Ann O'Maly

That so needs to be captioned. The brother's face is priceless.

^ Here, the silent treatment is said to be a form of abuse, bullying and manipulation. v Here, an example demonstrates how effective this tactic can be. A success story for the Organization. However, the silent treatment leads some other victims to depression and/or suicide, and with others to hurt feelings and alienation from their loved ones that run so deep, relationships are irreparably damaged. These examples don't tend to be in the publications.

The Society has been resistant to using digital visual aids and videos as part of their public teaching. When did you first see an audio-visual presentation routinely used as part of conventions, assemblies and weekly meetings? Only in the past few years, right? Don't you remember that there was a time when speakers could use slides and cine film as part of their public talks (maybe before your time)? They were a highlight, a change from the humdrum. Then the Society discouraged them. For so long, while businesses, schools and churches had long been fitted out with IT equipment, using it as an everyday teaching tool, the Society lagged behind, preferring to stick with the old lecture/platform demo format. Several years ago, a tech-savvy JW friend of mine suggested that the convention technicians made use of the big screens at the arena. The technology was all there, why not make the talks more interesting and memorable by adding PowerPoints and other visuals? He was told off for, what was considered, a worldly view. I wouldn't, as it does actually come from the Society. It's copyrighted to them and has its own literature code - dgb-E Us. Should the Jews still continue wearing long robes with a blue thread 2nd millennium BC style to avoid being fashioned after the modern system of things? Which decade or century of fashion do you think appropriate for today's JW woman? Or which country's present day fashion (that of Islamic countries, perhaps)? Really, if there is nothing scripturally wrong with western women wearing pants, and they are acceptable even as conservative business and formal wear, the Org. is 'going beyond the things written.' And it is the Org. that is setting the standard here. The r&f JWs follow the leadership's direction whether it is explicit or implicit (e.g. the Bethel Dress brochure). That's because it's frowned on! Go out to the workplace office, into the street, and women in pants are commonplace. By the way, it is also common etiquette to dress appropriately for the setting. You don't see women routinely dressed as Dorothy, a munchkin, or even the Wicked Witch of the West when they are going about their everyday lives, so your example is a straw man (or woman).

Many JW women would disagree. Pants are often more practical and can even be more modest than skirts. They are accepted as appropriate smart-wear for women in the business world. There are no scriptural grounds against them, and I guess it's just another one of those antiquated attitudes where the JW community needs to catch up with late 20th/early 21st century. It may happen - you never know. Look how the Org has embraced digital visual aids and videos as part of their public teaching after resisting them for so many years.

Hm. I think I see where you're coming from with the 'patiently explaining' thing. However, Wrench was an incorrigible wriggler.

Liking JAMMY's post for containing the phrase, "wet noodle spanking."

And yet, in this Western culture, where women routinely wear pants in formal, informal and business settings, KH culture still frowns upon JW women wearing them to meetings and in service. Why?

I guess it would be argued that the jworg icon isn't used as an object of worship like the cross has been. However ... Re-posting from an older jw-archive thread: ... the frequency of seeing arts, crafts, jewelry, buttons, bags, flower beds and so on with the jwdotorg logo strikes me as obsessive. Obsessive with ... a website. The focus of attention has become increasingly centered on branding, or on cartoon characters, or on the org's new audio-visual mega-machine. *** w50 6/15 p. 186 par. 38 A Victory Dedicated to Jehovah’s Honor *** "There is this to remember concerning organizations generally. When young and growing, fighting their way up, zeal is strong and evangelistic; but when they have won their place and become strong and wealthy and respected they often lose their virile strength and become lax, fat, sluggish, and point with pride to their size, and put their directives above God’s commands. That has happened to the organizations of the big and prosperous, orthodox churches of Christendom. The organization is served and worshiped instead of the one it claims to represent, namely Jehovah God. But this snare will never catch Jehovah’s cleansed people today ... " "But this snare will never catch Jehovah’s cleansed people today" - 65 years on from those words, and observing the recent trends developing, it appears to me that with all the emphasis on the 'seen' (2 Cor. 4:18; 5:7), JWs are walking headlong into that very snare.

Jesus.defender - your posts are usually tl;dr. You'll likely get a better response if you pick out a couple of salient points from your walls of text and ask the members a question instead. Just a suggestion. Anyway, I thought I'd comment on the reproduced article Gregorio Alberto posted (which was also too long, so scanned it through quickly). I think critics are usually trying to redress the balance. Oftentimes the Watch Tower selectively quotes its own material to put a positive spin on a theological agenda or a part of its organisational history. E.g. the Bible Student views and expectations about 1914, or the 1922 'Advertise, advertise' speech that misses out a whole chunk about what exactly the Bible Students were advertising. To my knowledge, there is nothing written in the publications where the Society applies the specific term "inspired prophet" to itself - just as the Bible doesn't apply the term "governing body" to the 1st century Jerusalem council or the word "organisation" to describe the Jewish religion or the early Christian congregation. The Org. likes to have it both ways when it comes to its claimed status. For every statement made about the Society being fallible and not being inspired, there are others that attribute the Society's interpretations and directions as being from God and that the faithful should regard them as such. Everyone is already familiar with the "God's dates" quote (OP posted above), as well as the other interpretations and predictions where the Org. used dogmatic language, like 'indisputable,' 'scriptural facts,' 'historically proven,' 'revealed by Jehovah' and similar, to describe them. Are the following statements predictions, prophecies, interpretations or do the terms overlap here? *** kj chap. 12 p. 216 par. 9 “Until He Comes Who Has the Legal Right” *** Shortly, within our twentieth century, the “battle in the day of Jehovah” will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom. *** w89 1/1 p. 12 par. 8 “The Hand of Jehovah Was With Them” [original printing] *** The apostle Paul was spearheading the Christian missionary activity. He was also laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century. They had mistaken expectations and prophesied falsely. However, none of these people claimed they were God's exclusive channel of truth, or that people's salvation depended on associating with them and assenting to their teachings (Luther had courageously rejected that same Catholic-style mindset!). So, this is why the JW Org gets a harsher rap.

Jonah was accurately conveying Jehovah's message which made him a true prophet (cp. Jer. 14:14; 23:21). It was Jehovah who changed his mind about what was to befall Nineveh. According to the Bible story, when he killed the Egyptian to avenge the abused Israelite (singular), he didn't think he was anointed for any special prophetic service by Jehovah. His commission only happened years later at the 'burning bush' incident.

How is it idolatry to protect one's own or another's property? I don't get it. Besides, Matthew 24:43 - “But know one thing: If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into." Was Jesus using an idolater as an analogy for Christian vigilance? Call the police? Hmm. Other than that, I would hope any volunteer security guard would get appropriate training for these kinds of scenarios.

Along with their photos? Only if they had a death wish! Lolol. As Rodney King famously said: "Can we all get along?" I'm so glad to hear you are not one of those that alienates your family over a mere difference in belief. So did you check them out? Food for thought, hey?

Tell me: Can cayenne pepper halt a heart attack in progress? Many noted herbalists – particularly the late Dr. John Christopher, who claimed to have stopped heart attacks “in their tracks” with cayenne pepper — insist that it can, and anecdotal accounts of the life-saving effects of cayenne abound on the internet. On the other hand, conventionally-trained physicians scoff at this assertion, and warn that there is not enough evidence to justify cayenne’s use as an emergency treatment. Many also point to the dangers of administering cayenne to a patient suffering from a heart attack or stroke. Experts say its use could lead to uncontrolled bleeding if the person is on a blood thinner, such as coumadin. In addition, the pain of ingesting an unaccustomed dose of hot pepper could cause adrenaline to be released, increasing heart rate while reducing blood flow to heart and brain and causing increased death of tissues. Reperfusion injuries – damage to tissues from the sudden return of blood and oxygen – could also occur. And some websites actually encourage the administration of liquid cayenne extracts to heart attack victims who have lost consciousness – an appallingly dangerous action. Although cell and animal studies have been encouraging, it’s worth noting: Dr. Kevin Jones, the very scientist behind the capsaicin research, advises against applying capsaicin cream to the skin of someone who is having a heart attack. It can’t be overstated: if you think you are having a heart attack, call 911 and summon immediate medical assistance. If you would like to use cayenne pepper to ward off heart attacks, discuss this with a trusted doctor. - http://www.naturalhealth365.com/cayenne-pepper-stop-heart-attack-1145.html

What was the purpose of the conference?

Well, let's say it was enough of an issue among the JW ranks to warrant it being officially addressed. Both. That's why teen marriages are discouraged among JWs as well as generally in western society. Do you think JWs would post negative comments about their photographed theocratic activities on a JW board? Indeed it is for those with a conscience and those who are forced by circumstance to maintain the facade until they are in a position to escape. The stress can, at times, be so intense that it even leads a young one to consider (or actually commit) suicide. Absolutely. I think other religions' negative attitudes toward JWs is partly due to the perception that JWs are a high control group that distances its members from the wider community (unless it's to evangelize). Additionally, any religious belief system that views itself as the only true path to God is going to react badly if a family member defects to another religion. But as the Awake! once said: "No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family." - http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102009251 This also holds true for those wishing to leave the JW religion, and yet this is the agonizing choice many young JWs are faced with. Be my guest. https://youtu.be/dEJ9BGDpHOw?t=3h57m28s It makes no difference to his suggestion that parents blackmail their child into baptism by withholding permission for him/her to get a driving permit. He said it before in a previous talk: https://youtu.be/AKVMFGfh0uc?t=58s. Apparently he used this tactic on one of his own sons.

A view of many who are JWs too. I guess that is why the GB has responded by promoting child baptisms* and addressing the misgivings parents and their children have. See http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011441 - box on p. 6, 'Should My Child Put Off Baptism?' Of course they don't. Just as a teen who gets married does not plan for their marriage to fail. But [bleep] happens. Do you think they would post photos on a JW board of themselves looking miserable? Lol. Maybe so. There are also lots of young people who wear a painted-on smile when at the meetings and in service but are secretly unhappy with the so-called 'best life ever.' They often end up on ex-jw forums relating how trapped and scared they feel, and asking for advice on how to leave without getting kicked out or losing their family and friends. I've seen countless examples during my online life. -------- * Even advocating blackmailing them into baptism. See excerpt: Anthony Morris III, Sunday final talk, 2015 Convention - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MreJ8tLYIso -

Yikes! Maybe you need to do some research. WT begs to differ. *** w69 6/1 pp. 326-327 Godly Respect for Life and Blood *** Some persons may reason that getting a blood transfusion is not actually “eating.” But is it not true that when a patient is unable to eat through his mouth, doctors often feed him by the same method in which a blood transfusion is administered? Examine the scriptures carefully and notice that they tell us to ‘keep free from blood’ and to ‘abstain from blood.’ (Acts 15:20, 29) What does this mean? If a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcohol, would that mean simply that you should not take it through your mouth but that you could transfuse it directly into your veins? Of course not! So, too, abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all. *** w63 2/15 p. 124 Carry Your Own Load of Responsibility *** Someone may argue with you that the Scriptures are referring to the “eating” of blood but that blood is not taken into the digestive system during a transfusion. True, but the fact is that by a direct route the blood serves the same purpose as food when taken into the stomach, namely, strengthening the body or sustaining life. It is not the same as a vaccine given to a healthy person to ward off a disease. Blood is given to a weak or sick person to build him up, just as food is given to nourish him. *** w51 7/1 p. 415 Questions From Readers *** Many say receiving a transfusion is not like eating blood. Is this view sound? A patient in the hospital may be fed through the mouth, through the nose, or through the veins. When sugar solutions are given intravenously, it is called intravenous feeding. So the hospital’s own terminology recognizes as feeding the process of putting nutrition into one’s system via the veins. Hence the attendant administering the transfusion is feeding the patient blood through the veins, and the patient receiving it is eating it through his veins. After all the artful contrivings and reasonings and quibblings are over, the bald fact remains that a goodly quantity of one creature’s blood has been deliberately taken into the system of another. That is what is forbidden by God, regardless of method.

Rather than watch 2 hours of video, can you briefly outline why Petra may not fit into JWs' common view of archaeology/chronology?

If people are anything like me, they'll have a corner stuffed full of plastic bags that have been collected and saved over the years. All it takes is altering our habits in that we remember to take some bags with us when we go shopping so we can reuse them to death. The demand for new plastic bags and wastage will plummet which has to benefit an environment already swamped with plastic. I kinda feel sorry for the bag manufacturers, though.

I am making a comparison. -If secular law puts restrictions in place to protect minors from making unalterable decisions, -If dedication to God and baptism as a JW is the most weighty decision and vow a person can make - even more serious than getting married or signing up for a mortgage, -If the consequences from changing one's mind, contravening a scriptural law or doing something that the org disapproves of can result in the child being an outcast and shunned by extended JW family and friends, -Then the ethics of baptizing JW children is highly questionable. I understand that other religions baptize their young but, as you noted, the meaning of baptism, allowed ages and church discipline varies widely. The main concern is what happens to a baptized child member if he sins. E.g. the LDS church baptizes children of 8 years old and they also excommunicate minors, unfortunately. In contrast with both the JWs and the LDS church, while the Catholic church baptizes infants (and later confirmation is permitted from about age 7), there is no excommunication for minors. This is the Church's position on a minor committing one of the worst sins a Catholic can make: Objectively, procuring an abortion remains an intrinsically evil act and a very serious sin. Yet with regards to subjective guilt as well as canonical penalties, these are reduced if an excusing or diminishing factor presents itself. In the case of this seventeen-year old girl, the most obvious diminishing factor is that of age. The Church doesn’t feel that a minor should be subjected to severe canonical penalties. Thus canon 1324, §1, 4° states: “The perpetrator of a violation is not exempted from penalty, but the penalty prescribed in the law or precept must be diminished, or a penance substituted in its place, if the offense was committed by: […] a minor who has completed the sixteenth year of age.” In other words, someone between the ages of sixteen and eighteen who procures an abortion can’t be excommunicated, either for abortion or for any other offense, but rather some lesser penalty or a penance must be substituted in its place. For anybody under the age of eighteen is exempt from latae sententiae penalties, and in keeping with canon 1323, 1°, anybody under the age of sixteen is exempt from any canonical penalty whatsoever. http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/canon_law_101.html

On the other thread on 4/28/2016 at 9:50 AM, Eoin Joyce said: "For me, there is a wider issue here around baptism of minors." --------- I replied with: Absolutely. Particularly in the JW faith, a baptism is a lifelong contract - not only with God, but with a religious organization. With contract law, generally speaking, a minor can void a contract without legal repercussions. http://contracts.uslegal.com/contract-by-a-minor/ There are also protections in law to prevent those lacking capacity to enter into long-term binding contracts, e.g. being able to marry. JWs have likened baptism to a kind of marriage and being far more important than the day of one's wedding. If dedication and baptism have this level of gravity, does a 12 year old, say, have the capacity and maturity to make so binding and irrevocable a commitment as this? The minor cannot void this contract without serious and traumatizing repercussions. Is that fair? Another consideration is that when one is disfellowshipped, the relationship with a religious organization is broken. The relationship with extended family and friends is a separate thing, no? To illustrate: Andre works at his local Walmart. His whole family shop there all the time and have done so for years. One day Sophia, his niece, is caught shoplifting. She's been going through a bad patch but this is her first offence. Nevertheless, Walmart press charges and she gets convicted of a misdemeanor. Walmart also bans her from the store for a year. For Sophia this is a wake-up call. She has grown up a lot and been acting responsibly. She shops at Target now. Andre and his family stop all contact with Sophia. They don't respond to her emails and texts other than that one time when they reminded her she is banned from Walmart and has a misdemeanor conviction so they are not supposed to communicate with her. When Andre and his wife had their wedding anniversary, they invited the whole family round to celebrate - except Sophia. Andre even invited some of Sophia's long-time friends. When Sophia asked why she wasn't invited, they said that, until the Walmart ban is lifted and she regularly shops there again, they cannot in good conscience associate with her. Have Sophia's family and friends acted reasonably? Then we got sidetracked on semantics.

Releasing a magazine that scapegoats homosexuals as pedophiles is hardly being 'proactive' against child abuse.

I only saw The Librarian's response after I hit submit. Duly noted, sir.

OK. Apparently you are trying to say that some interpretations kill faith while (I presume) other interpretations strengthen faith? Am I understanding you right? If so, why didn't you say so in the first place? Assuming that the interpretation is pretty much sound, isn't that the scaffold upon which faith hangs? Huh? But the Beroeans. And Luke. Are you a "naive person" that "believes every word" (Prov. 14:15)? *** g00 3/8 pp. 26-27 True Faith—What Is It? *** Faith or Credulity? Much of what passes for faith today is in reality credulity—a readiness to believe without a valid basis or reason. Credulity is often built on the shifting sands of emotion and superstition. This is not well-founded faith because it has no reliable basis for belief. Credulity could cause one to jump to conclusions that may be out of harmony with Bible truth. Accordingly, the Bible warns against unfounded faith: “Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.” (Proverbs 14:15) The apostle Paul wrote: “Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) The Bible does not promote credulity. It does encourage faith based on evidence. No. I said: "If the Bible is not true, faith in it will not lead to everlasting life either."

The CQC inspection is looking at whether the home is working in accordance with governmental regulations and thereby reflecting current best practice. The same criteria applies to 'worldly' homes as well. The problems at Jah-Jireh Wigan weren't centered around the general ethos but were these: It's good to see that improvements have been made since. The report had lots of positive comments too.