Srecko Sostar

I don't know the real reasons, of course. Let's say that someone in GB lost their attention and concentration. The third meeting is a good tool to keep people under tension so that they do not become idle or active in undesirable areas, even if it is related to their private affairs. Yes, there was also informal socializing with food and tea. It was and it's over.

One more thing is interesting. Some of that can be clearly seen in the comment from @Errikos Tsiamis. Namely, since JWs agree that, of all the written things they have on paper or digitally, only the Bible is "inspired", I would link it to the sworn statement of the respected GB guardian of the doctrine Geoffrey Jackson. Quote: "Governing body realizes that if we were to give some direction that is not in harmony with God's Word, all of JWs worldwide who have Bible would notice that, and they would see that this wrong direction. If direction is given based on the Bible we would expect that they would follow that because of the respect of the Bible and the definitive interpretation of the Bible." - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu6X1YU6YYI From this it should be evident that every JW has the right to be "led, guide" (inspired) with the HS and make a conclusion about the doctrines that come from the GB. And they should be free to accept or reject them. But this is in theory. In practice, the WTJWorg Corporation declares those who do not want to believe every GB doctrine as "apostates". So, the statement of this GB member is a performance for the outside world. The proof that this testimony was only for "unbelievers" is confirmed by the fact that this public testimony of a "Christian" was not shown on JWTV. Jesus said that His followers would be called before the rulers of this world to testify for Him. For whom did GJ testify? For Jesus or for WTJWorg? Why don't GB take positive pride in the "public testimony" of their member, and show to the entire international brotherhood how they should stand before the Court of this "satanic world".

@say6hows7 prije 9 sati Ironically, the governing body grants themselves, the right to question the doctrines, and even disagree, and suggest alternative explanations or interpretations to scripture, and yet, if any regular witness, was to do what they do every Wednesday, they would be disfellowshipped for apostasy from YT : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u25uLUBIilM&t=36s

I hope you don't mind me using an older comment I wrote under the topic, "At what moment "Te Truth" ceased to be "The Truth"?" Although it is an old comment from 2018, I don't think it has expired , still. First we should come up with an answer on what type of "inspiration" the GB speaks. As for the religious people who govern the believers, then we can safely assert that GB actually claims that they are not inspired by the divine spirit. In what sense of inspiration? In the sense of what is often used for written Bible text and its source, these are verses like - 2 Peter 1:19-21 and 2 Timothy 3:14-16. GB denied such divine inspiration for written and verbal text that coming from GB members mouth, or in extension, all what is produced as "spiritual food" by means, with help, through WT Company or JW Organization as god's chosen organized people who doing His will. Now let us see something about word "inspire" (and all forms that come from this one). few from dictionary: to make someone feel that they want to do something and can do it to make someone have a particular strong feeling or reaction to give someone an idea for a book, film, product, etc to fill someone with confidence and desire to do something If something or someone inspires something else, it causes or leads to it As we can see to be inspired can came from various sources. And all sources are normal (if they are normal :)). If you as JW member listen to Conventional program and hear some bro or sis how they are happy in missionary service, how they meet many interesting people, saw beautiful scenery of nature and many more and after you heard that you want to be missionary .... Who INSPIRED Who? Nothing is wrong to be INSPIRED. If you read some book, watching TV, movie and something move you aka inspired you to say something, to do something ... it means you are INSPIRED. If God from heaven tell you to say, to do something, it means you are INSPIRED. When GB of JW say how they are not INSPIRED what that means? Not inspired by spirit of God, not inspired by other people spirit , not inspired by own spirit?? How ever they claim, state, quote how they are not inspired, they are in fact want to say how GB is not RESPONSIBLE for nothing have been said and written. That is main reason for defending themselves with phrase "we are not inspired". Inspiration is divine gift. And was given to all people. Or better to say some will found that and some will used that. :))) Not only for religious purposes!!! To continue in the present. The old and new light coming from GB did not come from being "inspired by HS", as GB claims. But, they say, it (new progressive understanding) was created through a deep study of the Scriptures and the guidance of the Spirit. What do they mean by "led, guide by the Spirit"? Whatever we think of it, it's obvious that the "light" in their conference room is playing with its shadows. And maybe it's just a problem: "in the gathering of evidence or in the assessment of the evidence". as @Juan Rivera pointed by quoting theologian Richard A. McCormick's Notes on Moral Theology: 1965 through 1980)

This is an example of another "progressive knowledge" or "new light" with all its connotations in the minds and hearts of believers. The New World Government was created in 1914, according to WTJWorg. After 29 years of their rule, the NWG made a theocratic decision, because that's what Jesus told them to do. So it says in this article WT, July 1 1943. Read this and similar things in an article from that time that give people a headache today. Especially to those who are increasingly realizing how much nonsense was loaded on the faithful believers throughout all these decades by the GB and their predecessors. Link to WT article: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://exjehovahswitnessct.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/1943-wt-righteous-requirements.pdf 1943-wt-righteous-requirements.pdf1943-wt-righteous-requirements.pdf Below is a video clip from GB member Sam Herd, who must have heard a new instruction from Jesus, and says that from now on JW rank and file members will not have to obey the Old Righteous Requirements, because the New Righteous one has arrived.

So, parents enlighten their children with the "truth" that they adopted as adults, or were exposed to as children, too. One of the important features of the JW sermons was that for a very long time they particularly pointed out that the Catholic Church violates the Holy Scriptures because they baptize newborn babies. And they supported this with biblical quotations which state that the first Christians baptized only adults, namely men and women. In fact, they proudly pointed out that Jesus was baptized at the age of 30 and that this was the right example to follow. How did WTJWorg come to baptize underage children? Probably the cause of this is the supposed "progressive understanding" of God's Word and the desire of the leadership of the JW Church (GB) to show how the Scriptures are fulfilled because even "little children" praise God JHVH. Or they could not find a "biblical reason" to forbid the baptism of minors. Obviously, there is no legal reason, too, to prohibit such a practice, because Catholics baptize babies. It is not surprising, because GB repeatedly referred to the Catholic Church to show that JW elders have the same status as the clergy of Christendom. We see that we have touched at least 2 "truths" so far. Baptism of minors and the clerical status of the JW elders and those in similar service (MS?). What interpretations of the biblical text allow this practice of WTJWorg? How did WTJWorg come from condemning Clericalism (and baptism of children) to comparing and defending the status of JW elders with the (same) type of argumentation used previously against the clergy of another Church? Which and what kind of "truth" do JW members not see ..... or which/what "truth" do they see?

There is a popular saying; "A tree bends while it is young". Most children and young people like to be guided and taught by adults. So mostly time and persistence of adults is enough to guide children according to the "wisdom" of those adults. In good faith or because of tradition, the influence on young minds within the framework of ideology can perhaps be called by some other words.

In the jargon of Jehovah's Witnesses, phrases like: "Being in the organization" or "Being in the truth" mean only one thing, that the person in question is a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, that he is a baptized member of this "religious organization", that is, the JW Church. The problem with this sort of JW thinking is in their concept of meaning of word "Truth" in JW community. For them, the meaning of the word "truth" is equated with religious knowledge, which is a body of doctrines and interpretations derived from the study and research of the Bible by leading individuals within their Main Ecclesiastical* Body ( body called the Governing Body). Because GB dictates how the Bible can and should be understood, and they alone have the right to interpret the biblical text. (Although JWs never say their organization is the Church. They do not use the term "Church" for their congregations or whole Organization. The term "Society" is also not in common use. And at least the members of JW congregations do not see themselves as a "non-profit corporations", which they actually are because they are legally registered as such and that's also not used in JW jargon.) * ecclesia noun ec·cle·sia 1: a political assembly of citizens of ancient Greek states especially : the periodic meeting of the Athenian citizens for conducting public business and for considering affairs proposed by the council 2: CHURCH sense 4d 3: one of the local organizations of the Christadelphians Thus the GB's "digested" text of the Holy Scriptures gains significant status and is called "Truth" in JW jargon. This "truth" is also called "food at the proper time." Also, "spiritual food from YHVH's table." How come that collection of doctrines and interpretations as taught by WTJWorg cannot be called "Truth"? Primarily because the variability (changes, clarifications) of doctrines and interpretations does not fit into the very content of the unique meaning of the word "Truth". "Truth" is a value that can and should last through all times and in all circumstances. Faced with various challenges and ideas, the "truth" should withstand every test and show that it is valid for everything and everywhere. If it is not universal, then either it is not "true", or we need to use other terminology to denote the current value or rule or interpretation that governs our reality or our foreseen, imagined relationships with people and God, and also our understanding of the world. . the truth noun 1.the real facts about a situation, event, or person 2.the body of real things, events, and facts 3.a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true Now we come to the frequently used words in WTJWorg. The phrase "food in proper time" is used from one of Jesus' many illustrations. The illustration is talking about literal human food. Can it also be applied to "spiritual" food? You can, if you want to. But then it changes the purpose of the illustration and creates a new dynamic for the characters in another reality. Keep in mind that the servant who distributes the food is not the source of the food. Neither literally nor figuratively. The term "spiritual food" and "spiritual drink" occurs only in 1 Corinthians 10:3,4. It is related to the events in the Desert during the journey to the Promised Land and Moses as the leader. What fed them in the desert? Manna. This is the "spiritual food" that fell from the sky. And the water that flowed from the rock in the desert. This "spiritual" (thing, matter, cause) fed and watered the physical, human stomachs of children, women, men, and livestock. The role GB ascribes to itself is to share "spiritual food". But what and where is "spiritual food". The only one that all Christians in this world know and acknowledge is found in/as the book, Bible. And nowhere else. This, they believe, is the only "inspired Word" from God for humans. Ask yourself, can the "uninspired word" be a worthy substitute for the "inspired Word"? Can the "uninspired word" accurately interpret the "inspired Word"? Can people who claim not to be "inspired by the Spirit" correctly interpret the "inspired Word"? Well, it's clear that they can't. Jesus claimed to be the Way, the Truth and the Life. If He is the Truth, then there is no truth in our claim that we are "In the Truth" or that some organization, religion, faith is the "Truth". That's a nonsensical claim. Because it is contrary to Jesus' claim that He is the Truth. People, including JWs, can only parade with the claim that they are "in the Truth" that they "know the Truth". The most they should dare to say is that they have a personal opinion and that they believe, that they hope that Jesus will accept them as his followers. So what kind of "Truth" is it when it comes to WTJWorg? It is about human doctrines, interpretations and speculations. It is about human cognition and the processes that, among JWs, are called progressive processes of understanding. This kind of JW logic reminds me of the JW counterargument for the theory of evolution. JWs would object to very long processes of organism development with a simple question. If the eyes of an organism developed over hundreds of thousands of years, this would mean that that form of life (human or animal, whatever) was deprived and could not see around itself, could not see food or danger, and this lack could be the reason for not survive. If we apply the same way of summarizing, then it would mean that the GB cannot "see" the truth because it does not have developed "spiritual eyes" since in these 143 years the "approach to the Bible text" has constantly changed, important and less important doctrines and interpretations have changed. So, the idea of "a light that shines brighter and brighter", and so that nothing can be discerned well in the meantime, and the idea that real progress is achieved through deep and continuous study, while mistakes are made in the meantime, is just an attempt to justify one's own ignorance and tool for manipulate with the faith of believers.

Recently, there was an instructional video for JW elders, leaked by a Bethel insider, that showed a meeting of JW elders of a congregation where the CO questioned the status of an elder. Namely, the child of that elder is a student of higher education. And that is not appropriate to be in a family where the father is also the elder of the congregation. Everything was directed against this JW elder and showed once again how WTJWorg is against higher education for JW members. Since that video no longer exists because the GB spies were able to hunt down this JW individual and shut down all the videos that came from this Bethel volunteer, I came across this YT video which is interesting because of its same ideological obtuseness in a different setting, outside of the JW world, but it shows the same stupidity.

Haha. At present GB interpretations, you as JWs, currently have 2 generations of anointed ones. According to what is written in the commentary, you should wait for 7 or 14 different generations, because 7 is a significant biblical number, which make up that One Special Generation. Well, you are even worse than GB researchers, because you do not give any false hope to today's JWs that they will see Armageddon.

What Russell said in 1881, that the "new light" never cancels the "old light" is very reasonable from a human point of view. Under one condition. That the "old light" was correct and true. Let's say it with the help of an organ transplant illustration. The "Old Light of Truth" condemned organ transplantation, calling the act cannibalism. The "New Light of Truth" completely denied that view and to this day says that it is a matter of individual conscience. If "today's truth" is correct then the "old light of truth" was the "old lie" and was not "light" but "darkness". It's the same thing with hundreds of "clarified beliefs". There is no room for claims about progress. These doctrines are rejected delusions or lies (or at least that's what they now claim to be delusions). Because the rejected dogmas were never even "New Light" in the past tense when they appeared. When the GB rejected the old "new light" they automatically declared it as "false teaching" (announcement without announcement). These false teachings were then a full part of "true worship". Face it, please.

You have written many good things. But then, JW people should ask themselves why they today think that the words of the GB are as powerful as the "gospel"? Why are they obliged to follow doctrines and instructions that not only appear but are demonstrably unreasonable, from a human point of view. Because the human point of view is the only one we have. We do not have God's point of view. Only God has that. We have an interpretation of what we think, or believe, or claim to be God's point of view.

Did Pastor Russell start destroying his books after he realized there were errors in them? Did Pastor Russell withdraw his book from circulation and start issuing new editions with altered text because he concluded that there were inaccuracies in the original edition? Does WTJWorg change the content of its digital "spiritual food", leaving no indication that the changes have been made or warning its readers that such a change is about to happen? If there has been a change in CT Russell's status at WTJWorg in the meantime, that is a problem with today's leadership. But the appearance of Russell was for a long time JW's proof that YHVH through Russell is "restoring true worship" on Earth. This part of the Russell quote you posted supports the public lie Geoffrey Johnson told in his testimony before the ARC. From both texts/statements it appears that WTJWorg is not the only organization or group of believers that "possess the truth", but that the truth can be found among people who are not part of them. It is evident that such "religious truth" is not taught in JW congregations nor is it found on any digital content of your official site. So here the main issue is not about who said it wrong or correctly, but it is about concealing historical accuracy and denying the manipulation of information that almost imperceptibly disappears from the screen. Few, if any, JW people download digital material and create their own archives. Because of this, they cannot be able to compare things. They can only rely on their memory. And after a while they will begin to convince themself that they are misremembering or that they saw the wrong letters and words while reading. In this way, the WTJWorg Corporation does mental and psychological damage to its followers because it makes them insecure and unstable in themselves. How could you not, when you read one thing today, and tomorrow it's not there or it's written differently. It is really a method of "theocratic war" against one's own "soldiers of Christ".

In the search for understanding, it cannot be done without questioning! Knowing this, GB does not allow their "understanding" to be questioned by followers. Well, they say that GB should be trusted because, supposedly, Jesus and YHVH trust them. Really, who in their right mind can dare to question such a statement and claim and other blahblah of GB?

I agree to believe that there is truth in the Bible that will stand the test of time. But we are emphasizing the "truth" of the WT Society here. So are you forgetting that Russell began to doubt the established "truth" of the existing religions of his time. And none of the JWs take as a bad thing for him. He had critical thinking about his faith. When did JWs stop critically examining their own beliefs? This happened after they came to know and accepted the WTJWorg "truth". With the passage of time and belonging to the newly acquired doctrine, they reduced their caution towards the ideological nonsense of their own religious elite who replaced ideological nonsense of their previous religious leaders from the former church. JWs have fallen into the same kind of religious circle dominated by the drivel of a few "peddlers" of God's Word. If JWs would stick to exclusively moral teachings from the Bible, that is, Jesus' sermons, then they would be in the Truth. But as they are today, they are in the Network of Interpretations.

Advices, recommendations, tips are good. The problem may arise in the perception of the observer.

GB constantly finds reasons to change its previous point of view, opinion. And so it happens that the previous "Light" has become the current "Darkness". Every mind-unchained JW should be concerned about his role in believing and spreading today's "Truth", because tomorrow it will be declared "Darkness". Some JWs will try to rationalize this theological/doctrinal middle ground with the idea that "it is not the truth that changes but our understanding of the truth". "Present Truth" is changing, the book Proclaimers says, because of "advances in the understanding of truth." The book Proclaimers deals with the terms: 1-"light is progressive" 2-"progressive understanding" 3-"shining of light is progressive" 4-"study of God's Word is progressive" 5-"progressive Truth" 6-"recognizing the progressive character of the unfolding of Scriptural truths" After this kind of terminology used to defend the changes in the doctrines of the WTJWorg, we may wonder what JWs actually believe. Do they believe in "The Bible"? Do they believe in "The Truth"? Do they believe in "The Progress"? Do they believe in "The Understanding"? Do they believe in all these separate elements, which can only be correctly connected and formed together giving the final product only within their Main Church Body aka GB? Regardless of how JWs feel about this, it is significant that a large number of their "Truths" are being changed to such an extent and significance that they can no longer be called, or even should not be called "Truth", but become, rejected and forgotten over time, "The Interpretation" of some human minds.

I am glad you bring these and other issues to the attention of the public. .... Oh, no. I twisted your words again.

It is the legitimate right of everyone here to participate with their comments. Confrontation of ideas and opinions. In the spirit of that, a question came to mind after reading your comment. It reads like this: Since it is very important for every JW that other people recognize the importance of their (and other people's) religious freedom, I wonder what/how religious freedom will look like in the New World that they preach with so much zeal? Has this question distorted your comment?

.., significance of the organization lies in its dedication to spreading the message of God's love and promoting religious freedom to governments.., Maybe my memory is not serving me well, but I can't remember any Bible text that writes about how Jesus, as the Pillar and Model of the Perfect Preacher and Proclaimer of the Gospel, promoted religious freedom to the political elites in the 1st century?

Lobbying, Advocacy, Open Communication First source: https://research2policy.org/advocacyvlobbying/ LOBBYING RULES FOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS Many researchers’ workplaces and affiliations are likely nonprofits and, more specifically, nonprofits categorized as 501(c)(3)s (e.g., public colleges or universities, research institutes). As such, it is important that researchers are aware of the lobbying rules for nonprofit organizations. Nonprofits classified as 501(c)(3)s public charities must not use “substantial” resources for lobbying, though it is not prohibited outright. These organizations have the right to lobby for issues they believe in or against issues they do not. It is only when this advocacy deals with specific legislation that calculated cost limits apply. If the rule that “no substantial part” of activities be dedicated to lobbying seems too vague, consider an “h election” to allow your organization to precisely report the amount of money spent on direct or grassroots lobbying. Researchers should consult with their organizational leadership about lobbying definitions, allowable activities, and how their paid time may be used when communicating recommendations to legislators. Next source: https://www.churchlawcenter.com/political/what-is-the-difference-between-lobbying-campaigning-and-advocacy-why-does-it-matter-for-charities/ Nonprofit organizations with 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) are subject to specific restrictions on their political activities. Violating these rules can lead to loss of tax-exempt status, so all nonprofits need to be aware of these restrictions to avoid any potential problems. Lobbying Restrictions IRS regulations generally prohibit charities with tax-exempt status from engaging in lobbying except to an “insubstantial degree.” Historically, if a charity spends more than about five percent of its budget, time, and effort on lobbying, it may be considered “substantial” and thus violate IRS regulations, although there is no regulation that defines “substantial” with precision. The other alternative for charities under IRS statutes is to use the 501(h) expenditure test under Section 501(h) of the IRC. Under the formula defined in 501(h), a charity’s lobbying activities are subject to specific dollar limits with an overall cap of $1 million. However, any lobbying activities by volunteers on behalf of the charity do not count toward those limits. WTJWorg is full of volunteers, isn't it? They are actually all volunteers. https://www.runn.io/blog/open-communication What is open communication? Open communication is the ability to express your thoughts freely while interacting with other people. In a workplace, it refers to the ability of employees to share and receive feedback, provide ideas and suggestions, and raise concerns, which makes them active participants in the work process. Open communication is about honesty, availability, and transparency. It means that you have to tell the truth as it is and be willing to hear it in return. It also means you have access to the information you need, and you have to provide the information to those who need it, too. Finally, it means nothing can be kept secret – so there is no chance for politicking or intrigues. Open communication is based on the following principles: Trust. When you know you will hear an honest opinion, you do not expect a get knife in your back. You can rely on your colleagues. You can ask for help. This highly reduces the risk of workplace conflict, and lays the foundations for healthy work relationships. Psychological safety. It is the ability to express your thoughts without fear of judgment or rejection. A workplace is psychologically safe when employees can openly raise up sensitive issues and be sure that they will not be scolded or fired for challenging someone else’s authority. Consistency. For communication to be truly open, it has to be open on a regular basis. This is why it’s important to establish specific open communication policies that would normalize this phenomenon in the workplace. The role of the leader is crucial here – leaders set an example for the whole team and motivate people to act in the same way. When WTJWorg destroys important documents and refuses to hand over documents to the courts that request it, can we talk about open communication? Or when GB publishes manuals for elders that no other member of JW society is allowed to see?