JW Insider

8 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I programmed mine to go door to door and attend all meetings so I could stay home and snuggle with my wife.

I programmed mine to fool TrueTomHarley into thinking it was his wife.

10 hours ago, Josué2 said:

Bonjour la bible doit être lue dans son contexte et il ne faut pas sortir un verset pour essayer de la comprendre.

Which means, when translated, something like: Hello, the Bible should be read in context and one should not try to understand it by taking a verse out of context.

5 minutes ago, Anna said:

IT was the librarian, he was punishing me for not sticking to a topic. Now it looks like I started this thread. I would never start a topic with a title like that.

And I made it look like I was blaming you. Sorry. As I recall, you had already defended yourself very well a few hundred posts back in this thread. They even talked about threaded replies. And I knew it wasn't your fault from the start. I've been asked to split off several threads myself, and I always have trouble with the fact that the initial post is the oldest relevant post that can be added to the thread so it looks like that person started the new thread. It gives the impression that some innocent person had deemed a side-track topic to be important enough for its own thread. 

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

It's you guys that keep it going.  

I for one, thank you for sticking around for this discussion. Yes, I remember how unfair it seemed that someone started a thread with your name in it, just to make it clear that they didn't trust your own stated reasons. But, of course, forums are full of opinions sprinkled with a few facts sometimes, but just to bolster opinions. People rightly treat most of this like YouTube comments, or some other "worst" example of the way people's opinions can cloud out anything useful. But I stll think that what you have provided here is a first hand experience (prior to JW association) and a subsequent reaction to WTS policies that is very important for most of us to reflect on, even if it's different from the way most of think we would react.

2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

When Brother Jackson offered a solution of the allegation once brought before a judicial committee, it would automatically be routed to secular authorities. This option was declined by the Australian Parliament.

Oddly enough, Brother Jackson came very close to implying it, but still didn't say elders themselves would always comply even if it the state produced a consistent mandatory reporting law. Brother Jackson danced around the actual response expected from elders. You can see this on page 36 to 40 of the official transcript: https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/Case Study 29 - Transcript - Jehovahs Witnesses - Day 155 - 14082015.pdf

For example, Bro. Jackson said it would make it easier, but that the elder would still have to consider whether he got the information confidentially and quoted Proverbs 25:8 (importance of confidentiality) in the same breath in which he suggested consistent mandatory reporting laws. He said that none of these principles necessarily takes precedence, but that the elders need to consider it. (p.37) Then Jackson went on to quote 1 Peter 5:3 to show that the elder himself could be lording it over the flock if he took it upon himself to report something when it could be seen as the responsibility of a family head to report it. And he again repeated that the decision will be "easier for us" but did not make a statement that the elder himself should be the one who complies with a mandatory reporting law. He repeated again that, for the elder, there would still be no "clear cut or quick decision on the matter" even if it were obvious that other children in the same family were still at risk. (p.38) As seen at the top of page 39, these "dances" were seen by Stewart as reasons for potentially "overriding mandatory reporting" even if and where it did exist. And Jackson was very accepting of the idea that this was, indeed, his goal by clarifying that he, Jackson, still prefers that the elders only be required to "encourage the guardian of the child, or whoever is in that family arrangement who is not the perpetrator, to notify the authorities." (p.40). .

Also, I didn't follow how the Australian Parliament might have responded to any such recommendations for consistent mandatory reporting. Can you point me to a place that shows exactly what they rejected? 

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Strange that the GB should keep so much info' but keep it all to themselves. 

The vast majority of Witnesses have the expectation that the WTS will always try to do what is right, no matter what the topic. But like all institutions, reputation is paramount. The WTS is full of people who want to enhance the reputation of the WTS. This is a problem, but also natural --almost expected-- if we are also sure that we have the most life-saving message, and that this message will likely be rejected if our reputation is sullied. A college or sports organization will be just as guilty of protecting their reputation through maneuvering, or even more so, when the motive is as mundane as staying in business.

We've been through these ideas before, but it's quite possible that TTH is correct in assuming that the WTS/JWs have made great strides in protecting young ones from abuse. I notice that the media has tended to move from "Catholics only" to "Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses." But part of that perception is the fact that we Witnesses have our ears "tuned" to listen to anything the media says about JWs. We will sometimes think we are being bashed when we are actually being treated fairly, just because we perceive we are being ganged up on. It could just as easily be true that only a small percent of our own sexual abuse issues make the news, but the exposure of Catholic clergy and institutions has made Catholics might be highly overexposed by the media.

I was Googling, "Barbara Anderson" and also picked up a short booklet on Amazon that she had written (or it looks like someone wrote for her). But I noticed that she has also said that the problem is not something for which the media should focus on just Catholics and JWs. I found a quote where she said that Billy Graham's son, a well-known Protestant preacher, said that the problem of child sexual abuse is greater in the Protestant religions, especially the mega-churches. I noticed that some Catholics in Australia had no problem finding numbers from the "Commission" (ARC) that proved that the problem among JWs and another set of religions was shown to be much bigger among these non-Catholic religions. 

But another couple quotes from Barbara Anderson also said something about seeing a court document, not shared publicly, that could explain why the "GB should keep so much info . . . all to themselves." For one thing she says that many of these cases involve incest and an exposure of the names of either victims or perpetrators when combined with the crime could bring another level of public hurt upon the victim. Also I saw a quote from her that said that it really was true that quite a number of persons for which the WTS admitted that their pedophile status was known was through our prison outreach program. When persons locked up for child sexual abuse are baptized and then released, or released and then baptized, this inflates the number of persons listed in the WTS records even if they have not ever been known to commit a sexual abuse crime after leaving becoming a JW.

Another point that I sensed from combining a few ideas she wrote about is this. The WTS lists contain a wide range of abuse crimes, and some of them truly are those from which a sensible person would not think right to expose to the court and law enforcement (risking also the leaks to the media). A 17 year old, for example, might have done things in high school that have truly not been a problem for the last 40 years. Of course these same lists have been shown now to have contained heinous crimes that were covered up and should obviously be exposed to law enforcement. But starting this process creates a slippery slope to a decision-making process where the WTS can't trust itself to always "redact" correctly, and the WTS has never trusted the world to handle anything correctly, especially where it relates to protecting their own reputation. So, it's the old dilemmas: "between a rock and a hard place" / "between the Devil and the deep blue sea" / "between the Pharoah and the deep Red Sea."

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

What if we said that ALL accusations would be reported directly to the Police and secular authorities. Wouldn't that make accusers think twice about making false accusations ?

This is probably true. Even here no system is without potential loopholes in justice. But it's back to the idea that the WTS would potentially give up control of its reputation to "the world." In these cases its something that should absolutely be done. It's not perfect, but it's much better, and a culture in which this is expected will result in a much better sense among all of us that it should have been done this way all along. I referenced a website which TTH has quoted from, and noticed that the general point of this entire website is that reporting ALL accusations is a culture change that all institutions need to begin, religious and non-religious.

4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

ARE WE TRYING TO CONVINCE GOD WHAT HE REALLY HAD IN MIND?

We don't really care, or shouldn't care as much what God had in mind in Genesis, Exodus, or Leviticus. But we should care what James and Peter had in mind when they gave an edict "abstain from blood" to Paul and Barnabas to spread among the Gentile believers.

Even so, I think you are right -- assuming that we truly believe that the intent of the edict "abstain from blood" referred to any means of taking it into the body. And this is exactly what we believe, whether by medical procedure or by consumption through the mouth.

I always imagined it like this:

• Let's say Adam and Eve had been told to abstain from eating from a certain tree of the garden and let's say that this tree had been, for example, a banana tree, and there was only one of these trees in the whole garden. So they proceed to pick the fruit and find ways to make food products from it: banana puree, banana wine, banana sugar, banana jam, dried banana chips, banana powder, banana oil, including products from banana peels, banana leaves, banana tree bark, and banana tree roots. Satan appears in the form of a tarantula spider and tells them that all these products are just fine because they aren't really eating from the tree, they are eating byproducts from the tree. Satan says that as long as you process and smash and dry and mix and powder and recombine with other products, it's not really the same as eating from the banana tree. Just don't eat the whole banana fruit at once,  or the whole leaf, or the whole root, or the whole peel. Otherwise, it's just a matter of conscience. 

I should add, however, that in the last couple of years, I've changed my mind on just how far one could apply this specific illustration. And now --based on something very specific and clear that the apostle Paul wrote-- I think that the whole blood issue is entirely a matter of conscience. Due to conscience, I might personally view the matter more strongly than another believer, or less strongly. But I would not wish to impose my own conscientious view on others.

3 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I believe you are referring to a cow being killed through a headshot, while I was referring to a cow being killed through slitting its throat.

Sort of. I was referring to both. And our steers were only stunned with the head shot, not killed outright, so the heart was still beating. I was just saying there was a time when I was more interested in the various processes, so as to compare them, partly because of the blood issue, and partly because we had raised our steers from calves (along with a heifer and a milk cow). I therefore had a concern about their suffering. Naming them was a bad idea. I was interested in the process then, because a true kosher slaughter, at least at the time, required that the animal be readied for stringing up and then the throat cut as soon as the animal was strung up. There was no stunning or bolt gun with the kosher method, with the idea that the heart (and fear of the process) would help the heart beat stronger, and pump out more blood. How much more, I don't know. I might not have even been given completely correct info. 

3 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

One will be conscious while the other will not. The cow shot will in effect have its heart stop by having no further communication with the brain to function.

The bolt-shot (stunned) unconscious animal might be in a kind of shock, lowering the heart rate I would assume, but I suppose the amount of blood drained could be similar, but might take longer, when compared with an animal that is fully alert, and the throat is slit with a fully beating heart. I think it's interesting that our slaughterhouse told us that the kosher method is faster because the animal is so afraid of dying that the blood is pumping more strongly and the heart rate is off the charts. But more recently, when more people are interested in whether the animal experiences fear and suffering, the kosher method is sometimes touted as "instant death" -- which it definitely is not.

3 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

If the cow is conscious or not, if the heart is beating or not. The process will have the same end result. The animal’s blood will be drained.

That might be. And I might have been given wrong information about how the kosher method supposedly drains more blood, by throat slitting without ever knocking out or stunning the animal.

2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

The theory of blood by-product under a microscope can have the same concept. When meat is purchased at the store. Sometimes red liquid is seen in a package.

I don't believe anyone would claim that this red liquid in the package is blood. But as you say, it contains blood, whole blood cells. So does the meat itself.

But it looks like your argument boils down to something like this:

• No one can actually get rid of all the whole blood cells that will be found in meat by any practical process. And the Bible's laws never technically meant that absolute full drainage was required anyway, as the idea of "lifeblood" was intended, not blood, per se. Therefore, if we were not supposed to worry about small amounts of whole blood, we should not necessarily worry our conscience about fractions or particles of blood, either.

2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

The question then becomes what Biblical standard we are willing to subject our thoughts to adjust those scientific standards when there was none in ancient times just God’s commandment to drain the lifeblood of the animal. The concept of squeezing every last drop becomes an unfounded scientific concept.

I agree with this, that it's a "question of what Biblical standard we are willing to subject our thoughts to,"  but it doesn't really seem to address the question of why certain fractions are prohibited from the perspective of the Watchtower's guidelines, and certain fractions are considered to be a matter of individual conscience.

1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

An argument could be made with this concept. The idea would need further study between a conscious animal and an unconscious animal. While the blood is being drained, the heart still beats. Then the question becomes a matter of circulation or flow.

I agree that you could make such an argument. But the heart stops beating before all the blood is drained. That was my point. The animal can have a lot of blood still remaining and yet dies while being drained. The heart stops and there is plenty of blood to be drained. (We had 3 of our bulls slaughtered when I was about 15.  Technically they were "steers.") I was interested in the process due to the blood issue, because in this case, the animals were shot in the head first (bolt gun), then strung up to drain. Technically, we were supposed to ask the butcher not to save the blood for fertilizer or feed or any other purpose, and we would pay him a bit more for disposal. (In those days the Watchtower told us that we should not even let our dogs and cats eat unbled meat.)

1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

That red liquid is technically referred to as cow bovine, not blood.

No. The red liquid is not technically referred to as cow bovine. It is bovine in the same way that a cow's hide is bovine, or a baseball glove is bovine, or a leather chair, or a kind of saliva, or a certain type of sound, or a kind of meat, or a specific kind of hoofprint in the mud, or a certain kind of "mudpie"/"patty"/"buffalo chip"/etc.

In other words, the milk I drank this morning was bovine, but it did not contain any bovine. The meat I ate last week was bovine, but it did not contain any bovine. There is no such phrase as "cow bovine" as far as I know.

I finally saw Hitchens' documentary. When I first tried to watch it, the local Blockbuster video store kept saying they had 5 copies, and I put one on hold, until they realized they had all been stolen, or checked out by fake ID's, never to be returned.

I think we should be fair with the old man. He should not be executed until after a trial. He is guilty of war crimes, but that's also true of almost every U.S. president since Eisenhower.

If Iraq is asked to pay only $15 Billion from Germany and could choose to pay, say, $20 Billion to the U.S. for the equivalent work, they would almost surely have to waste the extra $5 Billion on the U.S. But this will be nothing new to Iraq. The US was behind the sanctions (mostly under B.Clinton) that literally killed about ONE MILLION PEOPLE (mostly women and children) by intentionally bombing and sabotaging Iraq's clean water, agricultural and power infrastructure long before the US invasion of Iraq. And recall too that the US invaded Iraq due to the actions of a man that the US had supported, Saddam Hussein. So, in a perfect world, you might think that the US owed the Iraqi people billions of dollars in war reparations, rather than worry about whether a US company gets a lucrative contract.

It reminds me of how even during the intentionally murderous sanctions, a large US corporation (military contractor) continued to "secretly" make hundreds of millions of dollars by doing oil related work in Iraq. They paid less than 10 million dollars in fines over their intentional breaking of US law, but were then quickly awarded 1.2 billion in contracts in Iraq, even though these contracts were supposed to go to the lowest bidder. That was Halliburton, of course. But the same thing happens with many US companies with respect to controversial defense contracts. Some of these companies, like G.E., Google, etc., are not even typically thought of as defense contractors, and many have been awarded contracts for work for which they have little to no experience. 

10 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

From Genesis to Leviticus. Scripture is referring to LIFEBLOOD. Don’t eat the animal without first draining its blood. This is a commandment from God. Is God inferring that you squeeze the animal dry to drain every last drop? No, it means that the life of the animal is the blood, and as soon as the blood is drained, it becomes lifeless and ready for consumption.

This is a good concept to remember, but it produces some questions. If the blood referred to was the LIFEBLOOD then one could discontinue draining as soon as the animal was lifeless. If a live animal, heart beating, was hung upside-down, and then its throat slit, its "LIFEBLOOD" would already be gone even when only half the blood is drained. If the animal was already killed by lethal weapon, blunt force, or from another animal, or even had just died on its own, the amount of blood that could be drained by hanging it upside-down and slitting its throat would be much less than if it died during the draining process. In any case, the Jewish law required that the draining take place, and blood be poured onto the ground, as a kind of ritual of respect. We assume then that the animal was drained at least until the pouring stopped and the pouring turned into a drip. Since it was a ritual of respect before Jehovah, I would assume that it might be kept in position until the dripping had also stopped.

Of course, Christians of most stripes, should be informed by Acts 15 and 21 on this matter, more so than Genesis through Leviticus. Otherwise we would have to treat the fat with the same amount of respect, and the fat has exactly the same problem, not draining out completely when cooking.

• (Leviticus 3:17) 17 “‘It is a lasting statute for your generations, in all your dwelling places: You must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’”

Why was fat put on the same level as blood here? Perhaps we get a hint from the very first use of the word "smell" in the Bible:

• (Genesis 8:20, 21) . . .Then Noah built an altar to Jehovah and took some of all the clean animals and of all the clean flying creatures and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And Jehovah began to smell a pleasing aroma.. . .

When meat-eaters enjoy a juicy steak, much of the intrinsic flavor is from left-over blood and fat. The "pleasing aroma" of cooked meat comes more from the fat. The blood is poured downward to the ground, and the fat smokes upward "toward heaven."

To me, this says that this Mosaic law was based on a ritual of respect, the same as we see in many cultures who understood the grave seriousness of taking another life, killing a soul. Some Native American cultures were well-known for this, whenever an animal was killed for its meat. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice .  Part of the idea is that man shouldn't take another life for pleasure. And enjoying the savory meat as food is taking pleasure from killing another life.

Should note that some cultures preferred to sacrifice by strangling their meat, boiling it whole, etc. (See Scythians in the Wikipedia article above.) Homer and Hesiod wrote of sacrificing/cooking meat on their altars and how their god ("God the Father," Zeus) loved the savory aroma from the fat that rose high into the heavens. (Interesting discussion here: http://www.moyak.com/papers/hesiod-theogony.html )

Of course, turning to the Greek Scriptures, again, we know that Jehovah no longer accepts any animal or human sacrifices after Jesus himself. And, as Jesus' body was never burned, the aroma is obviously figurative, not literal, of course:

• (Ephesians 5:2) . . ., just as the Christ also loved us and gave himself for us as an offering and a sacrifice, a sweet fragrance to God.

Extrapolating from the concept of comparing LIFEBLOOD with "fractionated blood" is a bit too dependent on one particular facet of Hebrew Scripture definitions, without considering other aspects of sacrificial ritual. (It might even imply that less care be taken with blood drainage, when measuring the threshold of blood necessary for life-sustenance compared to the original amount of blood.) And of course, the continuation of the idea in Acts 15, might also be primarily about abstaining from idolatry-related rituals, especially now that Christians realized that sacrificial rituals had no more place in the true worship of God.

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Any meat has leftover blood by-product.

Technically, what the meat contains is leftover blood, not "blood by-product." By-product would be the blood that was separated or drained, not the blood still in the meat. 

Just read a rather disturbing article about the many ways in which animal by-products, including whole blood, and blood plasma, are used around the world. Some of the data comes from the USDA.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3614052/

Your write-up, btw, was excellent imo, fwiw.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

So basically when the GB tell lies and / or deliberately mislead the congregation.

I am not saying that the GB tell lies. It's very easy to get caught up in a style of speaking and writing as if we know we must be right and that only our current explanation is correct.

Doctrines are NOT promoted because a member of the GB (or Writing Dept) is thinking about whether a certain doctrine might be right or wrong, it's just that they have already accepted that it MUST be right because people before them presented it as if it must be right. If we are "puppets" that follow along without questioning, then so have been most members of the GB. They follow the persons who came before because they never saw a reason not to. If our doctrines are obviously correct about Trinity, Hellfire, Neutrality, New Earth, Preaching, God's Name, etc., then our more questionable doctrines (Blood, Chronology, Higher Education, etc) must also be absolutely right by default. The GB would have no more reason to question them than we would. What makes some doctrines finally get questioned and corrected is almost always the inability to answer a specific question about that doctrine that gets sent to the Society.

But sometimes such questions are TOO disturbing and will not be dealt with, except by looking for reasons to punish the person who asked, and I would have to admit that this reaction is very wrong. Unfortunately, this is how some humans have always reacted to those who would question established traditions.

On the other hand, it takes a lot of humility to make changes to long-established ("deeply entrenched") doctrines. It doesn't mean that we or they (GB) were lying when we accepted and promoted the former doctrines. We just weren't "making sure of all things." More and more changes of this nature have been made in the last 10 to 20 years, and they are tending to clear up many of the doctrinal inconsistencies.

12 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

but he was buried after death.

For an actor, timing is very important!

1 minute ago, Anna said:

Nah, that washed away soil must have settled somewhere. You know, like drifts of snow I imagine a lot of mud everywhere

I expect you are right. But miraculous intervention would have played a part. Besides, considering how salty the oceans are even now, only some 4,000 years later, plants must have been given capabilities they no longer have.

1 minute ago, Anna said:

Probably because the soil was nicely softened from all that water.

As described, such a quick and violent flood would wash away the topsoil, and this would make it the worst time to plant, and for many years into the future.

28 minutes ago, Anna said:

So you think the James commentary was dropped because it was written by Raymond Franz?

At least 100 Watchtower articles have not been pulled. Several hundred entries in the "Insight" books were not changed. The "Choosing" book is still there, the "Family Life" book is still there. So is "Is This Life All There Is?" etc.

I am sad. This is not just for the loss of this particular book, but also because it reminds me of the saddest episode in the history of Bethel (in my opinion, of course).

There are two books in my opinion that best managed to encapsulate the entire meaning of Christianity and our entire purpose as Jehovah's Witnesses.

Admittedly, I am somewhat of a critical reader and often find things that are easy to disagree with, at least slightly. Usually, it's when our publications make a statement that is not necessarily wrong, but could easily need to be updated in a future publication. This might be for any of the following reasons:

• Some explanation was worded as if the meaning of a thing can only be understood in one specific way when in fact the Biblical evidence makes it clear that there are other possible meanings and our conclusion is really speculation.
• Or when a quote is used but it was misunderstood or misused by the writer.
• Or when a historical event is referred to as evidence of something when the event didn't really occur exactly as was stated.
• Or when a concept isn't actually explained or defined correctly.
• Or when examples are used that can easily become obsolete, out of date, and might later require a new explanation if trends change.
• Or when a specific date or chronological system is used without Biblical or secular support. (Our date might be correct in those cases, but since we sometimes make use of an alternate dating system without Biblical or secular support, I always feel that at least an explanation of our assumptions should be included, so people know why we give a different date from 99.9 percent of encyclopedias, for example.)

But these two particular favorite books, I have always been able to read and re-read without ever noticing anything of the type that might have to be changed in the future. There are no explanations that state that something MUST mean this or that. They are simply full of general explanations of the words of James and Peter in the context of the original meaning to the first centuries C.E., and how these Biblical concepts might be applied to Christians in our era, too. They don't try to brag about our modern-day history. They don't try to prove things about topics that tend to need constant clarification. They are merely about ideas that strengthen our faith and love for Jehovah and Jesus. They always make me appreciate the true value of the Bible itself, and the way that our publications can emphasize the Bible instead of our organizational accomplishments. (There are several wonderful articles in the Watchtower that I love for the same reasons that I love these two books, but these books stand out from most of our other books in this regard.)

So, of course, the books are "Commentary on the Letter of James" and the "Commentary on the Letters of Peter" (which was finally named "Choosing the Best Way of Life"). The first was the only book study book that we didn't study at the Congregation Bible Study (the "Book Study"), although most of the book was reviewed in a series of 15-minute "Instruction Talks." It was supposed to be a "Book Study" book, but a decision was made to replace this 1979 book for the "Book Study" with "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years - Has Approached" (which reviewed the Society's modern-day history under Russell and Rutherford). That was a 1973 book which we were to study for a second time.

This book "Commentary on the Letter of James" was not dropped because it's old. The Watchtower Library includes the books going back to 1971, and still includes 14 books that came out prior to this one. Even the obsolete "Word Government" book (1977), covering parts of Daniel, is still included. The 1973 "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years" book had many errors already known about even in 1979, prior to the decision to study it again, and it's still available now. In fact, the "James Commentary" is the only one that has been dropped. I just checked the 2006 WT CD, the 2012, 2014 and 2015. They all still have it along with all the others from the 1970's that are still available now. It was even dropped from the online library at https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/lv/r1/lp-e/0/56220.  All the other books from the 1970's are still at wol.jw.org.

I didn't check exactly when it disappeared. You might still have had it on the 2016/17 WT Library "CD" download, but it could have been removed if you accepted the regular online update.

5 hours ago, Jack Ryan said:

What’s your understanding of what GB teach on this issue and your thoughts on this scripture?

*** w17 June p. 8 par. 17 Jehovah Provides Comfort in All Our Trials ***
Before the Flood, Seth’s descendant Lamech worshipped Jehovah. That family man said of his son Noah: “[He] will bring us comfort from our labor and from the painful toil of our hands because of the ground that Jehovah has cursed.” That prophecy was fulfilled when the curse on the ground was lifted.

*** w13 8/1 p. 15 He Was Kept “Safe With Seven Others” ***
God lifted the curse on the ground. Back in the days of the rebellion of Adam and Eve, God had pronounced that curse, making cultivation unusually difficult. Noah’s father, Lamech, had named his son Noah—probably meaning “Rest,” or “Consolation”—and had foretold that his son would lead mankind to a time of rest from that curse. Noah must have beamed when he learned that he would now see that prophecy fulfilled and that the earth would respond more readily to efforts to cultivate it. Little wonder that Noah soon took up farming!—Genesis 3:17, 18; 5:28, 29; 9:20.

*** w96 11/1 p. 8 par. 8 Look to Jehovah for Comfort ***
How relieved Noah and his family must have felt after the Flood as they came out of the ark onto a cleansed earth! How comforting to find that the curse on the ground had been lifted, making agricultural activity so much easier! Indeed, Lamech’s prophecy proved true, and Noah lived up to the meaning of his name. (Genesis 8:21)

So evidently the idea is that the ground in Eden was fantastic, and the ground around the garden was supposed to be ready for fertile and fruitful cultivation as the human family expanded. But then God cursed the ground and it became more difficult. And then the Flood, (Après à fois le déluge. ..) after which it became much easier again to cultivate the ground, but not perfect as in Eden. I don't recall the animal theory ever being spelled out relative to this curse on the ground.

10 hours ago, Anna said:

As far as I know @JW Insider is an active Witness. If so, perhaps he would like to explain why he didn't leave the org. 

I began to address this in a thread some time ago. As far as my status I mentioned this under another topic today:

• I am a Witness. I still associate and preach regularly and maintain my congregational privileges. To avoid specific conflicts and contentions I requested some time ago that I be allowed to step down from former congregational privileges.

On the question of why I didn't leave the organization, it's because I've never been asked to leave. I don't consider myself to be as "obedient and loyal" a Witness as others, but I see no reason to leave. There are hundreds of people in our brotherhood whom I love dearly, and I could not associate with them or do things for them if I chose to leave. I have no problem with the general intent and motivation of the organization, even if I see problems here and there. The problems certainly do not outweigh the good. It's not the religious organization that makes us Christian because we all stand on our own before Jehovah. Only if and when we are asked to obey men as ruler rather than God should we take a stand against the authority of men.

I was born and raised a Witness. I know that this illustration won't make sense to most Witnesses, but Paul said the following about the the outward appearances that can signify our religion to others, and he implies that the specifics that matter so much to others shouldn't matter so much to us personally.

• (1 Corinthians 7:17-24) Nevertheless, just as Jehovah has given each one a portion, let each one so walk as God has called him. And so I give this directive in all the congregations. 18 Was any man already circumcised when he was called? Let him not undo his circumcision. Has any man been called while uncircumcised? Let him not get circumcised. 19 Circumcision means nothing, and uncircumcision means nothing; what means something is the observing of God’s commandments. 20 In whatever state each one was called, let him remain in it. 21 Were you called when a slave? Do not let it concern you; but if you can become free, then seize the opportunity. 22 For anyone who was called in the Lord when a slave is the Lord’s freedman; likewise anyone who was called when a freeman is a slave of Christ. 23 You were bought with a price; stop becoming slaves of men. 24 In whatever state each one was called, brothers, let him remain in it before God.

If a person conscientiously feels that they are in a kind of servitude to men because of the religion, then they could seize the opportunity to get free, and I would not judge such a person, but would still want to help them maintain their spirituality. (But note that our true freedom is not our outward situation, but between ourselves and the Lord.) It's much easier to be a Christian with a loving brotherhood of Christians around us, related to us in the faith. Christianity is "social" and we need each other for encouragement and to continue to incite each other to good works toward one another. (Heb 10:24,25) I believe that the Witnesses provide this brotherhood. It's not specifically the doctrines, but it's the value we place on God's word, studying from it and teaching from it. The value placed on the Bible produces sensible faith-strengthening doctrines that honor God. It also helps us build a Christian character that can keep us free from the world's immorality, and free from the world's nationalism, conflicts and wars. With that in mind, I do not find it difficult to remain in the state I was called.

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

 I don't know if you are are a Witness now, or past tense, and i don't know what side of the fence you are on.

I am a Witness. I still associate and preach regularly and maintain my congregational privileges. To avoid specific conflicts and contentions I requested some time ago that I be allowed to step down from former congregational privileges.

I believe that what I said about the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" is true, and it's easy to support Biblically with the Scriptures. And it's very close to what we originally believed as Witnesses from the time of the very first Watch Tower publications. Of course, it's not the official belief now, so I would not say this in a congregational setting. In a congregational setting I treat others the way they way I assume they would want to be treated.  For those who come online where they already know that they must be prepared to deal with thousands of potential stumbling blocks, I think this is a more appropriate place to discuss items of controversy that cannot be discussed in the congregation. Here, everyone is welcome --and already well prepared-- to treat my opinion here with any appropriate level of disdain or approval that they see fit. 

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

But you seem to be saying that those 8 men, the GB, are no better than any other Witness. I don't even know if all 8 are 'of the Anointed'. I would presume they are or they think they are.

The Biblical qualifications for elders in a congregation include age, experience, reputation, among several other things. But, as Witnesses, our preferred type of worship is not only informed by the elders of the local congregation but also by elders who are deemed qualified to look after the practical and spiritual interests of a world-wide congregation. I think "Governing Body" is a terrible name, and has no scriptural support. But the general idea of a body of elders for the overall congregation makes practical sense for the same reasons that a local congregation needs a body of elders.

It's not that I think they are supposed to come up with "new truths" or "new spiritual food recipes" but they are in a position to hear communication from all the congregations world-wide, and are therefore in a unique position to know what things might be useful, necessary, and timely. If a lot of difficult questions come in about a certain doctrine, then they are also in a unique position to request research in order to clarify doctrinal issues, too.

Based on the way they are chosen from among anointed elders in full-time service, they would typically be better teachers, have better abilities to direct, have more experience, etc., than most other Witnesses. This doesn't mean they are better in the sense of being more spiritual or having more holy spirit. They do not claim this for themselves, just as they don't claim to get spiritual food directly from Jehovah. But they often speak of realizing the seriousness of the responsibility to the overall congregation, as they should.

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

However then my next question would have to be, Why are the rest of the Anointed not seen as being as important ? And why did the GB actually have written in a W/T that some of those saying they are anointed have got mental issues ?

Yes. This has been both stated and implied about 3 or 4 times. Some of those were due to the rise in the numbers of partakers at the Memorial that went against a teaching that a drop in the number of partakers was a sign of the closeness of the end. This is no longer considered to be a necessary sign of the end. It's probably true that some have mental issues. I think I've witnessed this phenomenon with an anointed sister in my previous congregation. Saying it in the publications has made it easier for others to begin questioning and judging the anointed status of many others and this is probably unfortunate. The point of the statement(s) you refer to seem to be tied to the idea that the Governing Body has (for decades) said that they "represent" the remaining members of the anointed, but without ever meeting with them or asking their opinions. It's probably meant as an explanation to those who consider themselves anointed as to why their opinion is not requested, nor would they ever expect it to be. For many decades the entire anointed remnant was considered to be the "faithful and discreet slave" and this probably raised the question about why they weren't ever involved in doctrinal issues unless they were already part of the Writing Department or Service Department at Bethel. Now, as of 2011, this has changed and the GB claims to be the equivalent of the FDS, which tends to remove the question about why the rest of the anointed are not involved.

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Two other points, yes i know i go on a bit. There were twelve tribes of Israel (well maybe 13 including the Levites) and there were twelve Apostles (once again maybe 13 including Paul ) so why only 8 men in the GB ?

The GB has had 12 members at one or two points in its official existence (since about 1971). It once had 18 members at the same time. But I think they have purposely avoided trying to keep it at 12 or 13 so that it is not seen as a kind of "apostolic succession" associated with a couple of other churches. People would surely complain that it would be a sign of haughtiness to present themselves as modern-day apostles.

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

It would make far more sense and show that Jehovah is the God over all the Earth not just America  . ?

Having members that better represent the entire world would be a good thing. Some have come from foreign branches, too. But they are usually chosen from among those who have proven themselves to be long-time, loyal office workers in the Branch offices, where the heads of those Branch offices usually came from the United States before their assignments in those foreign branches. There are currently a couple of members who are not originally from the United States.

8 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I do love your use of the word 'clarifications', when in fact you mean, change of meanings. 

It was the word used in the publication itself. I agree that it is one of a range of words we use so as not to highlight "previous error" or "former false teaching" etc. But, in my opinion, it really is a clarification, because the former false teaching was unclear ("muddy" as you say) or didn't fit the scriptures, which is often admitted in the "reason behind the change."

12 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And i will repeat my question here, If the GB are the 'Faithful and discreet slave' why do they not get it right first time ? 

No one claims that God directly gives the GB the spiritual food they see fit to distribute. But it's also true that Christians should expect that some who devote themselves to the hard work of teaching are worthy of double honor. I have also expressed my personal opinion that Jesus did not intend for this illustration to be taken as a means to give authority to a few leaders in the congregation. He meant it for all Christians to think about how they would treat one another and how they would handle their own responsibilities if the end of the system seemed to be so long delayed that some would think they could get away with misconduct. Peter provides a commentary on this illustration and this same potential situation with respect to the parousia when he speaks of its apparent delay and adds "What sort of persons ought you to be?" (2 Peter 3:11-14)

So this illustration is for all of us. All of us should be faithful stewards. "In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful." (1 Cor 4:2) All of us should do our part in feeding Christ's sheep.

But this doesn't mean that some wouldn't lead in different ways, especially with respect to a worldwide teaching ministry, we would expect some attempts at doctrinal conformity and continued clarification as new things are learned.

But it also applies to all of us, even if some take the lead in teaching, and the illustration could have just as easily called us the "master of the house" not only a servant in the household. The specific household position in the illustration isn't as important as the conduct of the person in the illustration. In this next one we are likened just as easily to the "master." It doesn't mean that some of us should be called "leader" (or governors) for our leader is one.:

• Matthew 13:52: Then he said to them: “That being the case, every public instructor who is taught about the Kingdom of the heavens is like a man, the master of the house, who brings out of his treasure store things both new and old.”

So the illustration wasn't about serving perfect food, just about the attitude and motives we should all have when we handle our Christian responsibilities.