Srecko Sostar

Speaking of names and opinions, perhaps the authors of this text should list the accompanying comments of each of the GB members, in the list of "core beliefs / doctrines". Why? Because their names and accompanying comments would give “credibility” to every essential point of belief. After all, they are the “guardians of the doctrine,” as Mr. Jackson told the ARC. “Guardians of doctrines” have “power,” since 1919, to shape doctrines and modify them as needed. And that is their practice to this day. Which will continue in the future, as you noticed very well. Such an even clearer role (more clearly visible to the ordinary believer) for the FDS aka GB as the Main Ecclesiastical Governing Body*, among other things, would have the effect of minimizing the role of the individual who, due to his "immature" biblical conscience and "weak" theocratic knowledge, could put in question his own future and exercise bad influence on the “spirituality” of other members. “Guardians of doctrine” have in the past, for example, celebrated Christ’s birthday. Then they decided it was a pagan custom. How could this become a pagan custom, when the angels in heaven sang and rejoiced at the moment of Jesus ’birth? Yes, no child born into JW families will become a future “king”. But JW parents can celebrate a child’s birth with faith and hope that it is their child who will become a good human (or at least a future member of the JW church - a little irony). The "guardians of the doctrine" support the division into clergy and laity. They have confirmed this with statements before the courts, and they confirm this with the practice in assemblies around the world. They are declaratively against it and this teaching is not on the list of "core doctrines", but it is widely used in the daily practice of religion. It is indeed manipulative of GB to oppose the clergy-laity relationship and this they support by biblical passages and quotations and interpretations of those same passages. On the other hand, they makes abundant use of the same form/model that they names and declares unbiblical. I think many of you will agree that the List of “core doctrines” that is offered is neither accurate nor complete. *Cobb v. Brede (California Superior Court, San Mateo County February 22, 2012) ("I am general counsel for the National Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses out of Brooklyn, New York. ... We are a hierarchical religion structured just like the Catholic Church"). California’s appeals court provides a generally accurate description of the Jehovah’s Witnesses hierarchy. The relevant upshot is that, “[e]lders are the highest authority at the congregational level,” and, thus, are the Jehovah’s Witnesses equivalent of Roman Catholic priests.5 In order to be appointed an elder, a person must first be a ministerial servant in IAN S. MILLICAN 3 ESTABLISHING DUTY IN CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES AGAINST THE JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES BY IAN S. MILLICAN 2. ESTABLISHING DUTY IN CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES AGAINST THE JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES 4. GOING REMOTE: 2021 EMERGING TRENDS FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LITIGATION 5. ROBINS KAPLAN FILES INJECTAFER CASE 6. NEWS 7. RECOGNITION AND CASE RESULTS good standing.6 Top-down, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, or, “Watchtower,” as the parent-organization is known, is controlled by the Governing Body of eight elders, essentially the board of directors for Watchtower.7 - https://www.robinskaplan.com/-/media/pdfs/newsletters/robins-kaplan-justice-report-winter-2021.pdf?la=en&hash=70455F1B07EC6E66C42EB1DB8E42163E Here, Petitioner Watchtower sought to protect confidential, intra-faith communications among clergy (elders) regarding Bible-based religious appointment processes, some of which included congregants’ penitential confessions and all of which impacted privacy rights of non-parties.............. ...........J.W. asserted she requested Watchtower produce various documents, and Watchtower refused citing the clergy-penitent privilege. - https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-40/104104/20190625174601258_288149_Petition.pdf

Thanks for this

PENITENCE, REPENTANCE, CONTRITION, COMPUNCTION, REMORSE mean regret for sin or wrongdoing. PENITENCE implies sad and humble realization of and regret for one's misdeeds. absolution is dependent upon sincere penitence REPENTANCE adds the implication of a resolve to change. repentance accompanied by a complete change of character CONTRITION stresses the sorrowful regret that constitutes true penitence. tearful expressions of contrition COMPUNCTION implies a painful sting of conscience especially for contemplated wrongdoing. had no compunctions about taking back what is mine REMORSE suggests prolonged and insistent self-reproach and mental anguish for past wrongs and especially for those whose consequences cannot be remedied. thieves untroubled by feelings of remorse Feeling or showing regret for something said or done is a prerequisite for reconciliation with those to whom we have erred. Are they in remorse too? Do they show penitence and contrition? etc. It is not possible to know how any of those who contributed to the misconceptions in the JW organization felt about it. Some who have been involved in past misconceptions have been involved in change, but I don’t think most of them have, but some new people have done so when they came to positions of power. What about the current creators of delusions? Some of them believe in their delusions because they feel they have offered something better than their predecessors. Or they have to adapt their new delusions to existing concepts with some modifications for several reasons. Yet, no text in WTJWorg publications, known to me, contains any of the previously described characteristics of someone who is aware of his (individual or collective GB) error. It simply all comes down to a so called “human error” that can happen to anyone. But in most cases (throwing blame and responsibility) it refers to ordinary members who have "misunderstood" something or many things in publications. The founders of doctrines and interpretations themselves have always found a way to explain their "error" by a lack of sufficient "light" and "knowledge", because then, when they wrote about a topic, there was no "God-given time" to know "real truth". But now, in this very moment when they "clarified" things, it is "true and proper knowledge" that have to be accepted, because it is from God ..... again

Yes, I agree. WTJWorg Administration has been proving that for 142 years ... with black letters on white paper.

Thanks again. The enumeration presented shows on which elements the doctrinal settings of WTJWorg are based. It also contains a list of things you act on because of accepted doctrines, but also because of some direct actions in the past that you seek to emulate. Certainly, we must acknowledge that some of the doctrines on the list are the product of today's JW's interpretation or understanding of the meaning of biblical passages, and this is subject to further discussion, which has already been discussed or will be discussed in the future. If you allow me, I would say that only some of the things you mentioned are recognizable as "religious doctrine". And some other things are part of the administrative and organizational nature, which refer to some patterns of behavior and thought of people thousands of years ago. That patterns must not be wrong because they are old, but are just reflection of life conditions of people in past time. When you or other people mentioning Jesus words from Matt 22:39 - The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’, - I would never thought about them as "religious doctrine". Those words are many miles away from any sort of "religious doctrine". They are unimaginably more sublime and important than most "doctrines". Well, in fact of all the "doctrines", I would venture to say. .....This is evident from question: Was the law created/made for man or was man created/made for the law? In Mark 2:27 Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Question; Was Sabbath "core doctrine"? or some minor rule? Sabbath was/is part of 10 Commandments. In that/such context perhaps many believers would say it is "core doctrine". Jesus showed another perspective. According to, great caution is needed when it comes to "core doctrines". They must be in the service of man, not the other way around. Understanding the doctrines and choosing the doctrines by which we should look at ourselves and others, our own lives and the lives of other people, and derive other instructions and guidelines can easily turn into a multiplication of life-suffocating rules. We should also see what the differences and similarities are when we use another term - “principles”. Are "principles" in the service of "doctrines"? Are they equal or are “principles” more important?

Thanks

What exactly are the “fundamental doctrines” for JW members? Are they clearly visible and enumerated, in the Bible as a whole text? Or are these specific teachings of Jesus Christ? Or are these important doctrines that are an integral part of the JW religion? If something is called fundamental, then there may be a few things, maybe five, maybe ten, that are the basis for everything else. As far as I can remember, Jesus said quite clearly what is most important in the religious life of a believer, that is, in the "religion" he promoted. He said, Love God and love people the same way. The very thesis you are trying to advocate, and that is, that core doctrines are correct, automatically means that you have doctrines that are not fundamental. And what’s worse, that these unimportant doctrines aren’t accurate, they’re wrong, maybe even false. So where will that take you? Some of you are concerned with ratios, so they say most doctrines are correct and a minority are not. Or vice versa. How many fundamental doctrines are there in the teachings of Jesus? How many less important doctrines are there in the teachings of Jesus? How many subsequently interpreted teachings or “beliefs clarified” are there in Jesus ’teaching? Why has WTJWorg GB put itself in a situation of multiplying teachings that it subsequently revises, instead of sticking solely to “core doctrines” whose source is Jesus and not some people in the Organization? Why don't JW members recognize Jesus' legacy, but are willing to repeatedly follow people who have proven to be generators, promoters, and stewards of wrong/false teachings? And if we are already talking about the ratios of accuracy and inaccuracy, truth and falsehood in the religious and administrative doctrine of the Organization, then you really need to worry about yourself and your part in promoting inaccurate and incorrect, false interpretations and teachings as you preach your beliefs to other people. Reminder for illustration: Does the Organization have a division into priests and lay people? If you say no then you are not telling the truth. And another important question: Is this doctrine about priests and lay people a “core doctrine” or not? Given the new “overlapping generation” interpretation you will not die in this “system of things” but in some other/future system, and whether you will die old and content depends only on you as individuals. But I do hope how "overlapping generation" is not part of your "core doctrine".

- That is to say, they are not merely comments on the Bible, but they are practically the Bible itself, - our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. Since then, many doctrines have changed. But, the principle set out in these sentences has not changed. WTJWorg still argues today that the Bible cannot be properly understood without JW publications and without GB placing “spiritual food” in front of people. Deception is powerful and works.

I would like to add one piece of information, without opening a new topic, because we can continue, I guess, the discussion under this topic. So, I heard first hand how one JW explains to an interested person how the Organization (because of God’s guidance) made a good decision to sell KH. Like, they saw in advance that the halls would be left without visitors, the costs of maintaining empty KH are high and the like. From that brief explanation, which I overheard, I come to the assumption that mass sales of KH do not presuppose defeat for JW members (all or perhaps most members). For them, this is great news and they accept the reasons why the Organization is selling KH. Of course, I do not know the reasons for selling KH. I can only assume that it is a lack of money, because it was said on JWTV. But that was before the advent of COVID, so they couldn’t have known they would suspend / ban world gatherings of people because of the infection. But JW members, for some reason, came to that conclusion. Since I don’t follow JWTV, maybe some of you have heard it publicly stated that the sale of KH is God’s leadership because of COVID? Or is this explanation only of an internal character, semi-official? Or you have other guessing, ideas, information?

If we transfer this assessment now to the question in the title of the topic, Did everyone notice ... then we need to notice at least two, three things: 1) That a large part of JW members will not notice the differences between text in the paper form and in digital form of already published publications. 2) That newer generations of JW members have no idea what happened and what is happening to them “right under their noses” about history of own Organization. 3) That changes to the official text on WTJWorg applications can happen in an instant, and that what you read this morning may look different if you read in the afternoon. So, for some readers, it may create insecurity in their own mind and memory, which means the mental and emotional instability of an individual. 4) That digital technology enables a great possibility of manipulation .., etc

Many times it can be heard that some people, when asked about their lives, say that they would repeat everything and would not change anything. They are very happy with their marriage, their job, their achievements, etc. My opinion on that is such that I would not really agree with such conclusions. Maybe I think so because I’m not happy with my life (for a very, very long time). But regardless of me, Arauna said it well when she says that she herself has many things from her past that she is ashamed of today. So, it could be that some other people today conclude that their "historical context" is such that they can be completely satisfied with everything they have achieved before and therefore would not change anything if they could be born again or get another chance for another lifetime. In a religious sense, perhaps even GB today thinks, that the "historical context" of WTJWorg is such that they should feel no shame for anything. Judge for yourself if it makes sense for GB and JW members to look at their past (as an Organization and active members inside) that way. On the other hand, repeating, once or more, your life in exactly the same way would mean depriving yourself of new experiences, new delusions, new lies, new successes, new truths, new sorrows and joys in some unique, new and different context. Sometimes a man “holds on” to what he has, because he is afraid of the different, because he is afraid of the unknown. Maybe it’s just a sign that we’ve stopped being young. Yes, one should look at the past in the context of the past. And it should be said, publicly, how that past (from the Organization) is full of misconceptions. And don’t forget, your past is the cause of your present. And the present will define your future. Do we have a chance to save ourselves? As individuals? And you as an Organization?

You told me that I needed to look again for something I hadn't remembered reading before. This doesn't mean that all this rambling and cutting and pasting is for you. I really doubted that anyone would take much of an interest. But as long as I am going through a lot of material again, I thought it best to share what I was finding. Especially because such a review is always an opportunity for me to pick up on several things I hadn't noticed before. And there's always a good chance that several of my conclusions are wrong, so I put a lot of them out their for public scrutiny, where they can be corrected by others. I'm sure I'll also run across what I missed before (the passage that you saw) and I'd very much like to find it. Hi. This quote was made by @Thinking not by me.

@JW Insider gave an opinion on who deleted the topic and why. What's so accusing in that about that other brother? You should have read the last comment from Rando that he sent me. It was troubling what this man thought of those who thought differently from him. And how he allows himself to pronounce a severe condemnation/judgement of another. In my opinion JW Insider has outstanding intellectual abilities and I don’t see any aspiration for self-praise. But even if I am wrong in my perception, it does not invalidate the results of the research and presentation he has shown. I hope he will stay on this forum in years to come.

The questions make sense. If God did not participate in the creation of human governments, which should be logical, because why would he create competition for himself, then these "kingdoms" are not his, but from those who established them. We should establish historical events that show the emergence of “human rule”. It should then bring to light the possible moment when it was God who became the “owner” of all these past kingdoms (and today’s legal successors). What biblical account confirms such a conclusion? The appearance of Nemrod? But nothing speaks in favor of God appropriating or producing that kingdom. JWs only deal with the term - "God allows it to exist". According to the development of events visible from the Bible, God was in some way involved in the creation of the Jewish Kingdom. The Jewish Kingdom was ultimately still (became and remained) human rule, thus part of the “political” picture at the time, and through the state of Israel it still exists today. If God was ever the owner (I won’t say the creator of human kingdoms), at what point and why would He hand over all control and ownership to Satan? Let us not forget that God greatly regretted creating man. Would he then, and yet, contribute to the creation of competition in the form of “kingdoms” that he voluntarily gives to Satan? Or is it perhaps a matter of creating a seemingly invincible system on the opposite side, which God would destroy in the future to prove himself the greatest? We can deny/refuse whatever we want, but we can still be reached by "someone else's reality". In the past, before becoming president of the new Yugoslavia after World War II, Tito was arrested and brought before a court in 1928. At the process of the trial he said that, he consider this court incompetent and recognize only the court of the Communist Party. But he was still sentenced to 5 years in prison. No authority is happy when questioned

The cost of computers, energy and cryptocurrency storage exist. But they may be significantly smaller than paper and coins. Either way, the future will be changed and lives will be changed ... drastically.

I think there are several models around that in Croatia. Sometimes the matter is resolved in court because the private owner is not satisfied with the small offer for redemption. And, sometimes the state can expropriate property from the owner because of a higher interest for the state and the public.

Sorry, but i can witness how some IMPERFECT persons also sin and do not remorse. What is final point of your standpoint when evidence show only this: IMPERFECT individuals can act in two ways - to show remorse and to not show remorse. If Bible state that people are made in image of God.....that would mean how PERFECT individuals have same quality - to show same feelings, attitudes as IMPERFECT. Bible stated this: The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. Gen 6:6 Regret vs. Remorse - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/stop-caretaking-the-borderline-or-narcissist/201507/regret-vs-remorse The main difference between Remorse and Regret is that the Remorse is a advanced emotion and Regret is a negative conscious and emotional reaction to personal past acts and behaviours. - https://www.askdifference.com/remorse-vs-regret/ The Difference between Regret and Remorse - https://education.onehowto.com/article/the-difference-between-regret-and-remorse-12141.html

This is some proof .. for what? Things not written not exist?

Of course, I agree. I hope you would not mind if say little more about this issue. According to some idea/guess from you or other about land outside of Eden, it looks bad, in my eyes, that God was not satisfied with enormous feelings of guilt, fear, disappointments etc in Adam and Eve, but He put more burden and punishment on them by physically made their life miserable. No one force God to curse the land and animals, nature as whole because of Adam and Eve. Have in mind how God explicitly told them they will die, just die .... not that they will suffer emotional and physical and mental pains because of eating from tree, not that land will be cursed, etc for next 8 or 9 centuries of their life !?!

Font size 8 will be better for me to read

Gen 1:29 - Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. In this verse it would be possible to conclude how all Earth and ground are prepared for and, in fact giving food, not only for humans, but for animals too. Or, if we conclude how only Eden was filled with animals and first humans, then animals outside of Eden was starving and humans also. Some controversy or dilemma came from Genesis 2 5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Here, report said how there is no shrub and plant. What, then, did the animals that were created thousands of years before humans eat at all? Reason for not existed shrub and plant was - missing of rain and no work from human hands. After, verses speaking about God who worked and planted ground of Eden, but rain was not needed as in first picture, because of streams and rivers which gave enough water for plants of all kind. Does this mean how streams and rivers inside Eden was sufficient for plants but not outside of Eden? Again, if so what have eaten all animals before Adam and Eve and before Eden? One thing is need to be take in consideration. After every creative day God said how every thing was "good". In this terminology, today we explain this as "perfect", without something that would missing. Animals were perfect, earth were perfect, the natural cycles were perfect. If God planted Eden and made it better and more beautiful than the rest of the planet Earth, does that mean that everything outside of Eden was “hell”? Why, when God says that all creation was "good" aka "perfect"?

Apologize, but i don't see how this is answer on question. Who are people you described as ..many ( yet to be born ) and who knows how many other brothers and sisters there were…?

Who can? I suppose ... Third Party can prove or disprove that.

WTJWorg leaders from past, till today, showed a great desire for the "end of the world" to come in 1914, 1925, 1941, 1975, by the end of the 20th century, by the end of the overlapping generation" ... and, if we live long enough, we will still hear their new predictions in some new or changed format.

@Patiently waiting for Truthgave interesting view on issue when he said: Bible records states how everything was "good" in Creative acts about 7 Days or even with creation/creativity before those 7 Days. That could also mean without "evil" or without "error". If the environment and condition in Heaven around Satan was without evil and without sin, it would mean that nothing could corrupt one angel or any other angel. If we raise the idea that Satan had "free will", as humans, and chose to be evil, then we could shift the blame to “free will” as a gift from God. Because without “free will” he/we wouldn’t know we have a choice between two or more options. One might conclude that the existence of “free will” is actually a trap. Or we could say that dualism arose from the very creation of a person and it is a matter of the very moment when someone will stop being good and commit something bad. Furthermore, we have another very unusual thing in the Book of Genesis and in God’s statement. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” What does it even mean: Knowledge of good and evil? If there is a literal or symbolic tree that has information of what is good and what is evil, then it is inevitable that evil and good already exist in any literal or metaphorical sense. Did “good” produce any effect before Adam and Eve? Yes, because God says that everything that was created was "Good." Is the word “good” in both contexts synonymous? If so with the word "Good," then it cannot be otherwise with the word "Evil." It must exist, even in the very imagination of the person. In the person of God, angel, man, it doesn't matter. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” These passages should show that God, satan, and every angel knew, and should know, what "evil" is, without at the same time having to mean that as an individual he is "evil" or has done something "evil". In my opinion, this opens a paradox about the very concept of "good and evil". In other words, Adam and Eve could not possibly know what was "good" and what was "evil." God stated this in the quoted verse. By that, Adam and Eve did not know they were doing "evil" because they had no knowledge that “good and evil” existed at all, and more important what is difference, what is essence of them. But God and the angels knew the difference, according to verses. Furthermore, everything that is in the imagination of an individual may already exist, or will exist in some other form or model of existence, either spiritual or physical. It would mean that "evil" began to exist from the very moment when God and the angels showed that they had "knowledge of good and evil." And, since God exists eternally, then "evil", at least in the form of cognition, also exists eternally.... and so it will be in the future, because God cannot cease to exist, because he is eternal and immortal, as they say, and many of us believe it. Did man gain full knowledge of "good and evil" in Eden? I don’t know, because man’s imagination of how to do harm to others developed more and more after Adam and Eve. Consequently, the "knowledge" of what "evil" is also "grew". If gift of imagination and free will will stay with humans, then some future individual and future generation will be in possibility/ability to exercise his/their "knowledge/ignorance about good and evil" too.