Ann O'Maly

I know they alluded to it. Your quote brings that out very well. I'd forgotten that one. Good to see you here again

Just a quick FYI and for your additional research due to it being off topic. Bible Students also bought Liberty Bonds from the government during WWI and Watchtower officially approved of it, although it emphasized it was a conscience matter for individual BSs. This position contributed to the 'Stand Fasts' splinter group being formed Sources: https://ia601406.us.archive.org/23/items/WatchtowerLibrary/magazines/w/w1918_E.pdf - See May 15, p. 152-153 [R6257] and June 1, top of p. 168-169 [R6268]. Prior view of breaking neutrality: w64 2/1 p. 80 par. 8 The Comely Feet of the Messengers "Because of not then properly understanding a Christian’s strict neutrality toward political conflicts of earth and not understanding the matter of relative subjection to the earthly “higher powers,” the remnant was brought into bondage to Great Babylon." Present view (links with @HollyW's earlier WT quote): w16 November pp. 26-30 "Not everything the Bible Students did during the period between 1914 and 1919 was in harmony with Scriptural principles. Although they were sincere, the brothers did not always have a proper view of subjection to the secular governments. (Rom. 13:1) Therefore, as a group, they were not always neutral with regard to the war effort. For example, when the president of the United States decreed that May 30, 1918, would be set aside as a day of prayer for peace, The Watch Tower urged the Bible Students to join in the observance. Some brothers purchased bonds to provide financial assistance to the war effort, and a few even went into the trenches with guns and bayonets. However, it would be a mistake to conclude that the Bible Students were first taken into captivity to Babylon the Great because they needed correction and discipline. On the contrary, they understood their obligation to separate themselves from false religion, and during World War I, the break with that world empire was almost complete. - Read Luke 12:47, 48." - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2016844

I missed out the word 'true' this time. Honorific 'worship' is given to humans of higher status, true. But every instance of religious 'worship' being directed toward god(s) other than the Almighty God is condemned as idolatry, is it not? Even John's 'worship' of an angel (one of the 'gods' - Ps. 82:6) was slapped down. And so, in a monotheistic view, one can't give 'worship' to two true deities - John 17:3 - "only true God." That's the problem early Christians wrestled with.

So the point remains, @Eoin Joyce, that two deities are being 'worshipped.' Therefore, those who take an Arian-esque position have to explain away why proskuneo has one connotation when applied to the Father and another one when applied to the Son. This illustrates the kinds of difficulties the early Christian 'guardians of doctrine' had to thrash out and come to a consensus on. @bruceq's overly simplistic 'black and white' approach doesn't help.

@bruceq - Lol. You said twice that none of the books in your list were JW authored. You made a mistake; I pointed it out. You're welcome.

I never suggested they did believe in the Trinity. I presented a theological conundrum that comes from proskuneo-ing two true G/gods in a monotheistic belief system. Can you see where this might be problematic, and the conclusions to be drawn from this? Trinitarians believe they have resolved this tension in the biblical text. How is the difference in motivation expressed within the Greek word proskuneo? And what the English word 'worship' means and its etymological roots are secondary to what the Greek word denotes in its biblical usage and contexts.

I missed this part of your earlier post. You do realize that 5 of the books you list ...... Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation Jesus God or the Son of God Trinitys Weak Links Revealed Concepts of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit Chronicles of the Unholy Fathers ... were written by JWs? As a general point about your list, I suggest you go through each book and each of your favorite claims in those books and consider: "Before trusting it, ask: (1) Who published this material? What are the author’s credentials? (2) Why was this published? What motivated the writer? Is there any bias? (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?" - Watchtower, 8/15/2011, p.4 Many of the older works which allege various pagan connections to Christian beliefs and practices (especially if targeting the Catholic church), are derived from Hislop's book. You may find this thread helpful as a case in point of how poor sources and ideas can be recycled and perpetuated so that one thinks a piece of information has been independently verified by lots of different people, when actually it traces back to just one author. Then you'll be able to weed out the dodgy research and use that which is more solidly grounded.

Thank you for responding intelligently. (You usually do anyway.) But this is why I specified the Greek word involved. So, on the one hand ... and I don't need to cite reams of scripture texts - you'll know them already - so these are quick examples: Luke 4:7, 8 - If you, therefore, do an act of worship (proskuneo) before me, it will all be yours.”  In reply Jesus said to him: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship (proskuneo), and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’” Revelation 22:9 - But he tells me: “Be careful! Do not do that! I am only a fellow slave of you and of your brothers the prophets and of those observing the words of this scroll. Worship (proskuneo) God.” But on the other hand: Hebrews 1:6 - But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to (KJV, worship; Gk. proskuneo) him.” Revelation 5:13, 14 - And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and all the things in them, saying: “To the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.” 14 The four living creatures were saying: “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshipped (proskuneo). Although proskuneo is applied to man and G/god(s) of all types, the fact remains that it's the 'worship' or proskuneo-ing of two true G/gods that presents theological difficulties for a monotheistic religion. Was it? Was that a 'no,' then - you don't see any conundrums with the JW view? Hm. I assumed you knew the relevant scripture texts already and, as a JW (I presume you are?), you would already hold those basic tenets. Regarding the Bible being written by Jews so 'no Trinity,' well, as you know, the Jewish religion was established before the 'only-begotten god' (Jn. 1:18) arrived on the earthly scene, so of course the idea of 3 divine personages in one God-Being wouldn't have entered their heads. Trinitarians would argue, however, that the seeds of this new concept about God were sown in the NT, after the 'only-begotten god' (Jn. 1:18) made his appearance, did what he did, leaving the new Christian followers to make sense of it all within the thought categories of the time.

There will likely be more prosecutions in the aftermath of the ARC, @Barbara Snook. This is a good thing. This former JW may have been targeting 'worldly' children since he left the Org. Other unreported molesters may still be active members of congregations. Former JW or current JW, what has been hidden is coming to light and, if convicted, the community should be that little bit safer. Also, if you really don't like these kinds of news stories - and the thread title was sufficiently clear on what it was about - then choose not to read them!

Oh right. My bad. You were in a lather over an emoticon? It originated in early Christian liturgical practices But yes, a discussion for another time. I actually said that both neo-Arianism and Trinitarianism have their biblical problems. Do you agree that the JW concepts about the Father's and Son's natures and relationship also lead to biblical and theological conundrums? Here's a simple example Trinitarians often beat JWs over the head with: Do you believe that, according to the Bible, it is God alone we must worship? Do you believe that, according to the Bible, Jesus is called G/god? Do you believe that, according to the Bible, Jesus is to be given homage/obeisance/'worship' (all renderings of the same Greek word proskuneo)? If you've answered 'yes' to the above questions, the conclusion must be that you pay homage/obeisance/give 'worship'/proskuneo to two divine beings. Let the proof-texting acrobatics begin. On your marks ... get set ... GO!

What was your list trying to prove, specifically? If any of them perpetuated the idea that the pope wears a Dagon Fish hat, they will be derivative of Hislop's work. Even though the Org has quietly dropped Hislop as a source to cite, echoes of his ideas still reverberate among JWs and other fundie groups today. I've lost count of how many times on here and jw-archive he's been referenced as an authority. The Trinity doctrine is scripturally problematic, but so is the neo-Arian view. It all hangs on whether Jesus is part of the created order or as divine in nature as the Father is. Each view has serious theological and philosophical implications which mean certain scripture texts have to be reinterpreted or explained away.

It was never proved in the first place. The connection between the pope's mitre and Dagon was a figment of Hislop's wild imagination. Nineveh was destroyed in 612 BCE so the pictures of characters wearing Fish costumes remained buried until the 19th century. The pope started wearing a mitre in medieval times, its design and shape having developed over time. Dagon wasn't even a fish-god. http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/knpp/peoplegodsplaces/index.html#letter_D @TrueTomHarley said: No. Not in any way, shape or fishy form 'close.' Anyway, this thread has so many red herrings, we could start our own kipper industry.

Uh oh! Hislop Hokum Alert triggered! You do know that the 'Dagon Fish' hat thing is a Hislopian fantasy, don't you? You also do realize that concepts about triad groupings of gods are not the same as the Trinity idea, don't you?

JWs already believe that God is not triune. The argument is a rhetoric device used by JWs on those they are evangelizing. But there are some Christians who have come to the conclusion, based on Scripture, that God is not a Trinity. One notable example is Patrick Navas - https://truthmattersradio.wordpress.com/tag/patrick-navas/ As I say, the doctrine was a work-in-progress. Certainly before Tertullian, the ANFs tended to be Binitarian. The whole debate centered on the divinity of Christ, his ontological relationship with and his derivation from the Father. The reason I asked was because you seemed to be asserting something without giving anything in support and I wondered what you had in mind.

@Allen Smith - most can see through the sensationalist language used, but it is reporting a true story. How naive are you? Victim: "I was attacked and beaten, and I have life-changing injuries which will require therapy for the rest of my life!" Allen: "You are very brave to speak up. There, there. Now don't you feel better?" Victim: "So is my attacker to be penalized for what he did?" Allen: "You having a voice is enough. On your way." "Some here claim"? Hahaha. This is what Watchtower Australia claimed - they categorized the 1006 cases as child sexual abuse allegations. (Idiot.)

Then you may have missed his strongly-worded comments against the Catholic hierarchy and his persistent efforts to call its leadership to account. http://www.zalkin.com/blog/irwin-zalkin-statement-on-vatican-refusal-to-comply-with-u-n-committee-report/ https://web.archive.org/web/20160824114318/http://www.zalkin.com/blog/irwin-zalkin-statement-on-vatican-refusal-to-comply-with-u-n-committee-report/ http://www.pressherald.com/2010/10/26/records-document-decades-of-abuse-by-priests_2010-10-26/ Rodrigue later admitted he had molested between four to five children a year over a span of 22 years, said Irwin Zalkin, an attorney for the plaintiffs. About 30 people filed lawsuits against the diocese alleging sexual abuse against the priest, who died within the last year, he said. “He was probably one of the most prolific abusers in this diocese. … And they knew about this guy from his days in the seminary but kept him in ministry,” Zalkin said. Attorneys are still trying for the release of an additional 2,000 pages of documents. http://www.10news.com/news/abuse-victims-want-convicted-priest-relieved-of-duties "That's outrageous," said sex abuse attorney Irwin Zalkin, reacting to the fact that a convicted priest was still with the church. "But that was part of the practice that has existed within the church as a whole, certainly within the Diocese of San Diego, and I have no doubt is a problem in Latin America and Mexico." Zalkin said there is no provision in the 2007 settlement with the Catholic Church that says "Thou shall not hire pedophile priests, but one would hope that after what we've been through for the past almost decade, with the exposure of these documents, with the litigation, with the payment of almost $200 million, they'd get the right idea and start vetting who they're hiring." https://youtu.be/BdC2D9YYM5I?t=37s (interview with Associated Press)

Is that because they have guidance from Trinitarian Christians when reading the NT which influences their view? You see, I've also heard it said by the non-trinitarian JWs that, if one were to read the NT on its own, without any preconceived ideas, one would not understand God to be a truine being. Anyway, I'm interested in why you conclude that the early Christians did understand God to be triune. I always thought that understanding the ontological relationship between Father and Son was a work-in-progress, thrashed out among the early church fathers. Do you have any killer texts that support your conclusion?

The one with Harry Holt does. But she and her younger sister Alison related their stories about their father's abuse back in 2002 (see the documentary below - it's cued up at the right place). Stories like this are hitting the news outlets at the moment, no doubt because there is a campaign to have the UK JWs' child abuse allegation procedures officially investigated due to failings that have come to light in high profile cases over the past few years.

The full statement from the transcript: MR O'BRIEN: Because that is the policy. But again, as I think I pointed out in my evidence, and I think Mr Jackson did as well, here we're talking about somebody who is of an age where they have qualified for baptism, so they are somebody who is either approaching adulthood or an adult, making that decision, understanding the implications of choosing either to disassociate themselves, knowing the consequences will be shunning, or simply ceasing activity with the congregation but not taking the stand of disassociation. So it is a choice on the part of the person. - Transcript, Day 259, p. 26539 O'Brien lumps together the age for having been qualified for baptism with someone who is an adult or approaching adulthood and then making the decision to disassociate. It does give the impression that he is referring to an adult or near-adult who qualifies for baptism. If that isn't what he meant, he worded it poorly. However, to qualify for baptism a person studies the Organized book which would include the part about 'Disassociation.' But would a naive, true-believer 10-year old really absorb the implications of how the 'disassociation rules' would affect them personally once they were dunked? I wonder. And the question asked at the ARC remains a good one: "Why is it necessary, when someone feels that they can no longer abide the organisation and has to disassociate - why is it necessary to shun them? Why can't they keep having social contact with those people who happen to remain in the organisation?"

Another broad brush stroke. It also depends on which parts of the Bible Christians are able to live by and how those parts are interpreted and applied to modern life. As I said before, your observations in your own congregation may not be representative of other people's personal experiences. There is testimony after testimony of JWs who have tried to leave and quietly live their lives, but a comment or action that was incompatible with the Org's position on something was noticed by a relative or friend who then reported it and set the judicial wheels in motion. I personally know cases myself. Just two examples: a man who hadn't associated in the congregation, had been inactive for many years, and no longer even believed in God, was disfellowshipped for sleeping with his girlfriend (he wasn't 'flaunting it' - a JW relative found out and told the elders); an inactive couple who had not associated for a couple of years were spotted with holiday decorations in their home and the husband was disfellowshipped. Just because some 'faders' manage to avoid 'bother,' it doesn't alter the fact that anyone who doesn't formally leave, and still maintains relationships with JW relatives and friends, has the congregation's judicial 'sword of Damocles' suspended above their head. This was brought out in Stewart's and Jackson's exchanges at the ARC (Transcript Day 8, p. 15980-1). I don't see the connection between allowing one's kids to attend college and poorly 'presiding over one's household.' It's the opposite. A good, responsible father will encourage his children to achieve their educational potential. But the Org disapproves of him doing that and may call into question his qualifications for eldership - even though there is no scriptural basis to do so. And an elder's adult children, even if they are living in the same household, can surely choose for themselves how involved in congregation activities they want to be without that reflecting on their father's ability to serve as an elder. What does that even mean? In that case, barely anyone follows Jesus' command - including JWs. How many have 'disowned themselves' like Jesus, and become his 'footstep followers' spending their whole lives without a home, constantly traveling, teaching, and healing the sick or feeding the hungry? Compare Matt. 8:19, 20; Mark 6:53-56 (Gospels, passim.). Jesus' earthly ministry was over in a flash. Christians generally have to spend their many decades of life making a living, raising families, paying the rent/mortgage, etc.

Classic! Anyway, the picture is actually a record of this event:

Why banning the Jehovah’s Witnesses won’t work for Russia BY EMILY B. BARAN APRIL 20TH 2017 The Supreme Court of Russia has a decision to make this week about whether to label the Jehovah’s Witnesses an extremist organization and liquidate its assets. This act would transform the religious community into a criminal network, and make individual Witnesses vulnerable to arrest simply for speaking about their faith with others. While the court case has attracted recent media attention, this move is the culmination of two decades of increasing state hostility to Witnesses. In the late 1990s, Moscow took the Witnesses to court to deny them legal standing in the city limits. After several years of court hearings, the city banned the organization. In more recent years, anti-extremism laws drafted in the wake of domestic terrorism have been turned against Witness magazines and books. Currently, over eighty publications have been placed on the federal list of extremist materials. Even their website is now illegal. So is My Book of Bible Stories, an illustrated book for children, listed alongside publications by terrorist organizations. If the state criminalizes the Witnesses, it will represent a major deterioration in religious toleration in post-Soviet Russia. It will also put Russia at odds with the European Court of Human Rights, which has repeatedly ruled in favor of the Witnesses in the past two decades. It may make other minority faiths vulnerable to similar legal challenges. In the 1990s, scholars spoke of a newly opened religious marketplace, in which post-Soviet citizens, freed from the constraints of state-enforced atheism, shopped around among the faith traditions. It is fair to say that these days, this marketplace has fewer customers, fewer stalls, and more regulations. If history is any guide, Russia will find it nearly impossible to eliminate Jehovah’s Witnesses. Soviet dissident author Vladimir Bukovsky once admiringly wrote of the Witnesses’ legendary persistence under ban. When the Soviet Union barred religious literature from crossing its borders, Witnesses set up underground bunkers to print illegal magazines for their congregations. When Soviet officials prohibited Witnesses from hosting religious services, they gathered in small groups in their apartments, often in the middle of the night. Sometimes they snuck away to nearby woods or out onto the vast steppe, where they could meet with less scrutiny. When the state told believers that they could not evangelize their faith to others, Witnesses chatted up their neighbors, coworkers, and friends. When these actions landed them in labor camps, Witnesses sought out converts among their fellow prisoners. Witnesses are certain to revive many of these tactics if placed in similar circumstances in the future. Moreover, technology makes it far more difficult for Russia to control the religious practices of its citizens. Although the Witnesses’ official website is no longer available in Russia, individual members can easily share religious literature through email or dozens of other social media platforms and apps. While Soviet Witnesses had to write coded reports and hand-deliver them through an underground courier network, Witnesses today can text this information in seconds. Technology will also facilitate meeting times for religious services in private homes. The Russian government simply does not have the manpower to enforce its own ban. It is hard to imagine that local officials could effectively prevent over 170,000 people across more than 2,000 congregations from gathering together multiple times per week, as Witnesses do worldwide. The case of Taganrog is instructive. Several hundred Witnesses lived there in 2009, when the city declared the organization illegal. A few years later, it convicted sixteen Witnesses for ignoring the ban and continuing to gather their congregations for services. The state spent over a year in investigations and court hearings for sixteen people, a tiny fraction of the total congregation, and then suspended the sentences and fines rather than waste more resources in following through on its punishment guidelines. There are not enough police officers in Russia to monitor the daily activities of each and every Witness, and the Witnesses know it. Under a ban, everyone will face more scrutiny, a few will be dealt more serious consequences, and most will continue practicing their faith regardless. Russia may nonetheless decide that all of this conflict is worth it. After all, Soviet officials were fairly successful in relegating Witnesses to the margins of society. Few Russians will complain if Witnesses no longer come to knock on their door. After all, even Americans rarely have kind words for religious missionaries at their own doorsteps. In my own research, I have never heard a single Russian, other than a scholar, say anything positive about Witnesses. For the record, my experience with Americans has been similar. On a more basic level, Russian citizens may not even notice the Witnesses’ absence from public life. While the post-Soviet period saw a religious revival for all faiths, far fewer joined the Witnesses than the Russian Orthodox Church. For all their recent growth in membership, the Witnesses remain a tiny minority in a largely secular society. The vocal determination of Witnesses not to acquiesce to state demands should not cause observers to overlook the very real damage a ban would do to this community. Yes, Witnesses have faced similar challenges before and have dealt with them. For decades, they held their baptisms in local rivers and lakes under cover of night. In the post-Soviet period, new members were finally able to celebrate their baptisms in full view of their fellow believers at public conventions. A long-time Witness who attended one of these events in the early 1990s recalled, “What happiness, what freedom!” A new ban would mean a return to this underground life, to a hushed ceremony in cold waters. This is not what freedom of conscience looks like in modern states. Emily B. Baran is the author of Dissent on the Margins: How Jehovah’s Witnesses Defied Communism and Lived to Preach About It. Her work explores the shifting contours of dissent and freedom in the Soviet Union and its successor states. She is Assistant Professor of History at Middle Tennessee State University.

Indeed, many do ... and one doesn't have to be a JW to do so. Still a sweeping statement. 'Nobody'? How do you know? Did you shadow them? Eavesdrop their conversations with other congregants, or during shepherding calls? Naturally, your observations in your own congregation may not be representative of other people's personal experiences. Not wanting to go off topic, but something as innocuous as celebrating a birthday is seen as unacceptable according to the Org's view. However, there is nothing in scripture prohibiting it. Or transfusing blood plasma into one's own body as a medical therapy is considered unacceptable by the Org's standards, but scripture is silent on the matter. If a JW openly did those things, they would be counseled and reprimanded. If the JW did not change his attitude or ways to conform with the Org's viewpoint, he would be cast out of the congregation and shunned by his believing JW family and friends. We can see the chain of coercion right here. If an elder's baptized children are pursuing higher ed., they must have reached the age of majority. And yet the father could be sanctioned for any congregational 'slacking' on the part of his adult children while they're at college? I also have a JW relative who went to university ... and got slammed for it, even though he diligently kept up his 'theocratic activities' in the congregation. I also know several more who were discouraged from going in the first place ('the end is so close,' 'it's a waste of time,' 'you're being disloyal/ lack faith'). Yes it's about attitude - very often fellow JWs' and the Org's attitudes (which have changed back-and-forth) as much as the individual's. Having said that, how many experiences related in the publications or on JWTV put a positive light upon higher education? Seeing as the Org's attitudes about college are nearly always negative (remember the infamous 'shooting yourself in the head' analogy Gerrit Lösch gave once? last year's convention video about little, musically-talented Sergei?) and there is the whole culture of being loyal to 'the slave' and its direction thereby showing loyalty to God, it's little wonder that so many feel manipulated into blocking off that pursuit for themselves or their children.

There are varying degrees of psychological coercion that lie in-between being a pushover or being under extreme duress. The reasons for people feeling as if they are channeled into certain behaviors are multi-factorial. I'm sure you've heard of Milgram's obedience experiments for example, and other social/psychological studies done on how controlling groups influence their adherents. Firstly, there has to be a rigid ideology and authority structure (God and God's chosen leaders). Secondly, the person has to fully believe in the ideology and legitimacy of the authority structure, which comes with regularly associating with the group and being indoctrinated or trained in the ways, beliefs and objectives of the group. From that follows reinforcement, peer pressure and implanting fears about rejection and banishment and/or loss of salvation, eternity in hell, death at Armageddon, etc. for non-conformity. http://changingminds.org/techniques/conversion/social_psychological_conditioning.htm. Although this webpage is focusing on how terrorist radicalization works, other controlling groups use similar tactics (albeit maybe to a lesser degree). Just to pick out a couple of examples: Compare: *** w64 3/1 p. 148 par. 17 Youth, Get Saved from This Crooked Generation *** Meanwhile, if you are still attending school, be a good representative of your Creator there among your classmates. ... Withstand the efforts they will make to get you tied in with their worldly social arrangements, such as joining their various groups, choirs, bands, sports clubs, literary societies, and the like. *** w13 2/15 p. 24 Beware of the Intentions of the Heart *** Our choice of associates. Of course, some contact with unbelievers—such as at school, at work, and when sharing in the ministry—is unavoidable. It is quite another matter, though, to socialize with them, even cultivating close friendships with them. Do we justify such association by saying that they have many good qualities? “Do not be misled,” warns the Bible. “Bad associations spoil useful habits.” (1 Cor. 15:33) Just as a small amount of pollution can contaminate clean water, friendship with those who do not practice godly devotion can contaminate our spirituality and lead us into adopting worldly viewpoints, dress, speech, and conduct. *** w01 8/15 p. 16 par. 7 Abraham—An Example of Faith *** We may have opposition from unbelieving family members, including disfellowshipped relatives, who might try to lure us into unwholesome association. (Matthew 10:34-36; 1 Corinthians 5:11-13; 15:33) Compare: *** w54 11/15 p. 680 Is World Unity a Dream? *** The earth will not be burned up. Just as we would not burn down a barn to kill the rats, Jehovah will not burn up the earth to kill the goats, or Satan. He will destroy this present wicked system and replace it with a righteous system, his new world. *** w11 7/15 p. 16 par. 6 Will You Heed Jehovah’s Clear Warnings? *** Suppose that a doctor told you to avoid contact with someone who is infected with a contagious, deadly disease. You would know what the doctor means, and you would strictly heed his warning. Well, apostates are “mentally diseased,” and they seek to infect others with their disloyal teachings. (1 Tim. 6:3, 4) *** w96 4/15 p. 15 par. 18 Why Worldly Religion Will End *** Unquestionably, Christendom’s rotten fruitage makes it fit only for destruction by God.—1 Corinthians 5:9-13; 2 John 10, 11. This is a sweeping statement. People's reasons for leaving are many and don't necessarily mean they want to pursue a hedonistic lifestyle. Regarding 'unacceptable behaviors,' this is judged, of course, through the lens of current JW doctrinal interpretations. What may be unacceptable to the Org, may not actually be unacceptable scripturally. And we all know what 'recommendations,' 'advice,' and 'timely warnings' issued from the 'faithful and discreet slave' mean to the loyal JW. Higher education is 'frowned upon' so much that elders whose household members are pursuing it, may have their qualifications to serve called into question (BOE letter, 8/15/09).