Ray Devereaux

Probably because witnesses won't consider an action that was set by the pharisees to gain political power and influence. However, you don't need someone's permission JTR to vote. If someone see's you and makes it known to the elders in your congregation, it will be your own action on display, not someone else's. 

Pedophile priests. Shame, pain and truth about the attack on Benedict XVI

 
Pedophile priests exist. Many of us would like it to be just a bad dream, or slander from the secularist press. Unfortunately, this is not the case. And that's not what the Pope teaches us. In the magnificent Letter to the Catholics of Ireland of 19 March 20, O Benedict XVI speaks of a Church wounded and disoriented by news relating to pedophile priests: news, unfortunately, not always unfounded. The pope denounces in a very loud voice "abnormal crimes", "shame and dishonor", the violation of the dignity of the victims, the blow inflicted on the Church "to a point which had not even reached centuries of persecution" (Benedict XVI 2010, from which the subsequent citations are also taken). Page 5


 
Can it be the purpose of Massimo Introvigne is to realistically examine a condition that is out of any “religions” control but find it an extreme negativism for ignorant people to suggest any religious leaders accepts child abuse?

However, I don’t recall when the Watchtower sent “Elders” accused of child abuse to a monastery (correctional facility) to rehabilitate that minister of religion as the Catholic Church does.

Perhaps, people are better suited to “think” here before making embarrassing comments. I am sure, even apostates have the ability to think with such “personal” human condition. How many governments and government run institutions are charged for a crime, because of its residents?

I can agree in certain aspects of this comment. The 16th century protestant reformation began a good concept to break away from the papacy and the church fathers distinct preservation of the old standard of keeping the bible from the public.

It was unfortunate that the dominant church sought to execute those like Martin Luther and William Tyndale that made any attempts to have the people read and understand the bible for themselves to see for themselves the mistakes of the church. I personally respect Tyndale for that brave move that eventually got him killed by the church.

Another place I can agree with tearing down the old house to build a new house is exactly what Russell did in his day. He decided to forgo his parent’s teachings and that of the ranking Christendom of his day to start from scratch to understand the bible as Jesus spoke of it to the first century Christian.

A revision to the view of the reformer movement but with a better understanding that is placed before today’s society.

The expectation of being spiritually uplifted here is zero. I recommend, all Jehovah witnesses that are not in conflict with themselves, not take part here. Being here only serves to rebuff those that have inherited conflict by their own initiative, or had past situations they were sanctioned for. 
Do not look favorably on that JW only club. It amounts to the same dissidence as it does here.

The expectation of being spiritually uplifted here is zero. I recommend, all Jehovah witnesses that are not in conflict with themselves, not take part here. Being here only serves to rebuff those that have inherited conflict by their own initiative, or had past situations they were sanctioned for. 
Do not look favorably on that JW only club. It amounts to the same dissidence as it does here.

Question. Is that JW only for Jehovah’s witnesses to discuss uplifting spiritual matters or is it the same as it is here where witnesses will come together to criticize doctrine, policy, and the governing body? I don’t want to be part of any unhelpful discussion if I join.

When someone forbids JW members to be critical on WT articles, or not to hear opposite view about JW Organization and GB, under treat of rebuke, shunning and dfd, than that can be understand as intention or reality of idea - "rule over others".   

I believe that the illustration of the Faithful and Discreet Slave applies to the Governing Body. But I also believe that it is presumptuous for anyone to limit the meaning of the Faithful and Discreet Slave to the Governing Body. In fact, making such a claim of BEING the Faithful Slave before Jesus returns to confirm who has actually been "the faithful slave" is presumptuous, and is therefore a sign of being indiscreet. It is the very definition of being "discreet in one's own eyes."
(Isaiah 5:21) . . .Woe to those wise in their own eyes And discreet in their own sight!
1 Peter 5:3 was referenced by you and it says:
(1 Peter 5:3) 3 not lording it over those who are God’s inheritance, . . .
Referring to oneself as "governors" (i.e. a "Governing Body") is exactly what "lording it over" would be expected to look like. So it's not being faithful to this Bible verse, nor to the original illustration of the "faithful and unfaithful steward/slave" in Luke and Matthew. That same point is made in the NWT cross-referenced verse:
(2 Corinthians 1:24) 24 Not that we are the masters [lords/governors] over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing.
When you mention not wanting to be seen like the Gentiles in Jesus time, you probably recall that this included the titles we might use to identify ourselves as the Gentiles and Jews of Jesus day liked to do:
(Matthew 20:25-27) 25 But Jesus called them to him and said: “You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them and the great men wield authority over them. 26 This must not be the way among you; but whoever wants to become great among you must be your minister, 27 and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave.
(Luke 22:27) 27 For which one is greater, the one dining or the one serving? Is it not the one dining? . . .
(Matthew 23:7-10) . . .. 8 But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ.
The Governing Body members, through the publications and public conventions, continually point out that they are the ones taking the lead over the congregations, and that correct teaching only comes through the hands of a few, rather than just pointing to how well these teaching match the teachings of Jesus himself. We should consider whether this might actually be the very kind of "overreach" that Jesus warned about. 
I see nothing at all wrong with the idea of the committee(s) of elders who preside over matters for the collective congregations, just as there is nothing wrong with the committee(s) of elders who preside over matters that come up for local congregations. But it is our Christian duty to question the food served, especially to comment on any concerns with respect to how well it matches the teachings of Jesus, the congregations' true Leader and Teacher.
As servants (slaves) the ones preparing such meals should expect and desire to be questioned about the ingredients of the meals they distribute, they should humbly seek out the input of others with respect to the content and quality of the meals prepared and distributed by such stewards.
In reality, there is no parable of the "faithful and discreet slave." It's really a parable of the "faithful slave/steward vs. the unfaithful slave/steward," and it everyone's responsibility to act like the faithful one, and not the unfaithful one.  All of us need to be faithful rather than unfaithful stewards. In fact the parables are MORE about what it means to be the UNFAITHFUL steward. In the parable of "Who really is the [true] neighbor?" this is only a little bit about the untrue neighbor, and MORE about who really is the "TRUE neighbor," using the example of the good Samaritan. But in this parable about "who really is the true steward?" it's about faithfulness, but it's even MORE about examples of UNFAITHFUL stewards, and various levels of unfaithfulness.
That said, it's still true that overseers, including the Governing Body, take on a greater responsibility as stewards. And this also increases the responsibility to act even more faithfully, humbly and discreetly. A slave would never ask for obedience to themselves, only that we obey Christ's leadership. Therefore, as we see how the example of any overseer's faith works out, we obey the lead of those elders. (Hebrews 13:7)
While it's true that we are all stewards, every overseer, especially, is God's steward.
(Titus 1:7) . . .For as God’s steward, an overseer must be free from accusation, not self-willed, . . .
There should be no stewards who set themselves up as a kind of human tribunal:
(1 Corinthians 4:2, 3) . . .In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful. 3 Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal. . . .
Paul wrote to congregations in Corinth where certain persons were trying to be too influential in "governing" the faith of those in the congregation, going right back to 2 Cor 1:24 already quoted above.

This is true. My uncle was retired from Circuit work due to his age. (And he just visited two weeks ago.) His reports for many years were only statistical, as he was expected to handle locally any "disciplinary/doctrinal/"political"/spiritual/judicial/appeal" matters, based on his training and good deal of trust. A big part of his week was organizing visits to the inactive list to get them reporting (and attending) again, and then dealing with issues among the elders themselves.  District overseers would ask them periodically what they had found most helpful in bringing up the numbers, and we can assume that many of those ideas were fed back to the Service Department. All assignments about what to talk about, and even many "local needs" still came from the top down. In the last few years before retiring, however, he said that there was much more communication about what he felt the congregations needed spiritually, for morale, for encouragement.
Also, they are encouraged to write into the Service Department for answers to difficult questions when in previous years they were expected to handle more issues on their own.
The article I quoted from above gives the impression that this is mostly a one-way, top down direction from the GB, but this doesn't tell the whole story:
*** ws17 February p. 26 par. 17 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? ***
We can also remember the Governing Body by following its instructions and direction. The Governing Body gives us direction through our publications, meetings, assemblies, and conventions. It also appoints circuit overseers, who then appoint elders. By carefully following the directions given to them, the circuit overseers and the elders show that they remember the Governing Body.
I expect that you were thinking of this same article, just quoted from:
*** ws17 February p. 25 par. 15 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? ***
Consider what happened in 1973. The June 1 issue of The Watchtower asked whether “persons who have not broken their addiction to tobacco qualify for baptism.” The answer it gave to that question was based on Bible principles, and it was no! The Watchtower cited several scriptures and explained why a person who will not stop smoking should be disfellowshipped. (1 Corinthians 5:7; 2 Corinthians 7:1) It said that this strict standard does not come from humans but comes “from God, who expresses himself through his written Word.” No other religious organization has been willing to rely so completely on God’s Word even when doing so may be very difficult for some of its members. A recent book on religion in the United States says: “Christian leaders have regularly revised their teachings to match the beliefs and opinions gaining support among their members and in the larger society.” The Governing Body, however, is not guided by what most people like.

I won’t dignify a response when the opposition believe they have inherited some kind of truth by the God of this world.
Not being inspired or infallible then becomes a different position from the one given by this dedicated opposition. The GB actions seem to prevail on not accepting anything “inspired” by evil works. Can the same be said about the opposition? 1 John 5:19
Can anyone claim infallibility aside from Christ? Weren’t all of the first century Christians infallible? Were they not chosen by Jesus to continue his fine work? I don’t see where this argument can be applied.
I will not hold an endless debate with those that oppose the org. I’m looking for meaningful and structured alliances with spiritually awake individuals.

That is pretty impossible for the GB, isn't it?  They admit they are not inspired by Holy Spirit, which is the only way they could receive God's instructions.  If they were to work as one with the an entire anointed Body, then yes; they would receive instructions of truth through Christ.  Col 2:19;  1 Cor 12:21-26; Eph 4:4-6
As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.  1 John 2:27
Holy Spirit, the source of inspiration comes from the vine - Jesus Christ.  If these men say they are not inspired, (which they have) they have not 'remained' on the vine.  
“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples."  John 15:5-8
So, whose "instructions" are they carrying out?  2 Cor 11:4,13,14    How does Jesus truly see these men who claim they are not inspired with his truth?  
 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you."  John 14:15-17 
 
 

Thank you. Given the preview, here. I will stay out of that club. I don't see anything spiritually uplifting if that is the case.

Thank you for your response. I will continue to hold the Governing Body as seen through the eyes of Jesus, not in reverence but deserving of respect for their hard work and dedication to Jehovah.
I can see the difference with the Holy Spirit that Jehovah lays out for each of us.
1 Corinthians 12:8-10 American Standard Version (ASV)
8 For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom; and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit: 9 to another faith, in the same Spirit; and to another gifts of healings, in the one Spirit; 10 and to another workings of [a]miracles; and to another prophecy; and to another discerning of spirits: to another divers kinds of tongues; and to another the interpretation of tongues:
While the Governing Body is a servant that feeds Jehovah’s domestic flock, I don’t believe as you stated that Elders receive the same level of the Holy Spirit as they do.
All baptized and dedicated persons receive God’s Holy Spirit. But I just don’t see where it would be, in particular to suggest the inheritance of that spirit is the same.
Do you think that “women” can be elders?
Romans 12:6-8 American Standard Version (ASV)
6 And having gifts differing according to the grace that was given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of our faith; 7 or ministry, let us give ourselves to our ministry; or he that teacheth, to his teaching; 8 or he that exhorteth, to his exhorting: he that giveth, let him do it with [a]liberality; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness.
I will agree in one point you made. All baptized witnesses should “obey” those that take the lead in order for Jehovah to see the harmony within the organization.
Hebrews 13:17
17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they watch over your souls as those who must give an account. To this end, allow them to lead with joy and not with grief, for that would be of no advantage to you.
I have no inclination to disrespect God for the choices he makes in man, and whom he chooses to receive God's instructions.
Can I ask? Are you a Jehovah's Witness?
Do you believe, as the Bible students did, to have each congregation run independent of each other?
Given your response, I cannot support that kind of man's logic. I will instead support scripture as divine truth.

While there was a difference between Charles Taze Russell’s understanding of the definition of the word “dedication” and “consecration” it does not diminish todays understanding by Jehovah’s witnesses that understand what an “acceptable” dedication really means.
Something the Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Governing Body have been correct to apply after 1934.
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not consider or have considered a building as consecrated ground that it cannot be moved, just like the “ark of the covenant” was, constantly; moved.
I believe Jesus action in cleansing the temple can be considered. It should be correctly understood the consecration, portion is something that should be given to any building at the time of worship.
To those wanting to learn about Jehovah’s witnesses and their “dedication” to serve Jehovah no matter where they end up? There are plenty of references in JW.org.
No one needs to accept the writings of individuals. They don’t need to accept the Watchtower. You only need, to compare and understand what Jehovah witnesses, teachings are based on to accept their doctrine. They accept Jehovah’s word, along with Christ instructions.

This is true. No one can be held responsible for the action of another. This is why the Governing Body cannot be held responsible for the actions of individual witnesses and members who attend meetings but are not baptized.  The Governing Body is held accountable by Jehovah himself. 
Can this not be said of other religions that condemn Jehovah witnesses for just about everything? The only thing left would be, condemn witnesses for the air they breathe.
I have no doubt Jehovah witnesses consider their K.H. as a consecrated place of worship while they are worshipping Jehovah at the time of use. I can see where any place can be considered consecrated ground for the purpose of worship.
When Jehovah witnesses use other building to conduct such as circuit or regional assemblies, I don’t see where they would own such property to use as consecrated ground to accommodate a larger audience of worshippers.
I can relate where in California, Jehovah witnesses purchased a Baptist Church to hold their weekly meetings. Can I say because it was purchased by another religion, that building in stained?
I believe the destruction of Jehovah’s House also confirms the looseness in the use of the word consecration. I also believe, when the Philistines captured the Ark, 1 Samuel 4, an instrument of Jehovah, can we say; while the ark was in the Philistine’s possession, was it held on consecrated ground?
*** w51 7/15 p. 431 Expansion of Theocracy in Indonesia and Singapore ***
On Sunday morning 45 turned up at the Victoria Theatre to hear a discourse on baptism, after which 5 persons symbolized their consecration to do God’s will by being immersed in a pond near the edge of the city. The question now was, How would the public respond to the advertising for the public lecture, “Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land”? At 4 p.m. came the answer. We saw the ground floor of the theater filled with an audience of 307 persons, which, considering the restricted avenues of publicity available due to municipal ordinances and emergency regulations, was a splendid result.
I recall, Joseph F Rutherford had to sell almost all the Watchtower assets to continue running the Watchtower, after his release from prison.
I believe there is an overreach with these definitions. I don’t recall where, Jehovah witnesses are fanatics as to consider the issue of consecrated ground, they couldn’t sell the original Tower in Pennsylvania and the original Headquarter in New York.
The fact that Russia confiscated all Watchtower material that includes Kingdom Halls can also be considered.

Can Jehovah witnesses be held liable for the personal action of a single person? Can they be held liable for the decision the Baptist church uses the building they bought? If they decide to worship Baal in that old Kingdom Hall, it is not the Watchtower position to condemn such false teachings.
For those of you that don’t understand scripture. Dedication is a personal action while consecration is a position.
The difference is on the person, place or thing, a group of united followers wish to use to worship the almighty.
You may wish to start with the understanding, Christ is the church. Is the Body of Christ a building? Did Jesus not use the temple? Perhaps by visiting JW.org, these questions can be made clear.
I will remind the readers there is a vast difference between the Bible Student Zion Watchtower, and the Jehovah Witnesses Watchtower. Those differences must not be compared, since doctrine does differ.

The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary 2013
 
CONCUBINE A concubine is a woman whose status in relation to her sole legitimate sexual partner is less than primary wife. The Hebrew loan word pilegesh(“concubine”) is notably non-Semitic (not linguistically related to Hebrew). Its cognates appear in Latin ( paelex) and Greek (pallakis). One view is that pilegeshreferred to non-Hebrew women, while another view sees it as describing a female partner in a matrilocal marriage (contra patriarchal). Although some see the treatment of concubines addressed in the slave rules of Exod. 21:7–11, pilegeshis not used there. It is better to understand the function of concubines more broadly within marriage terminology. Following Gideon’s death, both concubines and wives laid claim to his authority (Judg. 8:30–9:2). Reference to concubines is largely found in the Pentateuch (e.g., Gen. 22:24; 36:12) and monarchial texts (e.g., 2 Sam. 5:13; 1 Kings 11:3). The genealogies show that succession could move through concubines (Gen. 22:24; 1 Chron. 3:9). It is the kings who had concubines (1 Chron. 11:21), often guarded by eunuchs (2 Sam. 20:3; Esther 2:14). Therefore, access to the royal concubines functioned as a daring claim to the throne, exploited by interlopers (2 Sam. 12:11–12; 1 Kings 2:22–25). It took Nathan’s allegorical story to show David his own greed of stealing another’s “lamb” even though he already had many wives and concubines (2 Sam. 12:8; 16:21). While concubines did care for the household (2 Sam. 20:2), their lower status is observed when David flees into exile, leaving the concubines “to take care of the palace” (2 Sam. 15:16), a role too dangerous for the royal wives.

The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary 2013
 
CONCUBINE A concubine is a woman whose status in relation to her sole legitimate sexual partner is less than primary wife. The Hebrew loan word pilegesh(“concubine”) is notably non-Semitic (not linguistically related to Hebrew). Its cognates appear in Latin ( paelex) and Greek (pallakis). One view is that pilegeshreferred to non-Hebrew women, while another view sees it as describing a female partner in a matrilocal marriage (contra patriarchal). Although some see the treatment of concubines addressed in the slave rules of Exod. 21:7–11, pilegeshis not used there. It is better to understand the function of concubines more broadly within marriage terminology. Following Gideon’s death, both concubines and wives laid claim to his authority (Judg. 8:30–9:2). Reference to concubines is largely found in the Pentateuch (e.g., Gen. 22:24; 36:12) and monarchial texts (e.g., 2 Sam. 5:13; 1 Kings 11:3). The genealogies show that succession could move through concubines (Gen. 22:24; 1 Chron. 3:9). It is the kings who had concubines (1 Chron. 11:21), often guarded by eunuchs (2 Sam. 20:3; Esther 2:14). Therefore, access to the royal concubines functioned as a daring claim to the throne, exploited by interlopers (2 Sam. 12:11–12; 1 Kings 2:22–25). It took Nathan’s allegorical story to show David his own greed of stealing another’s “lamb” even though he already had many wives and concubines (2 Sam. 12:8; 16:21). While concubines did care for the household (2 Sam. 20:2), their lower status is observed when David flees into exile, leaving the concubines “to take care of the palace” (2 Sam. 15:16), a role too dangerous for the royal wives.