JW Insider

I'm sure @Jesus.defender meant to present a fairly comprehensive view of the issues that are involved. In some cases the issues are not Biblical, but they point out that Witnesses (or the WTS) have admitted to making errors of judgment in presenting vaccinations and organ transplants as unclean in God's eyes, and have changed their stand on those medical treatments. That's true, and although it might be evidence that we have been careless in our medical-related doctrines, it is not evidence that we are necessarily wrong in our stance on blood transfusion. I think a better "outside" presentation of a practical, doctrinal Biblical discussion and then a slightly more scholarly Biblical discussion of the issues as presented by NON-JWs can be found in these places, respectively: Must Christians Today “Abstain from Blood”? Acts of the Apostles: Decree of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) Part 1: The Literary Flow of Acts 15 Acts of the Apostles: Decree of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) Part 2: The Decree’s Purpose The first link ends up admitting that Christians should not eat blood. The last link says something interesting about the same question that James T. Rook brought up commenting on the possibility that Acts 15 might have had reference to bloodshed/murder when it said "Abstain from blood." The point is that several early Bible manuscripts of Acts left off "and from things strangled." Perhaps they (the copyists of Western Bible manuscripts) assumed that this was unnecessarily redundant if it was just another way of stating that an animal should be properly bled. But another assumption is that the manuscript copyists thought that it was problematic in that it interfered with the much more understandable position that James and the elders were stating something much more obvious: that Gentiles were being told that the most important things to remember were to abstain from bloodshed (murder), idolatry, and immorality. Endnotes 15In some Western Greek manuscripts, the decree contains only three ethical admonitions: Avoid idolatry, blood (in the sense of bloodshed) and sexual immorality. This fits in with “the rabbinic tradition which considers the three primary sins of the Gentiles to be precisely idolatry, shedding of blood and immorality” (Stephen G. Wilson. Luke and the Law. [Cambridge: University Press, 1983], p. 80). However, Wilson also observes that “the Western version consists of such widely accepted ethical norms that a decree to this effect would be superfluous” (Stephen G. Wilson. The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts. [Cambridge: University Press, 1973], p. 188). All major English translations, including the King James and the NIV, use a Greek text with four prohibitions. The textual questions are discussed in detail in Bruce Metzger. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), pp. 429-433. ... 42Christians in the West would be less likely to know that strangled things were associated with pagan customs. Perhaps this explains why the word was omitted in the Western text.

Under another topic, @James Thomas Rook Jr. brought up a question about what James (the brother of Jesus) and others in Jerusalem may have meant when they decreed: "Abstain from blood." (Acts 15:20) In this area of the site, it seems that we often point to breakthroughs in bloodless therapies, successful stories of surgery without blood, and now and then report on a death or lawsuit related to the Witness stance on the blood issue. However, we do not often discuss the Biblical viewpoint of the blood doctrine itself. @Jesus.defender had started this topic in that direction, but makes several errors about the actual view of Jehovah's Witnesses. For example, we do not defend the view based on Genesis 9 and Leviticus 17, as claimed. They are used as "clues" but if it were not for Acts 15, we would likely think of eating and transfusing blood as non-issues. I'll quote the primary scriptures we refer to with some context, but the entire context is extremely important here and these verses should really be read at least with the full chapters surrounding them: (Acts 15:1-29) Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barʹna·bas with them, it was arranged for Paul, Barʹna·bas, and some of the others to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem regarding this issue. . . . On arriving in Jerusalem, they were kindly received by the congregation and the apostles and the elders, and they related the many things God had done by means of them. But some of those of the sect of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up from their seats and said: “It is necessary to circumcise them and command them to observe the Law of Moses.” . . . Peter rose and said to them: “. . . And he made no distinction at all between us and them, but purified their hearts by faith. So why are you now making a test of God by imposing on the neck of the disciples a yoke. . . ? On the contrary, we have faith that we are saved through the undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus in the same way that they are.” . . . After they finished speaking, James replied: “. . . God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name. . . . Therefore, my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood. For from ancient times Moses has had those who preach him in city after city, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath.” . . . We are therefore sending Judas and Silas, so that they also may report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (Acts 21:11-32) . . .: “Thus says the holy spirit, ‘The man to whom this belt belongs will be bound like this by the Jews in Jerusalem, and they will give him into the hands of people of the nations.’” 12 Now when we heard this, both we and those who were there began begging him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul answered: “What are you doing by weeping and trying to weaken my resolve? Rest assured, I am ready not only to be bound but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 14 When he would not be dissuaded, we stopped objecting and said: “Let the will of Jehovah take place.” 15 Now after these days we prepared for the journey and started on our way to Jerusalem. 16 Some of the disciples from Caes·a·reʹa also went with us, taking us to Mnaʹson of Cyʹprus, an early disciple at whose home we were to be guests. 17 When we got to Jerusalem, the brothers welcomed us gladly. 18 But on the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 And he greeted them and began giving a detailed account of the things God did among the nations through his ministry. 20 After hearing this, they began to glorify God, but they said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the Law. 21 But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or to follow the customary practices. 22 What, then, is to be done about it? They are certainly going to hear that you have arrived. 23 So do what we tell you: We have four men who have put themselves under a vow. 24 Take these men with you and cleanse yourself ceremonially together with them and take care of their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is nothing to the rumors they were told about you, but that you are walking orderly and you are also keeping the Law. 25 As for the believers from among the nations, we have sent them our decision in writing that they should keep away from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality.” 26 Then Paul took the men the next day and cleansed himself ceremonially along with them, and he went into the temple to give notice of when the days for the ceremonial cleansing would be completed and the offering should be presented for each one of them. 27 Now when the seven days were about to end, the Jews from Asia, on seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd, and they seized him, 28 shouting: “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people and our Law and this place. And what is more, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.” 29 For they had previously seen Trophʹi·mus the E·pheʹsian in the city with him, and they assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple. 30 The whole city was in an uproar, and the people came running together and seized Paul and dragged him outside the temple, and immediately the doors were closed. 31 While they were trying to kill him, word reached the commander of the army unit that all Jerusalem was in confusion; 32 and he immediately took soldiers and army officers and ran down to them. When they caught sight of the military commander and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. More of the context is provided for Acts 21, because it makes the situation very clear about how and why the decision from Acts 15 was so appropriate.

@TrueTomHarley, It's the end of the service year. If you rush, you might be able to get this experience into the next Yearbook. ?

I'm pretty sure this is just a data anomaly, but if you check the use of the word ("with quote marks around it") as found in full text searches of many thousands of books available in Google Books (through 2007), it would (at first) appear that the Watchtower was using it even before it was widely found outside the Watchtower: But that was my mistake. That was just with quote marks around it; otherwise it was apparently used since the 1800's. By the way, those Watchtower numbers are just the Wt magazine alone. I notice that it was used almost as often in the Yearbooks, 27 times since 1970. It's especially frequent in personal experiences where a person says they "recognized the ring of truth" after reading one of our publications.

Several posts from some recent topics have veered into a discussion of 1975 (yet again). My personal concern about the topic is that, like others have just mentioned, I have also been seeing a lack of honesty about it from both JWs and ex-JWs/non-JWs. We shouldn't be as concerned about what others on the outside say, but perhaps we need to take another look at the accuracy of statements that we make ourselves, in our own defense. To start, I would say that I agree that no Watchtower article or Watchtower publication ever said that the world was going to end in 1975. But when we try to convince people today about what was really said back then, what is our purpose in only selectively choosing things that were said and printed in Watchtower publications? Is it possible to be dishonest by what we omit when we defend this topic? *GA: The upvote is an artefact of this post when it was under another topic. You may wish to remove it from this topic.

Not a problem. I notice the same issue with a lot of threads that just seem to include the assumption that we must be totally wrong about an issue that isn't implemented well (or consistently), when the actual fix does not require throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Of course, if someone found an old Watchtower that recommended that we start literally disfellowshipping babies by throwing them out with the bathwater, then I would think it's time to scrap the whole doctrine and start over from scratch.

That man in the picture is a lot smaller than I thought he was.

@James Thomas Rook Jr., I'll be happy to start a whole new topic on the subject if you promise not to fill it with too many cartoons.

I know the person very well who made the claim, but I was not a part of that particular conversation. I only repeat it because I already knew this to be pretty much the way the brother felt at the time -- on shunning the elderly and on shunning disfellowshipped family members. I admit that I don't know about his viewpoint on blood, although this was stated at a time when the WTS was clearly relaxing our stance on blood therapy. And I mentioned his position of authority within the organization at the time because it should be obvious that anyone who is given the responsibility to speak for the organization to the public on such issues is trusted to have considered our Bible-based based position on those issues, and be able to defend what we believe is Jehovah's viewpoint. So, I guess I was hoping that anyone could easily read between the lines and know that I was trying to say the following: I have anecdotal evidence on this topic about a person who was trusted with the responsibility to consider and defend how vital it is for worshipers of Jehovah to stay separate from the world -- and even such a person realized that we are bringing a lot of this shame on ourselves, on our own organization, by overplaying the hand that Jehovah gave us to follow. In the past, I heard a person in a similar position at Bethel make the same case about no longer forbidding family birthdays, weddings, funerals, bar-mitzvahs, etc., when these are held under another religious "roof." His idea, right or wrong, was that these situations made us more accessible to our extended family members and provided unparalleled opportunities for witnessing. (He held that a very high percentage --he would say "most"--of the persons who become Witnesses after a study with us, even those initially met in door to door, already had a positive connection to a friend or relative who was a Witness.) This brother might have been wrong, of course, on both ideas. Just as the brother I first spoke about above might have been wrong. When I first heard this, I thought he was right about shunning as I had already been involved in caring for Percy Harding, mentioned earlier. I did not think he was right about blood, and this surprised me at the time, but it made sense considering the changes we were then making to our blood policy. But even the primary Bethel blood-doctrine expert who once handled most of the public discussion on blood for the WTS has now evidently changed his mind about our stand on the blood issue. (I'm speaking of Brother G.Smalley, still alive, not Brother F.Rusk who died a couple years ago, and who handled public questions about blood policy before G.Smalley.)

Talks we'd like to hear at the 2019 Convention

@Space Merchant, More importantly, the claim that is most confusing is one you are apparently still trying to hold onto for some reason. I said: And you replied: This is still completely false. There is no degree to which the Septuagint is related to 1 Timothy 3:16. You are right about 1 Timothy 3:16 not having the word "God" in the original, just as nearly all NT scholars would agree. I am only wishing to correct any misunderstanding your statements might cause with respect to the nature and value of the Septuagint.

This still doesn't seem to speak to what the Septuagint actually is. The writing of the Hebrew Bible (OT), in Hebrew, was generally completed by the 5th century BCE, (the 400's BCE). The most important parts of the Septuagint (LXX) were completed in the mid 200's BCE, and some parts as late as the 130's BCE. A lot of what the Septuagint translators did is considered very accurate. In many cases it was perhaps more accurate, (closer to the older Hebrew originals) than the work of the Masoretic scribes, who claim to have carried on a tradition of maintaining accurate copies of the original Bible manuscripts from the original Hebrew. But unfortunately we don't have any of those original Septuagint manuscripts from the 200's BCE. And we only have fragmentary portions from the second and first century BCE. We don't really have any effectively complete Septuagint translations until the 300's CE, the fourth century CE. That's as much as 600 years after this Greek translation was first made! And 800+ years after the original Hebrew OT was complete. On the other hand, we have the "Dead Sea Scrolls" including both fragments, and in some cases, full or nearly complete scrolls of some Bible books in Hebrew evidently going back into the first century BCE, up to as late as 70 CE. (Some of those Hebrew scrolls may date even into the second century BCE.) So what does that do to the claim that the Septuagint is the oldest and most reliable source? Remember you said: The oldest parts of the Bible originated in Hebrew, and the oldest known Hebrew manuscripts and texts go back, hundreds of years in some cases, prior to the oldest known manuscripts of the Greek translation, the Septuagint. In a few cases, such as with the 'Great Scroll of Isaiah' this first-century Hebrew scroll effectively matches the text that the Masoretes had maintained even 1,000 years after that Isaiah scroll. (I use the words "effectively matches" because even though there are hundreds of differences, they are usually small and don't change the meaning significantly.) Of course, the OT quotations found in the NT almost all came from the LXX, so it was considered accurate enough to be the translation used in the NT. There are places where it is undoubtedly more accurate, closer to the original Hebrew manuscripts, than those Hebrew manuscripts we currently rely on. Some of these points were discovered when the Qumram scrolls (Dead Sea Scrolls; DSS) came to light. There are even some fragmentary portions of the Greek LXX among the mostly Hebrew DSS. But many portions of the LXX are highly questionable, too. Jeremiah is fully 1/7th shorter in the LXX. That's a difference of about 7 chapters worth of content missing from dozens of different places around the book, plus hundreds of other wording differences. Also the LXX contains many portions and passages interspersed within the OT that most religions, including JWs, do not consider part of the Bible. As you probably know, like nearly all Jewish and Christian denominations, the WTS has chosen to publish the OT of the NWT Bible based only on the Masoretic text, and does not rely on the LXX as the correct text when there are differences between LXX and the Masoretic text. This might be surprising, since much of the Masoretic text is known only from about 900 years ago, and yet we know much of the LXX from about 1,700+ years ago. But even the DSS, known from closer to 2,000+ years ago is not often used in the NWT when it corrects the Masoretic text. [To simplify, I greatly rounded some time estimates, edited out a lot of details about Alexander and the spread of the Greek language, which portions of the OT were in Aramaic, etc., to cut this down to a more readable size.]

And it would be easy to fix, and make us better Christians, imo. A son of a Governing Body member who was assigned to handle "Public Relations" for a time, once confided (to someone else) that almost all of our public relations problems would just go away if we changed our stance on shunning and blood. Well we already changed our stance on the stictness over blood, accepting just about every available medical blood therapy up to and almost including whole blood transfusions, which are becoming rarer in Western countries anyway, due to the expenses related to some blood therapies. And we have no Biblical reason to maintain our stand on shunning as strictly as we tend to promote it. The only major new item that has come up since this brother mentioned these two items is the child sexual abuse scandal. And we're doing almost everything we can do on that one. True Christians will always be spoken against, but it is best not to give anyone a good reason. (1 Peter 3:16, 17) 16 Maintain a good conscience, so that in whatever way you are spoken against, those who speak against you may be put to shame because of your good conduct as followers of Christ. 17 For it is better to suffer because you are doing good, if it is God’s will to allow it, than because you are doing evil.

I think the most important thing to remember from your Serena Williams [Ohanian] write-up is that there is no real evidence that Mark Twain ever said this. ? Mark Twain might have said that history doesn't repeat itself, but there is no evidence that he ever added the part about the rhyme: This is about the closest thing he is known to have published, or co-authored: History never repeats itself, but the Kaleidoscopic combinations of the pictured present often seem to be constructed out of the broken fragments of antique legends. --1874 edition of “The Gilded Age: A Tale of To-Day” Another contemporary humorist, from the time of Mark Twain said: “History does not repeat itself. The historians repeat one another.” -- Max Beerbohm, 1896 The closest claim anyone has to originating the 'saying' is probably from this: history repeats her tale unconsciously, and goes off into a mystic rhyme; ages are prototypes of other ages, and the winding course of time brings us round to the same spot again. -- “The Christian Remembrancer” October 1845 All this info and more can be found here: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/01/12/history-rhymes/

To both @Srecko Sostar and @Space Merchant Thanks for the clarification, both of you, and I didn't mean to get you to rehash this same conversation. I remember this particular one, although I didn't take so much of an interest in it because it seemed that Srecko Sostar had made some gullibility mistakes and Space Merchant had correctly pointed that out. I thought that might be the thread you were speaking about. But when you, Space Merchant, had worded what you said about a certain one of his December 2017 claims being forever immortalized, I thought I had missed a followup thread or some of the posts from that thread that had perhaps been deleted, as you said. I was interested because you made it sound as if it were much more sinister of a problem than I had recalled. I remember the excellent research you put into that rebuttal for both Witness and Srecko. But I understand where you are coming from, and I understand that Srecko has learned something from you. I had never looked into some of the information you provided there, Space Merchant, and I appreciated it, too. I personally had looked at "Six Screens of the Watchtower" a couple times, a couple years ago, and thought it was one of the worst of the anti-JW sites for its lack of accuracy. What a waste of time. Just an aside, but when a person sees he has made a mistake, no longer believes fully in a specific point he has made, and he or she removes the mistaken, confusing post for that reason, I think this can be the right course of action.

Yes. I am aware that this happens. But remember that we are discussing a special case where, let's say, you now have children that your mother would like to visit. In this case, as much as she might want to be able to shun you completely, she now needs to make contact with you to get the necessary permission. Some parents are probably angry at the fact that a child who is now DFd has ruined their reputation as a good, exemplary parent who raises God-fearing children. Mothers lose as much "reputation" as fathers (or even more) in this situation, and anger is a way to eclipse the natural affection we should have been born with. I have heard of parents and siblings and others in the congregation who will literally spit on the ground in the direction of the DFd person. The Watchtower magazine in the past has implied that there might even be a desire by the parents to kill such children. A Watchtower article that came out when my parents were first considering having children made it sound as if parents would need a reminder not to kill their apostate child: *** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers *** In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship?—P. C., Ontario, Canada. We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. “Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.”—Deut. 13:6-11, AS. Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. The article makes it sound as if we should be disappointed that we don't live in a "theocratic" nation like Saudi Arabia, or under a Taliban-like rule where we could still kill our children. The closest consolation the same article could offer was the following: The parent must by laws of God and of man fulfill his parental obligations to the child or children as long as they are dependent minors . . . . Of course, if the children are of age, then there can be a departing and breaking of family ties in a physical way, because the spiritual ties have already snapped. I'm reminded of this more recent article where the idea of shunning is conspicuous by its absence: *** w01 10/15 p. 14 par. 10 Who Will Separate Us From God’s Love? *** Some Christian parents have been accused of hating their children because of not allowing them to accept medical procedures that violate God’s law or not letting them engage in pagan celebrations. . . . Some opposers have spread slanderous lies in the media, even falsely accusing Jehovah’s Witnesses of being a dangerous cult.

I often chalk up your statements as hyperbole-laden rants. But this I must agree with whole-heartedly. One can make an argument that our process is actually Biblical, but then Jesus said it was OK to throw out some of those legalistic principles in favor of love and mercy.

@TrueTomHarley, That was 1974. And you'll notice that one of the reasons was the reproach it would bring on the organization when a worldly person would be the only one to see that the woman would be treated kindly and humanely. Because the person would be parked close to the Kingdom Hall, the worldly person would instantly make the association that these people do not have love among themselves, a mark of true disciples. What if the worldly person had influence in the community? But there were cycles oscillating back and forth between strictly shunning family members and relaxing the rules a bit in favor of mercy, then going right back to tightening up the rules again when considered too loose. The time of the "Inquisition" as it was called at Bethel in late 1979 and early 1980 up through the resignation and later DFing of R.Franz, was a time of very strict 'straining of gnats.' Congregations on their own would probably tend toward the 1974 article, but Percy's DFing came from Bethel elders.

*** w74 8/1 p. 467 par. 6 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones *** But consider a less extreme situation. What if a woman who had been disfellowshiped were to attend a congregational meeting and upon leaving the hall found that her car, parked nearby, had developed a flat tire? Should the male members of the congregation, seeing her plight, refuse to aid her, perhaps leaving it up to some worldly person to come along and do so? This too would be needlessly unkind and inhumane. Yet situations just like this have developed, perhaps in all good conscience, yet due to a lack of balance in viewpoint.

I haven't seen this so much. And, of course, it also implies that the elders are easily fooled by claims of repentance. You go on to say that the ruse doesn't really work and they get shunned again although reinstated. I have seen a few situations which, if representative of anything, would imply quite the opposite of what you seem to claim here. Draconian shunning is usually reserved for 'apostasy' and is rationalized as especially excusable, even demanded, when it has the organizational backing of the "DF" label. Often, necessary family business really is completely forsaken, including weddings, funerals, medical care, and family businesses brought to failure due to abandonment by the Witness partner who did not wish to be unevenly yoked with unbelievers. But I also know of cases where the Witness considers all debts to the DF'd to now be cancelled, and more recently a request for "permission" to suspend the shunning just long enough to fight an estate will that might bring advantage to the Witness. But here is where anecdotal experiences I have heard, more clearly diverge from your example: There are cases, you have probably seen them, where two siblings or a married couple have have shown themselves to be apostates, by claiming that the JWs are a cult, that the FDS/GB is a made-up construct, that we don't follow the Bible, etc., etc. But for some reason, only one of the two was disfellowshipped. There is absolutely no known difference between the beliefs of two siblings, or the two married persons. The Witness relatives will use the DF label as the reason to shun one of them, as expected. But the lack of the DF label is the excuse to continue associating with the other, as if nothing had happened. Many, perhaps even most Witnesses are reasonable and don't shun in a draconian way, and some don't even shun at all, and things seem to go on normally. But it is true that if they are caught not shunning, they could end up being counseled by the elders themselves, which in rare cases could lead to disfellowshipping if their reasons for continuation of not shunning do not align with the reasons expected. The person could say to the elders that there are special circumstances, such as mental illness or physical handicap, and they must continue to associate so that a stable mental or emotional state of the exJW is maintained. All elders I know would give a "dispensation," and say, that's fine, just don't advertise it, or make a big deal about the exception. But if the person being counseled for the very same reasons in the very same circumstances will say that they believe the FDS/GB must be wrong on this point because the Bible demands mercy in such cases, this will lead to a discussion of why they don't fully accept the FDS, the organization, Jehovah's arrangement, and depending on the elders, could easily lead to the Witness holding their ground according to their conscience, and being disfellowshipped themselves. I don't say these things lightly. I was personally involved in a case where I risked making that exception and my wife and I took care of a 90-some year old long-time Witness named Percy Harding. I'll give his name because it's been discussed elsewhere. He attended the same Kingdom Hall as my brother attended in Brooklyn, while I lived in the adjacent borough of Queens. The old brother, a colporteur under Russell and Rutherford's time in the WTS, had grown a bit cantankerous in his old age and thought the FDS was overstepping its bounds in some of the claims that tended to draw an equivalence between the rules of the organization and "the Lord." But he loved the brothers and didn't want to be disfellowshipped. My brother's best friend, and best man at his wedding, was married to a nurse. They were both Witnesses, of course, and when Percy was disfellowshipped, the nurse was threatened with disfellowshipping herself if she continued to care for the old man. (He was nearly bedridden, and Witnesses were dropping off his groceries for him, and two Witness sisters, one of whom was a nurse, were visiting him about 4 times a week.) The husband balked at this threat, and he was threatened with disfellowshipping, too. My brother had the idea that my wife could take over as one of the sisters because she worked in Brooklyn at 144 Livingston, not far from Percy's house on President St, just off 4th Ave, a few blocks away. Also, I often drove through Brooklyn for my job in NYC (Manhattan). I also had a few friends at Bethel who would give me a pass, a dispensation, if I explained my reasons in a careful way. We ended up taking care of him for a couple of years, and enjoying our visits with him. Unfairly, my wife would cook and clean, and I would help him manage some of his physical therapy and toilet, and listen to stories about Russell and Rutherford. These were usually positive, upbuilding stories, but he pulled no punches when he disagreed with something. (He said that the WTS went through a time under Rutherford when equating the WTS with 'the Lord' was even more blatant and explicit.) He finally died with NO OTHER WITNESSES daring to visit him. But I did see several exJWs who had learned of his case and who helped ease the burden by helping to take care of him.

I thought we were talking about the same thing. And I'm not saying that what some in the congregation do isn't "evil" in some sense. The policy itself can be implemented in a terrible way, especially in cases where the peer pressure coming from convention talks, CO visit counsel, and WTS videos makes it nearly impossible for the Witness to do the scripturally right thing in their own circumstance. (And I'm not saying that all shunning is necessarily bad, either. I'm pretty sure I would shun a close relative perpetrating child sexual abuse, for example.) For the most part I agree. But part of that balance is recognizing that Jehovah makes it rain upon both the righteous and the unrighteous. The principle might be that an exJW allows himself to be wronged, and still does a good thing for the grandparent of their own children. After all, we must be talking about a case where the parent of the exJW must still ask permission to see their grandchildren. The grandparent may be wrong in shunning their own child, but they are not wrong to want to see their grandchildren. The exJW would naturally want to make sure there are ground rules since the exJW is still the spiritual head of their own household, and responsible to see to the physical, emotional and spiritual welfare of their own children. They would likely request that the grandparent not attempt to take over that role in any way, and that they never say anything that is in the least bit judgmental about the grandchildren's own parents. And although it might not seem fair, the exJW will still have every right to help their child make a correct judgment call about this particular unchristian aspect of the behavior of the child's grandparents who unlovingly shun their own child. (Although I'd think they would not wish to burden the child with such issues until their child is ready to understand that this is strange and unloving behavior on the part of the grandparent.) The exJW, if they want to live a Christian life, will still wish to honor their mother and father, and just because they are shunned by the choice of their Witness parents, it does not mean that the exJW is under any such rules to shun their own parents. They should continue to do good for their unloving parents and show that they have no intention of following unchristian rules. The Witness parents will probably make a harsh ultimatum for their son/daughter, and the son/daughter should make it clear that this will reflect badly on the way their grandchildren will see them, and that it will just as likely reflect badly on Jehovah's name in the eyes of everyone who learns about it. The exJW should probably make it clear that he or she has no reason to hide this embarrassing situation and the unscriptural reasons for it, from their own children, or anyone else who might wonder about the strange situation. But I think that purposefully withholding a grandchild from a grandparent is done out of anger, not out of Christian motivation, or even a motivation to avoid rewarding bad conduct. Of course, until someone is in this situation, no one can judge how correct, incorrect, or impractical this advice really is. Still, although the grandparent may not have a "right" to see the grandchildren, I can think of some good, practical reasons to allow the visitation. It becomes a teaching moment. The kids will go to school wondering why other children have grandparents, or even two sets of grandparents, while they might wonder what a grandparent really is. The grandparent, by asking, is showing natural affection and can probably therefore be trusted to want to make a good impression on the grandchild so that there is very little danger that the child will not get some benefit from the experience. It will also likely create situations where the grandparent will be caught unable to shun their own child, which is another good thing.

Happened to me once. Ended up with a torn hibiscus.

Not, of course, if you came to that conclusion after multiple interactions among several different types of personalities under several different types of circumstances. We are naive if we jump to such conclusions prior to seeing good evidence about someone, or at least the personalit(ies) they represent. On social media, people are apt to represent only specific sides of their personality, or specific (or special) aspects of their life and lifestyle. It's very difficult to get a well-rounded view of a person on such a limited basis, no matter how much they write. That said, I agree that we can all get a good sense of the personality of all the people you mentioned, among many others (yourself included). But I was rather surprised to see that picture of you with the King of Siam when I looked you up on the Internet.

Unfortunately, that's pretty much one of three opening assumptions that I keep in mind too, even outside the Internet, even when I know someone personally, too. That's why I'm also doubtful of claims from anyone that someone's claims had to be swept under the rug, as it were. So, @Space Merchant, what was that about? Can you point me to the post you are talking about?

@Space Merchant, I think you are a bit confused about the Septuagint is. Almost every point in that portion I requoted from you is debatable. The Septuagint has nothing to do with the original manuscript of 1 Timothy 3:16. The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the original, older Hebrew manuscripts of the "Old Testament." Timothy is in the "New Testament."