a preacher. The coordinator for the council of elders arranges for two elders (including one who is on the service committee) to have a meeting with the child and his believing parent(s) or guardian. If the child has basic knowledge of the truth of the Bible and shows that he wants to take part in the service, this shows good progress. After the two elders have considered these and other factors that correspond to what applies to adults, they can decide whether the child can be recognized as an unbaptized preacher." 7 The society's handling of the fact that an unbaptised preacher has committed a "serious sin" is further explained: "If an unbaptised transgressor does not repent after two elders have had a meeting with him and have tried to help him, it is necessary to inform the congregation. A brief statement is given that reads: "[Person's name] is no longer recognized as an unbaptized preacher." The congregation will then consider the transgressor as a worldly person. Although he is not excluded, the Christians will be careful to associate with him. (1 Cor 15:33) The congregation will not accept any field service reports from him.” 8 The state administrator considers that this practice is also to be regarded as negative social control. We consider social isolation to be a form of punishment against the child. We believe this is a violation of children's rights according to § 6 of the Religious Communities Act. According to the Religious Communities Regulations § 11 first paragraph a) this can provide grounds for denying the religious community a subsidy. When assessing whether a community should be deprived of registration due to conditions mentioned in the Religious Communities Act § 6 first to third paragraphs, particular emphasis must be placed on measures the religious or life-view community has implemented to prevent such conditions, cf. the Religious Communities Regulations § 6 second paragraph. We further refer to the preparations for the regulations for the Religious Communities Act: "The third paragraph concerns the assessment of whether a religious or religious community should be deprived of registration when there are such violations as mentioned in the Religious Communities Act § 6, first paragraph. In such cases, there must be a higher threshold for withdrawing registration than for refusing subsidies. This means that even if there are serious violations, it is conceivable that it would be unreasonably intrusive to deprive society of registration. In the assessment, the county governor must look in particular at measures that the faith or belief community has taken to prevent the serious conditions, for example by rectifying the relationship, changing routines, etc. Consideration must also be given to the seriousness of the relationship and whether it appears to be a deliberate breach of the law's requirements. Particularly serious or persistent conditions shall lead to loss of registration. The latter is an expression that in some serious cases it would be unreasonable if the society remained registered."9 Furthermore, we refer to our assessment in decision of 27.01.2022: "We believe that the offences, which both violate the right to freedom of religion and children's right to protection against violence, are to be considered serious. The aforementioned practices are documented in books and in study articles published by the religious community. The religious community has also recorded detailed rules for how a judgment committee works and how the committee must decide on questions of exclusion.10 The practice is systematically followed up by the religious community, and is communicated to the members through several channels. Against this background, we find that the offenses appear to be intentional." The fact that a religious community violates its members' right to freedom of expression and thus violates the right to freedom of religion is considered particularly serious. The same applies to the negative social control of children, which violates children's human rights protection under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, as the preparations for the religious community regulations indicate, the State Administrator must, even in the case of serious violations, check whether the community has taken measures to prevent the violations from continuing. As mentioned in the letter of 14/12/2022, Jehovah's Witnesses state that practice will not be changed. Society will therefore not take measures to prevent the conditions that led to refusal. This means that the conditions are persistent. After the above preparatory work, particularly serious or persistent conditions shall lead to loss of registration. On this background, we have assessed that the conditions for withdrawing the registration of Jehovah's Witnesses as a registered religious community have been met, cf. the Religious Communities Act, Section 4, third paragraph, cf. the same Act, Section 6, cf. the Religious Communities Regulations, 4, first paragraph. New application for registration under the Religious Communities Act We received on 21 October 2022 a new application for registration under the Religious Communities Act. According to § 4 third paragraph of the Religious Communities Act, a religious community can be refused registration if one or more of the conditions for denying grants in § 6 are met. According to the religious communities regulations § 4 fourth paragraph, societies that do not meet the conditions in the Religious Communities Act § 1 second paragraph and § 4 first paragraph must be refused registration. The same applies if conditions exist as mentioned in the Religious Communities Act § 6 first paragraph. In the preparatory work for the religious community regulations, it is stated that: "In the ministry's view, religious and life-view communities that commit, encourage or provide support for such serious violations as mentioned in section 6, first paragraph of the act, should not be able to be registered."11 As mentioned earlier, Jehovah's Witnesses violate § 6 of the Religious Communities Act. We have considered that the old registration should be withdrawn on this basis, cf. § 4 third paragraph of the Religious Communities Act. It is on this basis that the new application for registration is also rejected, cf. the Religious Communities Act § 4 third paragraph, cf. the Religious Communities Regulations § 4 fourth paragraph. Request for deferred implementation In a letter dated 02.12.2022 and in response to a notice dated 14.12.2022, Jehovah's Witnesses by lawyer Anders Ryssdal has asked the State Administrator to consider deferred implementation according to section 42 of the Administration Act if we withdraw the registration to the society. The rule on deferred implementation follows from Section 42 of the Public Administration Act. The provision states, among other things, that: "The sub-instance, appeal body or other superior body may decide that the decision shall not be implemented until the appeal period has expired or the appeal has been decided. (…)" Jehovah's Witnesses intend to sue on the validity of the decision on refusal of state subsidies of 27/01/2022. In a letter of 02/12/2022, and in a letter of 15/02/2022, Jehovah's Witnesses ask for deferred implementation until the case has been dealt with in the administration or there is a final judgment. This means that Jehovah's Witnesses wish to remain registered, retain the right to marry and be able to claim state subsidies until any appeals have been processed, or a court case has finally been decided. It is the State Administrator's assessment that there is no basis for delaying implementation of the decision. The religious community has been registered on a transitional arrangement according to the old Religious Communities Act, cf. Religious Communities Act § 23. This transitional arrangement lasts until 01.01.2023. The Religious Communities Act opens not for the possibility of an extended transition period, and the State Administrator does not have the competence to extend this arrangement either. The state administrator does not grant deferred implementation of this decision. The consequences of the loss of registration Loss of registration means that the community no longer has the right to submit claims for government subsidies. Loss of registration also results in the society losing authority to marry. We remind you that the Religious Communities Act is essentially a subsidy act. The community is still free to practice its religion and its activities regardless of a public registration. Right of appeal You can appeal this decision to the Ministry of Children and Families. Then you must appeal within 3 weeks after you have received the decision. Any complaint must be sent to the State Administrator. Upload it to the digital solution by selecting "Complaint about decision" under the attachment function: "Submit additional information". Sections 18 and 19 of the Administration Act contain the regulations on viewing the case's documents.

Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia) Limited v Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse - [2023] NZHC 3031 https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/christian-congregation-of-jehovahs-witnesses-australasia-limited-v-royal-commission-of-inquiry-into-historical-abuse- Decision Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia) Limited v Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse (PDF 795 KB)

@Srecko Sostar can you restate this comment, I'm having trouble understanding it after re-reading it a few times, sorry. 15 “If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. The first assumption about someone's "sin" is that someone's action is really "sin". The second assumption is whether it is a "sin" that requires intervention. A further condition is based on the mutual relations between the one who rebukes and the one who is potentially rebuked. Is the "sin" committed directly to the one who wants to rebuke. Or it is someone who is not personally involved in the "damage" that was done to someone. Is it even about damage that someone personally suffers, or is it outside of such a context (someone took a blood transfusion, for example, so it is not damage caused to us personally). The condition would also be set as to whether I have the knowledge and skills to explain what is actually wrong and what is the solution to the problem, because that is, like, the first and basic reason why someone should be approached (ie win over a brother). However, the problem arises in the legislation of "sin". Because sometimes a sin is a crime. Although it is theologically possible to conclude that in fact every sin is a crime, a crime against God, so it's actually a complicated situation. If "sin" is rape or theft, etc., then our participation in all this is actually problematic. Is the purpose of our intervention to persuade the offender to turn himself in to the police or to just repent of his actions? However it all turns out in the end, every person is actually a "neighbor", even an unrepentant sinner. Because there are many walking around the world who do not repent of their sins, and yet we should consider them our neighbors, regardless of what knowledge about them we have or not. I would understand that I am not being greeted by someone whom I have personally harmed. It is easily possible that I would have retaliated in kind if someone else had wronged me. I am "imperfect" after all. :)) Furthermore, the question is who and what is a "congregation". Judicial Committee or the entire community of believers? What in today's WTJWorg procedure is close/equal to that of the 1st century? Is the interpretation of today's GB a faithful imitation/copy of the actions of the 1st congregation? Is it the authority of the individual and the congregation to judge only the "moral and doctrinal" transgressions of its members, or does this authority also apply to all other sins/crimes? Because the Bible speaks of "higher powers that carry a sword to punish". Is WTJWorg then allowed to punish or pardon the sin/crime of its members instead of those whom God has "ordained to that position"?

And your comment: I think this is the first time I'm reading this comments from Anna and JW Insider. I really like their observation about how fewer JWs notice the wrong things coming from GB. There are several reasons for this, in my oppinion. "Boundless" trust in those who lead the Organization from America (I'm talking about many who don't live in the USA, so that part is far for them, which is due to the literal distance, and also because of a perhaps fairy-tale idea about people they've never seen or heard of and never could until digital connectivity came along. Consider that this was especially evident for that part of Eastern European countries until 1990 and other parts of the world with limited communication in many ways as further factor) People notice things with more or less confidence in their own judgments. However, this is perhaps more obvious when it comes to some more everyday, physical topics. When it comes to theology itself, most (of them, of us) don't even have time to deal with it that much, so that part of brain activity is slowed down or underdeveloped, so to speak. Also, the idea that after becoming a JW they came "to the truth", came "to have the truth", becomes an obstacle and a trap, because now I am "safe, God is with me, he protects me because I believe in him and his organization". Furthermore, people are different and their current interests and circumstances, age, gender, length of time spent in the "organization", psychological and emotional development of the individual, etc. all affect our current awareness or unawareness of what is happening around us. About "guide by spirit" I think there is a difficulty in using this term because we don't really agree on the true meaning and purpose of such an idea. When GB uses that phrase about "being guided" it means something different from the words "led, guided by". Look at what it says, how explains this in the WT - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-february-2017/who-is-leading-gods-people-today/. CAN YOU EXPLAIN? In the first century and today, how have those taking the lead among God’s people been . . . empowered by holy spirit? assisted by angels? guided by God’s Word? .........5 Christians in the first century recognized that the governing body was directed by Jehovah God through their Leader, Jesus. How could they be sure of this? First, holy spirit empowered the governing body. (John 16:13) Holy spirit was poured out on all anointed Christians, but it specifically enabled the apostles and other elders in Jerusalem to fulfill their role as overseers........ So today's GB refers to the pattern from the 1st century as legitimacy for its roles today. But here in the text of this magazine it speaks of some kind of "empowerment", not "guidance", also not "poured out on". (Being empowered and guided shouldn't be the same, right?) But despite this terminological difference or similarity of terms and meanings in use, the WT passage uses the 3rd term to denote the operation of the same Power. It says that the spirit was "poured out" on those in the 1st century. So, three terms are used here to confirm exactly the same position of the Apostles and the position of the GB. Both of them are in a position to legitimately act on followers due to the action of HS. On the other hand, they say that there is a difference between these three words, and the biggest difference should be through the use of the 4th term through the meaning of the word "inspired". Although all these words are associated with HS and should prove that HS acts on people in one way (to do God's will), it turns out that it is still not possible to achieve the same results during this superhuman action and that HS does not actually have the same power of action today as it had in the past. Because His biggest disadvantage is that He is not able to "inspire" people today. He could only do that in the distant past. Why can't HS do that today? It turns out that he can't perhaps because God doesn't allow him, or because today's people don't have something that people in the 1st century had, or something else is the cause. WTJWorg claims that HS cannot "inspire" people today, is final result of GB theology. If this is so, then there is no need to prove one's current Administrative status by comparing it through the structure of the existence of leadership in the past, which then arose only because of the action of HS which caused people to be "inspired". In the past, our publications have said the following: At Pentecost 33 C.E., Jesus appointed the faithful slave over his domestics... 4 The context of the illustration of the faithful and discreet slave shows that it began to be fulfilled, not at Pentecost 33 C.E., but in this time of the end. Let us see how the Scriptures lead us to this conclusion....Therefore, we may conclude that his words about that faithful slave began to be fulfilled only after the last days began in 1914. Such a conclusion makes sense... In recent decades, that slave has been closely identified with the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20130715/who-is-faithful-discreet-slave/ Although WTJWorg explains that Jesus' words about the FDS were not fulfilled on the Apostles in the 1st century, but only from 1919, GB insists that they actually took over the governance model based on the established 1st congregation over which the Apostles were Hierarchical superiors. It is another in a series of inconsistencies. How could something that did not exist then (FDS aka GB class), in the past, become a model for what exists today? The illustration of the faithful slave is part of Jesus’ prophecy about “the sign of [his] presence and of the conclusion of the system of things.” - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20130715/who-is-faithful-discreet-slave/ On what basis did WTJWorg turn the illustration into a prophecy? When can we expect other biblical illustrations and parables and comparisons to become prophecy? Assisted by angels Second, angels assisted the governing body. Before Cornelius was baptized as the first uncircumcised Gentile Christian, an angel directed him to send for the apostle Peter...Moreover, angels actively promoted and accelerated the preaching work that the governing body was overseeing. . - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-february-2017/who-is-leading-gods-people-today/ For me, it is a superhuman effect on people and their actions. How can angels exert their influence and HS cannot? Experiences that were heard or read by JWs and were publicly published support the idea of superhuman intervention. Controversial to the existing idea of HS not being able to do what angels do. "Directed, promoted, accelerated by angels" are additional words indicating superhuman action. Guided by God's Word Third, God’s Word guided the governing body. Whether they were settling doctrinal issues or they were giving organizational direction, those spirit-anointed elders were led by the Scriptures. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-february-2017/who-is-leading-gods-people-today/ GB says, we hear that on JWTV, they meet and discuss, brainstorm, confront ideas, etc. It's a clash of minds and ideas. A completely normal human activity. Brainstorming and similar methods are called "guided by" the Bible. So what is the difference with "guided by HS"?

I can only speak of myself as a "critic", although I listen to and watch other "critics" on the Internet. I do not have any superiority, but I have moved from one to some other positions from which I can look at things.

It would help if you pointed out what is just so unclear or is completely unclear. Thank you.

Unfortunately or fortunately, I cannot influence how others perceive what GJ said before the ARC. Nor is it crucial that I have their conclusion or they have mine. Of course, it is good to hear another about how he understood something about what was said/written. Regarding the statement of GB member GJ, I think my mind is clear enough to understand what was said there despite my poor knowledge of the English language. In the end, those whose native language is English also reason/conclude the same. About said comment. Mr. or Mrs. "Rotherham" in the first sentence wrote an incorrect statement, totally. In short, I can say that the term Organization should be distinguished from the term FDS aka GB. "Organization" is a legal entity, registered under the law, that JWs use, so says your literature. The colloquial expression that exists in JWs culture and terminology, the term "organization" has an emotional meaning and includes mainly the entire Brotherhood, but also the Administration that "leads" that same Brotherhood. The extraction from the term FDS comes from Jesus' illustration in Matthew's Gospel. Only in this century, perhaps in the span of some twenty, thirty years, the doctrine of who the FDS is started to be changed into the latest interpretation that the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" is none other than the Governing Body, and that they are the only ones who share the "spiritual food" they get from Jesus and YHVH. Let the aforementioned commenter and others who are still unclear about this, turn to "the new light" which illuminated JWs congregations in The Watchtower—Study Edition | July 2013. Happy reading. :))

Now I will use the same type of argument JWs use against those who oppose their organization: "What is their motive?" This kind of question is asked/pointed out when the question does not suit us, and we turn the blade by calling a question as if it is an "attack"? So what is the motive for WTJWorg to write an article like this? To appear objective and well-intentioned because they want to warn readers of the possible danger of being deceived. Seems like a good motive, right? But the warning does not apply to "spiritual food" that comes from GB, because this "food" means that all the information on the Society's library (today website) has been checked and is correct. They actually say; "stick to what we authorized," as A. Morris III once said on JWTV. Any other information, especially that which concerns the "International Brotherhood and Organization", if comes from "this evil world" is dangerous to be taken for granted. When WTJWorg participated in the court process in Russia, it was written about and called for mass political activism of the membership colored with religious cloak of freedom of belief. When it was debated in 2015 before the ARC, Australia and the horrors that hundreds of children experienced in the religion of "their parents", in WTJWorg, not a single sentence appeared about it. Total control of information whose sole intent and purpose is to cover up the real situation at WTJWorg. So, even when leading JW people speak in court about their "theocratic practices" which are right in their eyes because they were taught so by the Organization, it was not "allowed" to be seen on JWTV, not even as a brief information. To transmit the entire statements of the elders would be "too dangerous" for the faith of believers. The article in the mentioned issue of the magazine focuses on the refusal to do something at the request of "unbelievers". Only a weak indication that this could also refer to internal circumstances in the assembly in extraordinary circumstances, probably as the beginning of some kind of initial "apostasy" in the brotherhood. It's the eighties, after all. Not too much time has passed since the "great disappointment" of 1975. But a lot was written against "Babylon".

I think I know how GB would respond to question about Gal 1:8. The same way they interpreted Mat 24:45-51. There is only a faithful and wise servant and he gets everything. There is no evil servant because FDS aka GB can never be evil in any way. So it's a complete joke. A complete disparagement of all readers of these words of Jesus. Another in a series of anomalies of a mind that is proud and does not admit its own defeat.

I the same video. Regarding the role of women as judges. Mr. G. Jackson says, "The role of judges in the congregation is on men. We shall never fall in that." Mr. Peter McClellan ask; "Can you give me a reference for that?" Why a member of the governing body forgets that God does not forbid women to be judges. In book Judges 4:4,5 is written; "Now DEBORAH, a prophetess, the WIFE of Lappidoth, was JUDGING Israel ..., and the sons of Israel would GO UP TO HER FOR JUDGMENT." Is this is not "BIBLE PRECEDENT SAMPLE" for that ... ...also as one person testimony in book Deuteronomy 22:25-27. But Mr. G. Jackson said he will ask Jesus for answer once in the future. Shame on him ! @sreckosostar4299 prije 1 godinu @pawelwalecki9363 JW interprets NT in such a way that members of the 144,000 class, made up of Women and Men, will be kings and priests along with Christ and judge people. So I don't see what the problem is. Why do GB and JW elders feel that only they have the privilege of participating in the “decision making aka judging” of their spiritual brothers and sisters in present time, and women in the future? The existence of exceptions, such as Deborah, proves that God has nothing against women in the position of judge. Because, probably, he would not allow an exception to happen in "his organization". On the other hand, what if God “allows” JW men not to allow JW women access to management positions in a JW organization, but does not approves such conduct. Furthermore, both OT and NT have an expiration date. After them always comes something new and different. Maybe, before God, NT fulfilled its purpose as well as OT, and JW followers didn’t recognize it?

Yes, you remember well about that. However, I did not think of that when I listed those 5 points. It is in connection with Gal 1:8. He spoke to the thesis that JWs are so independent that they can on the basis of the Bible itself, the Bible alone, "notice" (his word) whether the directive/instruction/doctrine that the GB publishes is correct or incorrect. It is significant that he stopped there, giving no indication that the followers would be allowed to be disobedient. He continues with the thesis that if the directive is in accordance with the Bible, then how can GB expect JWs to accept it. Notice: to see or become conscious of something or someone Video- from 3:20

1. GB did not write that anywhere 2. Geoffrey Jackson said this before the ARC in Australia in 2015 3. His public testimony (some would say that he was called before the court of this world to testify for Jesus and YHVH) is recorded in the Court records available to the public 4. Official JW Television and their website did not broadcast the GB member's testimony for the International Brotherhood to see and hear

Maybe I didn't know how to explain better. Uniformity is visible through, for example, the same magazine (content) which is published almost simultaneously or at the same time and is studied in all congregations all over the world at the same time, so a conclusion is made about the existence/visibility of the unity of the international brotherhood. Or conversely, unity is seen through uniformity when all JWs study the same Watchtower on the same day. That's why I combined the two concepts in a perhaps clumsy way, especially since I think in my native language, and I'm trying to convey it in another language.

Symbolism. It's not exactly a sublime example, but the instruction, the commandment to bury your excrement in the ground is massively disobeyed even by JWs today. We all flush our by-products into the toilet bowl, which goes somewhere via the water. Somewhere there are processing systems, and somewhere else it is different. It is about the following. Regulations written by law or spoken orally by God probably (must) have the same value. So, the Law (through Moses) ended and all that time disappeared along with its systems. The Apostolic Rule lists only 4 things as obligatory for newly arrived believers. There are very few rules. Where are all the other important things? Did these "newly baptized" behave correctly even before baptism? Obviously yes, despite the assumption that they were influenced by other religious ideas and affiliations. The apostles do not mention such details. Some NT descriptions of how individuals became followers of Jesus do not speak of months of studying the teachings of Jesus, like today's BS practiced by JWs. It is actually interesting and significant. "Abstain from" something means that sometimes you won't be able to refrain.

I somewhat agree. The fear of a different (doctrinal) opinion, regardless of the degree of importance of the topic in question (the issue at hand), I think is built into the caution that elders should have while leading the congregation. This is the task given to them by GB through manuals and courses. Because of the desire to achieve the unity of uniformity to the greatest extent, globally, and small permissible deviations that the GB must be aware of, having different personal views is a slippery slope for members of the JW community. Elders will always want to know, from that person or those who heard what that person said, whether the expressed opinion remained in the mind of the person who is the source, or was said in front of others, how many, whether the person in question defended his position or even convinced others that what he/she was saying was "better" than the official version. Or is he "promoting" an opinion about something on which "Society" has not expressed a clear opinion, yet. The tool called conformism arose from the Society's desire for uniform unity, and as a consequence of the fear of schism, as you have described well. This part of your comment does an excellent job of how the "doctrine", the doctrine of how to "spiritually govern" the congregation, both individual and global, beautifully captures the inner influences and reasons that have shaped the past, and continue to shape the appearance and purpose today. First of all, in the field of doctrine and instructions (theocracy) on how to live before God and people as a JW. What regulations can be used to achieve "unity of faith"? To separate "brothers and sisters" from secular society in such a way that the world is marked/declared a hostile environment ruled by Satan. Then to separate them from the content that is opposed to the teachings and patterns of behavior promoted by the Society. Ask followers to completely avoid all written and spoken content coming from former members, and not to associate with them even at the lowest level of social behavior, which is not to say hello to them. These described "theocratic" means/tools, I think, slowly lose their power.

Well, I'm just emphasizing the problem in the definition of "abstaining from blood", as well as in the interpretations of that definition. What is the difference if you eat 10 drops of blood in meat or receive 3 deciliters during a transfusion? Does the amount of blood make a difference? If this is the intention of the legislator, then it should not be extended to something that is not written, and say that eating through the mouth is the same as injecting into the veins.

My amateur opinion is that things are intertwined here and they are moving in some kind of change of supremacy in opinion between the groups that are the current rulers in WTJWorg. As in any Corporation that has a business/monetary aspect and a real estate business, the survival of Organized Religion in its current form depends solely on money and business moves. How much control GB can have in this, and how much other players are unknown to most of us. Regarding GB's theological control over religion, I think they have it to the greatest extent.