JW Insider

I saw a picture of ex-JW Barbara Anderson in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania from several months ago, apparently with some other ex-JWs who helped to get this publicized. It was from a political rally about changing the laws to help more victims of child sexual abuse.

It seems they, along with Catholics and others, have been working with the politicians and lawmakers in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA (the State capitol), to get more publicity and exposure about child sexual abuse, and changes to the law regarding the statute of limitations, child protection awareness, etc. Some of that work and pressure recently helped move politicians to push for exposing the 300 Catholic priests publicly in Pennsylvania just weeks ago. One of those associated with Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York priests, Theodore McCarrick, had been demoted as a cardinal but promoted to be the archbishop of Washington DC, with the knowledge of the Vatican.

I have read that Barbara Anderson had already been invited to the Vatican a few years ago to share her expertise about dealing with the issue in a religious institution. I'd be interested if anyone else has drawn a connection between exJWs and this exposure.

6 minutes ago, The Librarian said:

which is an islamic country by the way....

It is. But it is very diverse, even among Muslims. Wikipedia says:

• The total number of Christians in Pakistan was estimated at 2.5 million in 2005, or 1.6% of the population.

Hindus make up another 2.5 to 3 million.

16 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I noticed that this little JW group assembled in the field because they obviously received some "instruction" to go there and wait. They were been warned in advance what they can expect and what would be the outcome. Because that they are calm, not panic at all. This scene support WT articles about receiving "instructions" that must be obeyed in Armageddon.     

Yes. That's the point. Things like this can literally happen, and have literally happened in the past right up to the point of the miraculous divine intervention.

In the past such things have happened even to peaceful secular groups who are perceived as being a threat to totalitarian and imperial states. Even if NOT exactly like what will happen during the great tribulation and Armageddon, it still creates a picture of the divine intervention that can be seen in a symbolic way that all Christians should experience when facing death for a righteous cause. Stephen's faith, for example, may have allowed him to see such a vision of divine intervention just prior to being stoned to death. Long prior to Armageddon, in the first three centuries of Christianity, perhaps hundreds of thousands faced death in such a manner in arenas, by mobs, by trial and execution, on stakes and crosses, by wild beasts, by fire, etc. Those true Christians in the past can still experience what is perhaps similar imagery in their very next conscious moments after their death, at the time of their resurrection. This imagery in the video should help produce a reason to feel the same courage in a potentially near future time when that same imagery may happen literally just prior to divine intervention. 

So all this part of the video, and even the video itself is well done and should have a good effect on our courage.

But you hit upon a major theme of the video, even if it was not very overt. It's also about being obedient to men. This could end up making people associate salvation with obedience to humans. I'm sure that @Witness might have mentioned this before somewhere else, but the very article quoted above by "Witness" about Gog and Magog is the article that you quoted from earlier in this topic:

*** ws13 11/15 p. 20 pars. 16-17 Seven Shepherds, Eight Dukes—What They Mean for Us Today *** [Simplified Watchtower]

• The Bible says that this army is made up of “seven shepherds” and “eight dukes,” or princes. (Micah 5:5) Who are they? They are the congregation elders. (1 Peter 5:2) Today, Jehovah is using many faithful elders to shepherd and to strengthen his people for the future attack of “the Assyrian.” (See footnote.) . . .  (3) At that time, the direction that you receive from Jehovah’s organization may seem strange or unusual. But all of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether we agree with them or not, because obeying these instructions will save our lives.

*** w13 11/15 p. 20 par. 17 Seven Shepherds, Eight Dukes—What They Mean for Us Today ***

• (3) At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not.

It's just my personal opinion, of course, but this is where I see a danger. We are telling people who expect to be surrounded by doubt and fear [the first words of the song in the video] to remember that for salvation they must be ready to obey instructions they hear through the elders that might sound strange and not make any sense "from a human standpoint." In other words, we are to accept and obey the instructions from humans as if they are from something greater than just a human standpoint.

Notice that the simplified Watchtower version comes out and just plainly states that our salvation depends upon obeying strange and unusual direction from elders through the organization: salvation by obedience to men. Did we forget?

• (Psalm 146:3)  3 Do not put YOUR trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs [who cannot bring salvation, NWT Revised].

Calling them nobles, princes, or dukes, doesn't make a difference;  they are still sons of earthling man, humans. The idea above subverts the scripture.

23 minutes ago, AllenSmith34 said:

Yes, a cast of 1000’s that end up, only being 4. Then they have the gall when people have to take extra steps to regain entry.

That has to be an exaggeration, I have only counted about 28 "Allen Smith" aliases, and most of them don't even have "Allen" or "Smith" in any part of the name. ?

11 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

JWs will usually shun the grandchildren too. Even though they're innocents in the situation.

This is a case of being "righteous overmuch" or "self-righteous" and "haughty" like the Pharisees. Paul put the ideas together in Romans quoted above:

• (Romans 1:28-2:1) 28 And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting,  . . . haughty, self-assuming, inventors of injurious things, . . . having no natural affection, merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God, that those practicing such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing them but also consent with those practicing them. 2 Therefore you are inexcusable . . .

The haughty, self-righteous Pharisees and scribes, too, were "inventors of [such] injurious things" as Jesus pointed out:

• (Matthew 15:5, 6) . . .‘Whoever says to his father or mother: “Whatever I have that could benefit you is a gift dedicated to God,” 6 he need not honor his father at all.’ So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.

They found ways to avoid the merciful treatment of relatives by trading it for evidence of how righteous they looked in front of others.

• (Matthew 6:2) . . .So when you make gifts of mercy, do not blow a trumpet ahead of you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be glorified by men. . . .

It's directly related to the issue of "table fellowship," too:

• (Matthew 9:10-13) 10 Later as he was dining in the house, look! many tax collectors and sinners came and began dining with Jesus and his disciples. 11 But on seeing this, the Pharisees said to his disciples: “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 Hearing them, he said: “Healthy people do not need a physician, but those who are ill do. 13 Go, then, and learn what this means: ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners.”

11 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

Sounds fair to me

Maybe. To me it sounds like the original post is recommending that ex-JWs return evil for evil:

• (Romans 12:17-21) 17 Return evil for evil to no one. Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men. 18 If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men. 19 Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” 20 But “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by doing this you will heap fiery coals on his head.” 21 Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good.

What some Witnesses do under the supposed umbrella of "tough love" is actually "evil" in the sense of showing no natural affection, or shutting off their true affections. It is hypocritical love if they are able to shut off love for family just to avoid contact with a disfellowshipped person. The paragraph in the Bible just before the one quoted above starts out:

• (Romans 12:9) 9 Let your love be without hypocrisy. . . .

Based on this idea, there is another way to read the entire idea about Biblical disfellowshipping:

• (2 Corinthians 6:3-13) 3 In no way are we giving any cause for stumbling, so that no fault may be found with our ministry; 4 but in every way we recommend ourselves as God’s ministers, . . .  by patience, by kindness, by holy spirit, by love free from hypocrisy, 7 by truthful speech,. . .  11 We have opened our mouth to speak to you, Corinthians, and we have opened wide our heart. 12 We are not restricted in our affections for you, but you are restricted in your own tender affections for us. 13 So in response—I speak as to my children—you too open your hearts wide.
• (Romans 1:28-2:1) 28 And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting, . . . malicious disposition, . . . haughty, self-assuming, inventors of injurious things, . . . having no natural affection, merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God, that those practicing such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing them but also consent with those practicing them. 2 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are, if you judge; for in the thing in which you judge another, you condemn yourself, inasmuch as you that judge practice the same things.

Remember, too, that Jesus said that Moses was allowed to give the law that Israelites could disfellowship their own wives only as a concession to their own hard-heartedness:

• (Matthew 19:7-8 ) : “Why, then, did Moses direct giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” 8 He said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives,. . .

It's true that Christians should not "share" with evildoers, for what sharing do believers have with unbelievers, what sharing does light have with darkness. But this cannot mean completely avoiding them, or even a complete lack of association with them. Paul made this clear in the central, pertinent discussion of the topic:

• (1 Corinthians 5:9-11) 9 In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10 not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.

When a person accepts their disfellowshipping, and is no longer presenting himself or herself as a member of our faith, they are no longer calling themselves our brother. The most vocal ex-JWs make it all the more obvious that they are not calling themselves our brother. So they become just as a person of the world to us.

• (Matthew 18:17) . . .. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.

Scripturally, however, that means that we are perfectly within our own rights to exercise the freedom of our Bible-trained conscience, to associate with them just as we would anyone else in the world. This does not necessarily mean close association, or "table fellowship" which was acceptance of these ones as an insider, related to us either as family or those related to us in the faith. Yet, we should consider that Jesus had "table fellowship" with sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes, gentiles, and unclean persons, without condoning their sin. People found fault with his ministry but Jesus did not give any cause for stumbling through such table fellowship. (2 Cor 6:3,4 quoted above.)

There is sometimes an in-between step where a person still calls himself our brother, and we should still admonish him as our brother. Yet they are not fully walking in accordance with Christian teachings. These are the ones we "mark" --to withdraw our close association from them-- even though they are still considered brothers. Apparently, Paul especially had in mind greedy persons who wanted to remain in association for what they could get, not what they could share. They wanted the free food, as a key feature of Christianity was its open-hearted table fellowship, providing material food for the poor, the orphans, the widows, etc:

• (2 Thessalonians 3:6-15) 6 Now we are giving you instructions, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw from every brother who is walking disorderly and not according to the tradition that you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you should imitate us, because we did not behave in a disorderly way among you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s food free. On the contrary, by labor and toil we were working night and day so as not to impose an expensive burden on any one of you. 9 Not that we do not have authority, but we wanted to offer ourselves as an example for you to imitate. 10 In fact, when we were with you, we used to give you this order: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.” 11 For we hear that some are walking disorderly among you, not working at all, but meddling with what does not concern them. 12 To such people we give the order and exhortation in the Lord Jesus Christ that they should work quietly and eat food they themselves earn. 13 For your part, brothers, do not give up in doing good. 14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked and stop associating with him, so that he may become ashamed. 15 And yet do not consider him an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.

It must have been frustrating, that some would just be no more than meddlers, taking and not finding ways to share, but Paul admonishes the Christians not to give up in doing good. [Good works included giving, sharing and distributing material goods.] I think that many ex-JWs are frustrated at the unchristian conduct of some Witnesses, but ex-JWs, too, should not give up in doing what is good if they wish to "heap fiery coals" and conquer evil with good. Most Witnesses probably need to "get out more" as it is, and seeing one's grandkids can only help to have a good effect in general, and help to open the hearts wider. Even if the ex-JW being shunned believes the Witness is a bad influence, the fact of a grandparent spending any time at all with a grandchild can only be a good influence on the grandparent.

42 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

but they ALSO had to fight ... or be prepared and willing to.

Christians, too, but without physical weapons:

• (Ephesians 6:10-13) 10 Finally, go on acquiring power in the Lord and in the mightiness of his strength. 11 Put on the complete suit of armor from God so that you may be able to stand firm against the crafty acts of the Devil; 12 because we have a struggle, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places. 13 For this reason take up the complete suit of armor from God, so that you may be able to resist in the wicked day and, after you have accomplished everything, to stand firm.

And of course, the next verses go on to prove that our weapons and armor, etc., are not physical weapons:

• 14 Stand firm, therefore, with the belt of truth fastened around your waist, wearing the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having your feet shod in readiness to declare the good news of peace. 16 Besides all of this, take up the large shield of faith, with which you will be able to extinguish all the wicked one’s burning arrows. 17 Also, accept the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit, that is, God’s word, 18 while with every form of prayer and supplication you carry on prayer on every occasion in spirit.

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

As they wait for the "end," these JW people in the video recall some or many moments from their past. In which they have shown their attitude and resisted temptations, remaining faithful to their principle  and so on. Some say that human whole life flashes before the eyes of those who are faced with death. These people in the video are faced with death. 

I agree with everything you said in your post. I think you understood the film perfectly.

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

We identify with characters, with the main actor, with events. In this video, the director and producer put a couple of comparative main characters. So there is something for everyone. For the old and the young, single and married, for rich and poor ....

The film works very well. Some see the theme as fear and some see it as courage. It is mostly about courage, of course, but the backdrop of courage is always fear. That's why the song opens up with the words "Doubt and fear surround me." And the word "fear" is repeated in the song. There is nothing wrong with that in itself, but we have to be careful about the overall impression given when we discuss the context of the great tribulation.

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

The WT literature says: "All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether those appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not."

This particular film is fine, but we sometimes add the impression that the WTS will still be in full control and have all the right directives that we will need to obey, whether they sound right or not. It dredges up the "Old Testament" context of military authority, and -- just my opinion, of course -- this doesn't seem to be the same context that the Greek Scriptures prepare us for. [It makes the modern-day "ark of salvation" something more physical and material than spiritual.]

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I'm reminded of H.Clinton's Bengazi, or the TEN different Bengazi's, some much larger and more deadly, at various U.S. embassies under G.W.Bush.

Speaking of a low sink of debauchery, and/or Hillary Clinton, I just decided to check up on this "fact" I had vaguely recalled about the "TEN Benghazis" under G.W.Bush. I didn't click on the links (nor do I think any of them are without bias) but the first three items that came up in my Google search tend to confirm the "fact" and even add a few more details:

----------top three results of Google Search for "Benghazis under Bush"

Prior to Benghazi, were there 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths ...https://www.politifact.com/.../prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/

49 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If you like, in the spirit of telling all that has been told innacurately everywhere else, I'd like to know of it, either here or through DM or through a link to where you probably wrote of it long ago.

I'll link to it in the next couple days. Sounds like no one is really pushing for it at the moment, and that's not why I brought it up. I brought it up to show the kind of story that can be exaggerated too far on one side and minimized to the point of dishonesty on the other side. And of course, the exaggeration through a form of reductio ad absurdum is just another form of minimization. (e.g. "shoving aside the Vatican" or Chris Christie's "[yeah right] I actually was the guy working the cones out there." But you are basically right that it started out as nearly nothing (information access), except that it got out of control pretty quickly. And when the folks in Writing who were in on it saw some potential future advantages, they didn't back down, but just dug in their heels a bit harder and kept up with the requirements for their particular NGO membership. (The requirement that Writing could most easily meet was publishing an article in Awake! once or twice a year to give publicity to various U.N. initiatives, like UNICEF, for example.)

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Admit to a fault and the immediate refrain is that you have declared yourself unfit and should be fired. . . . I almost think that people don't want the apology they demand, because then their mission is torpedoed by success.

Yes. There are contradictory motives for apologies, and contradictory reactions to apologies. We need to consider what is the right thing to do in each case. Some people apologize without apologizing as in "I take full responsibility for the failures (or a particular failure) that occurred during my time in office."  But just don't try to make them accountable in any way. I'm reminded of H.Clinton's Benghazi, or the TEN different "Benghazis," some much larger and more deadly, at various U.S. embassies under G.W.Bush.

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

In the case of some policies, an apology is immediately met with a "Well, what are you going to DO about it?"

Depends on many factors: the mood, the Zeitgeist, the economy, the efficacy of the corporate propaganda machine (aka "the news"), etc. For example, Pope Francis is visiting Ireland in the middle of the worst mood of Catholics in Ireland ever. Ireland is still majority Catholic, yet a majority of Catholics in places are now voting for same-sex marriage, abortion, divorce law changes, etc.  And attendance at churches has fallen precipitously. Media outlets that used to be supportive of the Church are saying out loud that they are waiting for more than the usual apologies and prayers offered up in an attempt to heal the mood. It's not just sexual abuse, which was rampant in Ireland and was covered up through the Vatican, too. It was forcing unwed women to give up their babies, violence against women at "nunneries" and other abuse issues which keep getting turned up. Some say (NPR yesterday, for example) that every single family in Ireland has been affected in some way.

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The one most unnuanced and instantly evocative of sympathy is the persecution of them in Russia, which has grabbed the attention of connected ones that we find difficult to grab.

It's a good thing it happened during a time when the U.S. and other Western European powers were salivating to find civil rights abuses in Russia. The world hardly gives a second look when things like this happen to groups and religions in Africa, India, Indonesia, etc. Things have to become very deadly to get attention elsewhere (as in Myanmar/Burma)

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The kickback over 'shunning' can be won. In many cases it is from those like Saul who keep kicking against the goads. In some cases it has nothing to do with disfellowshipping, a term that hasn't been heard in the Kingdom Hall for a dozen years or so.

You have a point, but I think those that kick up the biggest fuss about shunning around here, at least, are those who were shunned by their families over doctrinal disagreements. Moral issues are not such a big deal, when a person has chosen a lifestyle that keeps them away from natural and free association with relatives. Some fade into a separate life after a non-scriptural divorce, for example. Some give some evidence that they know better, might return someday, or even wish they could associate but just keep too many worldly associations and habits. After some length of time, I've seen these persons visit their Witness relatives and associate at weddings and funerals and large family gatherings as if nothing happened. But it's not that often, and the Witnesses aren't going out of their way to associate.  

But I do see a bigger difference when the reason was doctrinal. Even bringing up the name of the person is rare or hushed or forbidden. They are still treated worse than those who left for moral reasons. And the feelings on the side of the person who is shunned for "apostasy" must hurt them much worse than we can imagine, if they believe they were only standing up for truth, or left for the "right reasons." When they still want to show love to their families, see their children, grandchildren or parents or grandparents, but their families don't want to see them it is the Witness who has "no natural affection." To them, the only reason they are treated badly and without any respect, in their opinion, is sometimes because they stopped believing something that was wrong anyway, and there was probably a time when they were too vocal about it, or too invested in the "truth" of what could turn out to be a minor issue. But even if they don't feel strongly any more about the particular issue, they can't conscientiously recant what they think is a Bible teaching. And if they have become atheists, they can't very well answer any of the questions correctly that could bring them back into association. I think this is the kind of "violence" that JTR is sometimes referring to, and it's something about which we should have more sympathy and empathy.

Back when the TMS instructor spent a lot more time on stage giving speech counsel between TMS talks, we had one (Brother Johnson) who showed us the importance of modulation, pauses, and emphasis by putting up the following on a chalkboard

U.C.D.B's L.M.N.O.B's O.S.A.R.B's

He read it blandly and it meant nothing. Then he read it again with new modulation, pauses and emphasis:, and it was easily understood to mean:

• You! See dee bees?
• 'ell, 'em ain' no bees.   [H*ll, them ain't no bees!]
• Oh [y]es [th]ey are bees!

Some audible gasps were heard as they understood that he had just said "Hell" from the platform, but, somehow, it proved that you can get stung if you don't understand modulation, pauses and emphasis.

The best way to pick up on some additional historical background pertinent to the situation in Judea and Galilee is to read Josephus, especially "Wars of the Jews."  Whiston's translation is free here, and in a well organized PDF with TOC and navigation links: http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0037-0103,_Flavius_Josephus,_De_Bello_Judaico,_EN.pdf

Although I hesitate to be seen as promoting it, I also thought that the writers and producers of A.D.-Kingdom and Empire (2015), now on Netflix, did one of the better jobs in depicting the book of Acts in an easy to watch, professional "drama." It's not hard to mentally filter out some of the extra-Biblical interpretations. But even some of what we might tend to filter out gives us some material to think about. They did the entire thing without reference to trinity, hellfire although they probably pushed a bit too far the relationship between the Zealots and one or more apostles chosen from among Zealots. There are 12 episodes and I would recommend all except the very last episode which takes a bit too much from Josephus, adds a bit more non-history for drama, and then puts the Christians in the middle of a political situation that was not possible from a Biblical perspective. (Also #7 has a very unlikely visit from Tiberius to Pilate in Jerusalem, which, if it happened at all, would have taken place in the port city, Caesarea.) It's primary characters are Pilate & wife, Caiaphas & wife, Herod & wife, Peter, John, Thomas, Saul/Paul, Simon the Zealot, Stephen, Simon the Magician, Ethiopian Eunuch, Philip the Evangelizer, James the brother of Jesus, with some short cameos by Jesus, Emperor Tiberius, Caligula, a couple of Marys and the occasional angel here and there, too.

I haven't watched the part-documentary, part-drama called "Roman Empire" now in its second season, nor much of HBO's "Rome," but I did see all episodes of "I, Claudius" several years ago, and I have the book(s) it was based on. Those would probably be useful supplements to "A.D." (As long as none of these are taken as pure history, but only general ideas about the historical setting and perspectives of various classes of people during that time.)

6 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

In this case, JWI chooses to spill, not in Grand Central Station, but in some tiny backwater channel of the internet run by an arthritic hackeyed has-been of a librarian (the old hen) and he makes his posts so long that [normal] people will get bored and move on.

I think your astute encapsulation of my modus operandi is just about right when you include my bracketed edit. I suppose one could make a semi-scriptural case for holding back and another for not holding back. My conscience tells me to not hold back, but I still hold back on some topics, and only "spill the beans" where those topics have already been brought up by others elsewhere. I'm sure I've said it before, but one of my primary concerns is the natural tendency to defend what we don't really know. This can end up making the defender ultimately look like a fool to someone who knows better, or has seen the strength of the evidence. But worse, it can lead someone to engage in dishonest dialogue.

If I don't know something about a topic, I am very grateful for those who have tried to tell what they have learned publicly, even if it is difficult to find. But there are several topics about which our natural tendencies have already made some of us look like we don't care about truth as much as sustaining an assumed reputation. Some of the same "defenders" don't realize they are creating a reputation of caring more about reputation than about truth. This affects discussions of WTS history, chronology, child abuse, and a host of other topics, most of which get blown out of proportion by opposers. But some get blown out of proportion by JW defenders.

Why choose an "obscure" Internet outpost such as this? My own parents, for example, learned about the "U.N." fiasco and said they talked to a friend about it who said that it never happened, nothing like it ever happened, and it was all apostate lies. Well, for many, my parents included, they could manage to go from here to the new system and they need never know any better, and it's unlikely they will spread what they think they know beyond a very small circle of friends. And if they do, it will be in good conscience. I have personally spoken to the embarrassed and penitent brother initially behind the fiasco, along with a couple of his friends, and I think I know something about this situation which should also mitigate some of the embarrassment, but can also honestly admit what happened.

I don't need to look for the largest audience. I only need to do just enough to clear my conscience in "not holding back."

We'll be going through Acts in the assigned Bible reading and I thought I'd share some online resources that are quite interesting and apparently accurate enough for their purposes. Hopefully, others here will share a few of their favorite resources, too.

http://pelagios.org/maps/greco-roman/ is a very detailed map of the Roman Empire with all cities referred to in ancient sources near the time of the Greek Scriptures. "This map features details such as major and minor roads, aqueducts, temples, cemeteries and quarries."

Similar things have been done on other sites ( https://omnesviae.org/ ) but my absolute favorite is a kind of Google Maps for the Ancient World: http://orbis.stanford.edu/#

It lets you choose if you are traveling between any two places by ship, boat, military speed, civilian speed, foot, horse, donkey, chariot, etc. It lets you choose a common coastal navigation system that "hugs the coast" which was a common method of navigation. It also calculates the cost of various modes of transportation, not just in time, but in money.

7 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

could be a Land Shark !

Speaking of SNL, this reminds me, did A.S. ever find that SNL skit of Chevy Chase making reference to our 1970s-related eschatology?

33 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

ask any of the other three couples sleeping there

Not funny! (Just my personal opinion and judgment call.) Have you read the new book about JWs and the Watchtower Society called "Ellen's Song"? It seems to have derived almost entirely from Internet discussions and rumors.

And yes, I could write a real review. I read the whole thing, Amazon Kindle version, in about 6 hours, taking plenty of notes. I don't recommend it. But it shows that a non-ex-Witness (my opinion) has access to all the same material that we could discuss here, and therefore so-called "apostate" material need not come from apostates to be relevant for public discussion.

3 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

That's all anyone really cares about, as they envision how God's Kingdom will bring relief from the individual woes and travesties they suffer on earth. I barely go further with the 144,000 unless someone insists about it.

I think this is very true of ordinary people, as you say. It's enough to know that Jehovah has an administration which is organized to accomplish what it needs to accomplish, both in heaven and on earth. The ones who would nit-pick are not the average persons we are aiming these studies at, but persons who are obsessed over Biblical interpretation and accurate knowledge. I have to admit to being obsessed about such things, but I was raised to be that way, and I am not the "target" audience we are looking for these days.

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

"Two Out Of Three Ain't Bad".

It's one of the best things on the site. I would give high marks for the simplicity, and I think that all 8 out of the 8 lessons are well-chosen and ideal for their purpose. They truly highlight the most important themes of the Bible. But I agree with the sentiment that we have painted ourselves into a corner with a doctrine that will hopefully become less important over time, even as the end gets closer.

The only specific signs that we are in the "last days" is not taken from Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21, but from the place where Paul warns Timothy that he is already seeing evidence of living in the last days back in the first century. There is no talk of great wars, great earthquakes, or great famines and pestilence. (You have to go the extra links outside the lessons to find this.) Even when Luke 21:29-31 is mentioned it is only a very general idea that one can tell that summer is near when trees are budding, therefore one can tell their deliverance is near when they see all these things. Of course, that was also primarily about a first-century fulfillment, since "these things" in context included Luke 21:20-24:

• “However, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. ²¹  Then let those in Ju·deʹa begin fleeing to the mountains, let those in the midst of her leave, and let those in the countryside not enter into her, ²²  because these are days for meting out justice in order that all the things written may be fulfilled. ²³  Woe to the pregnant women and those nursing a baby in those days! For there will be great distress on the land and wrath against this people. ²⁴  And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.

Luke was even clearer than Matthew, here, that "all the things written" about meting out justice to Jerusalem were to be fulfilled with this event upon physical Jerusalem in 70 C.E, as highlighted above. Of course, the lesson is applicable, in principle, to our future expectations, but it can mean that "all things," here, was literally referring to those events of the first century, not the twentieth and twenty-first.

On another topic, I liked the following as a non-confrontational introduction to the topic of the 144,000 and other sheep:

Instead of mentioning the 144,000 the lesson merely says of God's kingdom with Christ as King: "God also selects others to be associate rulers with Jesus" and adds that "anyone who obeys its laws can be a citizen."

3 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It continues a direction already started with JW.org itself, particularly the broadcast, as well as the literature carts. Can’t get enough of it here; it has changed my approach already.

I agree with this. I also thought it was refreshingly closer to the idea when the Ethiopian eunuch says: "Look, Here is [a body of] water; what prevents me from getting baptized?" His entire Bible study was finished in the space of a short chariot ride.

11 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

it is not always stunningly efficient. The observation that efficiency is not one of the fruits of the spirit only partly compensates. 

Belly-acher!

Until now maybe we have shown too much patience and long-suffering with our students.

Most of us have probably already worked through the online Bible Study course on jw.org.This was an excellent idea. Although others sites have done it, too, it was especially good to see it on the jw.org site. It has some unique features here and is, of course, geared toward a Witness viewpoint. Yet there are very few lessons that contain a lot of unique doctrinal material, even though Trinity, Soul/Hell are presented. It's very simplified and has some nice features that would work well for non-readers. It's all finished in 8 lessons.

Each lesson may have only a few questions or sections and a quick reader can get through all the content of all the lessons, including short videos, in about 15 minutes. You could even click all the footnotes and links and read the scripture links and still finish the entire course in under a half-hour. There are links at the end of each lesson which point to website articles (usually original or slightly modified Watchtower and Awake! articles that have their own pages on the jw.org site). Comparing this to several of our our books geared toward those who would study the Bible with us in person (for several months) one could more easily customize a Bible study where extra links were only looked up in the event the student had additional questions or concerns about a topic, and a sufficient study could be completed in a matter of days, or even hours.

Notice too that there are no direct links to anything about 1914, 1919, 1922, etc. Nothing about blood transfusions, birthdays, etc. The very first lesson does contain a 53 second video where the very first and only secular dates are mentioned: they are 732 B.C.E., then 539 B.C.E., then 614 B.C.E. Someone might wonder why 539 is used as an accurate secular date and yet there is no explanation as to why the other two secular dates differ from the same secular evidence by 20 years. I don't suppose anyone expects the student to question this. A sense of accuracy is offered by the statement immediately following the video which says: "Each detail is confirmed by historical records, including the Nabonidus Chronicle and the history of Herodotus." Of course, the only reason we keep one of the secular dates (539), but change the prior secular dates by 20 years is so that the 1914 date can be "supported." But, as stated, 1914 is not mentioned directly in the lessons, unless you include two of the six extra links to articles for further information (at the end of the very last lesson, 3.3).

These are the lessons: 

Unit 1 | The Bible and Its Author

Lesson 1.1  |  About the Bible—Can the Bible Help You?

Lesson 1.2  |  Who Is God, the Creator?

Unit 2 | The Bible’s Main Characters

Lesson 2.1  |  Who Is Jesus?

Lesson 2.2  |  Who Are the Angels?

Lesson 2.3  |  Why Did God Create Humans?

Unit 3 | The Bible’s Message of Hope

Lesson 3.1  |  Why Do Suffering and Evil Exist?

Lesson 3.2  |  How Does God Save Us From Death?

Lesson 3.3  |  How Will God End Suffering and Evil?

19 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

CAN A PERSON ... OR SHOULD A PERSON  …. BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED IN ABSTENSIA?

LOL. For a few minutes there, I thought you were misspelling it on purpose, to emphasize the "stench" in ab-stench-ia. But the rest of your post was too serious, so I assume you already picked up on the funny typo, and on GA's correction. I would also say, similar to GA, that even if our protocol is always to allow a person to hear the charges against him and even face an accuser where necessary, etc., there is probably nothing wrong with "disfellowshipping" in absentia. A person can make it clear they want nothing to do with Jehovah's Witnesses by their actions, it doesn't always need to be formalized. 

4 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

"Death by Natural Causes".

Old Smothers Brothers joke went something like this:

• Tom: My uncle died of natural causes.
• Dick: Oh really? When, where, tell me more?
• Tom: Yep. He got hit by a truck.
• Dick: Got hit by a truck? I thought you said it was natural causes.
• Tom: Well . . . . It was a dirt road.

11 minutes ago, Gone Away said:

Has anyone ever considered that this could be a desired outcome?

Which outcome?

• WTS running out of money?
• Lack of baptismal candidates?
• WTS desire to have DF'd children not allow grandparents to see their grandchildren?
• Grandparents desire never to see any grandchildren who are children of their own DF'd sons and daughters?

4 hours ago, Grey Reformer said:

I thought you are the one that wrote it. Is there another JWinsider?

In case you actually did forget, it was the infamous @James Thomas Rook Jr.. Go back to page 9 of this thread:

On 8/17/2018 at 12:45 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

If you use the TOR browser to get to the Archive, one's IP address could be from ANYWHERE.

In my response to him, on the top of page 10, I never mentioned the TOR browser.

No harm; no foul.

4 hours ago, Grey Reformer said:

Anyone really wanting anonymity can achieve it. That’s why hackers seldom get caught. But, those trying not to hide, are easily detected.

I'm sure you are right, and the TOR browser may be perfectly safe on its own. But those who use the TOR browser might even find that they are making themselves targeted for surveillance or potential exposure, assuming someone has other reasons to take an interest in them. There is a good book called "Surveillance Valley" by Yasha Levine that traces the military history of the Internet, and surprising current findings about military and NSA utilization. I based what I said on evidence exposed in that book, and knowing the admitted military history and development of the original TOR browser. (See, for example:  https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-TOR-browser-was-actually-made-by-the-CIA .)

Precautions are useful under certain legitimate circumstances, but I just think people should be careful about thinking that they will always remain perfectly anonymous by relying on a specific piece of technology. I'm happy with quasi-anonymity, and would not be terribly upset for myself if all my anonymity were gone.