JW Insider

If that is supposed to be "up-building" it is the worst meme I have ever seen.

Sorry, that's all the "props" it deserves.

At any moment it appears that "me" will be crushed by anxienty and depression, because the supports are supposedly as flimsy-looking as those in the picture.

2 hours ago, Jack Ryan said:

She explains: “Fame, honor, power, and riches are transitory and lowly goals in life. Serving God and trying to contribute in some small way to helping people spiritually are truly noble and lasting goals.”

Jack. I think you are trying to say that experience is bogus because it doesn't make complete sense to you. And it appears like a contradiction when we consider those famous persons who have been associated either as Witnesses or those who may have identified as JWs due to the influence of their Witness parents or family members.

I understand the cynicism about some of the experiences. I have previously shared my own discomfort when I watched  a committee of brothers enhance the experiences of Witnesses who provided experiences for the special Bethel "Family Night" gatherings. It smacked of dishonesty to me, but there was always a grain of truth in what they were enhancing, and they were usually quite careful with the wording so that it was not technically or legally an untruth. But for "Family Night" I watched the committee edit the person's own story and his own recollections with facts not in evidence just to make it sound better, and it was clearly to enhance the reputation of the WTS, and to change something just slightly so that it would not detract from that same reputation. At Bethel, I had also learned how the resume of Fred Franz' educational background had been enhanced in ways that were never corrected until the Proclaimers book came out.

But I don't know that this story in particular is enhanced. I see some potential problems, and a wise person will not simply believe everything he hears. I think the story might be perfectly true. "She was asked to take part in the Winter Olympics . . ." There is nothing unbelievable about this. Many very talented people have been on their way toward stardom and have given it up for religion or ideology or rethinking what it would mean to their life. But notice that no one is claiming that this person was invited to participate as an athlete to represent her country. It may have been that a coach wanted her there to watch. Perhaps, she showed promise as a skier, and it was a parent who asked her to go on to another few years of training to be able to take part in the Winter Olympics. This could be construed to create the statement that she was asked to take part.

Or perhaps she had already trained, and was ready, and was considered a viable competitor, but was also completing her studies with the Witnesses and was preparing for baptism. A single statement from the person studying with her might have made her change her mind. The statement in the WT above may be perfectly legitimate and not enhanced at all. I'm sure you see this as a possibility, too, even if you disagree with the decision she made.

There are non-JW experiences like this too. I remember hearing about a professional basketball player named Robinson, I think, whose mother told him he had to graduate a four-year college even though he had been asked to sign on professionally right after high school. He was offered a multi-million dollar contract, and had to give it up, and who knows what change of direction his life might have taken during that four years. He could have lost his contract, he probably cut four years of his earning potential away, but he did it for his mother, or for his agreement with her particular ideology about life and priorities. Others look at this and say B*S* because he could have played for 4 years, made millions and then gone to college if the basketball "gig" didn't work out, right? But younger people often don't know how to handle fame and money, and there are countless bodies of evidence, sometimes dead bodies, in support of this fact.

On the other hand, what is the overall point of the experience? It's the same point that should be pointed out to any who wish for fame when there are other more important things that could bring potentially more satisfaction. There is also the drive for fame and money that many young people are not realistic about. They could end up spinning their wheels for a lifetime in pursuit of something that was not really attainable. Or even if it was attainable, it may be much more transitory than they realized.

One of my daughter's good friends from high school was  a young model who was asked to work on a soap opera. She did this for two years, and did commercials, and photo layouts for fashion, and was on a billboard for years in the NY diamond district. But it only lasted for about 5 years. Although she can be proud of her work, she is today ... get this @James Thomas Rook Jr. . . .a shoe salesperson. Literally. She works in London selling Louboutin shoes, making good money, and she seems happy. Only her parents and siblings still push for her to try to get back into acting and modelling as if it were some pinnacle of achievement. (On a side note, my wife and I are in Paris right now, with my daughter, and we expect to see this same friend of hers next weekend.)

What about being the ability to be both satisfied and happy with something different than fame or money? Something that is better for oneself and others in both the short run and the long run?

On 7/7/2018 at 1:12 PM, Space Merchant said:

The Word is God because it is God's Spoken Word. Jesus is the Word because he speaks God's Spoken Word, professes the Father. The Word is God because the Word itself originated with God, not Jesus mainly if you understand John's Introductory and what is seen in Deuteronomy and Isaiah.

This is a very legitimate way to read John 1:1, although it is not the way we read it as JWs. It would not make much difference if it were read this way. I see a possible small problem with the way we read it, but it doesn't mean we are reading it wrong. I think the main thing that some Witnesses do (which is not the intention of the verse) is making a big emphasis on the words "A god," and then saying, SEE?!?!?! -- It only says "A" god, therefore Jesus can't be THE [Almighty] God. This is a true statement, based on other scriptures. But this scripture is going as far as possible to RAISE the level of divinity and near "universal" authority by which Christians should understand Jesus -- and it's a misuse of the intention of the verse to use it to prove he is LESS. It is only by Jesus that we can begin to understand the full range of the power and authority of the Father. Jesus therefore allows us to "SEE" God. 

I know it's a little off topic for this discussion, so I'll wait until another John 1:1 discussion.

With reference to reference #11 from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915 edition is in Google Books. 1933 edition link, below.), the subject is developed here, with hints as to the reasoning already available in apocryphal writings, where Ascension of Isaiah, for example had referred to him as "mediator" and "intercessor":

(11) "The archangel" (Jude 1:9). Probably also the unnamed archangel of 1Th 4:16is Michael. In the Old Testament he is mentioned by name only in Daniel. He is "one of the chief princes" (Da 10:13), the "prince" of Israel (Da 10:21), "the great prince" (Da 12:1); perhaps also "the prince of the host" (Da 8:11). In all these passages Michael appears as the heavenly patron and champion of Israel; as the watchful guardian of the people of God against all foes earthly or devilish. In the uncanonical apocalyptic writings, however, Jewish angelology is further developed. In them Michael frequently appears and excretes functions similar to those which are ascribed to him in Daniel. He is the first of the "four presences that stand before God"--Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Uriel or Phanuel (En 9:1; 40:9). In other apocryphal books and even elsewhere in En, the number of archangels is given as 7 (En 20:1-7; Tobit 12:15; compare also Re 8:2). Among the many characterizations of Michael the following may be noted: He is "the merciful and long-suffering" (En 40:9; 68:2,3), "the mediator and intercessor" (Ascension of Isaiah, Latin version 9:23; Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Le 5:1-19; Da 6:1-28). It is he who opposed the Devil in a dispute concerning Moses' body (Jude 1:9). This passage, according to most modern authorities, is derived from the apocryphal Assumption of Moses (see Charles' edition, 105-10). It is Michael also who leads the angelic armies in the war in heaven against "the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan" (Re 12:7 ff). According to Charles, the supplanting of the "child" by the archangel is an indication of the Jewish origin of this part of the book.

The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Re 12:1-17, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel (for a full discussion see Hengstenberg, Offenbarung, I, 611-22, and an interesting survey in English by Dr. Douglas in Fairbairn's BD).

I would have added that Jesus is referred to as "Prince," in Prophecy (Isaiah 9:6), Parable (Luke 19:11-13) and in Narrative (Acts 3:15) and using the same Greek word, Satan is called the "Prince" of this world, who is to be cast out (John 16:11, Revelation 12:1-12).

The mention of "Fairbairn's BD" is Patrick Fairbairn's 6 -Volume Bible Dictionary. The Bible Encyclopedia, above, forgets to tell us where in the volumes this is, however. Probably under the entry for "Michael." I think that Fairbairn, if consistent, probably held the view he expressed in 1859 in "Introduction to the Exegetical Study of Scriptures in the New Testament," p. 233-236 where he says that all these evidences of the previous 3 pages "confirm the identification of Michael with Christ." (p.236)

With reference to the references, note the difficulty that Spurgeon had in reconciling Trinity with a created Michael, even though he had referred to Jesus as Michael several times:

https://scripturethoughts.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/the-identities-of-jesus-and-the-arch-angel-michael/

Charles Spurgeon moved away from his Baptist roots towards something akin to Second Adventist eschatology. (Baptists were more flexible in doctrine in the 1800's and claimed to be non-denominational, so he didn't actually leave the Baptist church.) Second Adventists, especially those who became Seventh Day Adventists, were usually happy to consider him supportive of their beliefs as he was held in high esteem by so many. He developed a post-Millerite preterist eschatology from some of the same sources that Barbour had used. From what I remember, the early Watch Tower issues under Russell quoted from him several times with the deepest respect, except when the topic was eternal suffering (hellfire).

6 hours ago, Gone Away said:

Are any dates and source examples to substantiate the statement: "Jesus being Michael did not start with the Jehovah's Witnesses." other than what is stated in the Bible?

Based on 1 Thess 4, etc., it certainly makes sense, and it's not surprising that several groups had already come up with this belief. I think a good place to start is to check out the references in Wikipedia, from the point where the topic of Michael as Christ comes up, right up to the mention of the position held by Jehovah's Witnesses. The rest of this post is just a copy and paste from Wikipedia:

• Citing Hengstenberg, John A. Lees, in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, states: "The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the 'child' and the archangel in Rev 12:1-17, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel."^[11] Charles Haddon Spurgeon^[52][53] stated that Jesus is Michael “the only Archangel”,^[54] and that he is God the Son, and co-equal to the Father.^[52] In SpurgeonÂ’s view, "archangel" means "head of the angels" rather than "head angel," and is a title similar to "Leader of the host." (Daniel 8:11)^{[55][56][not in citation given]}
• Within Anglicanism, the controversial bishop Robert Clayton (died 1758) proposed that Michael was the Logos and Gabriel the Holy Spirit.^[57]Controversy over Clayton's views led the government to order his prosecution, but he died before his scheduled examination.^[58][59]

 . . .

Seventh-day Adventists[edit]

 

Le Grand Saint Michel, by Raphael (Raffaello Sanzio), Archangel Michael defeating evil

• Seventh-day Adventists, being of the Protestant heritage, lineage and faith, believe that Michael is another name for the eternal Son of the Father, the Heavenly Christ, and another name for the Word-of-God (as in John 1) before he became incarnate as Jesus. "Archangel" (meaning "Chief of the Angels", "highest messenger") was the leadership position as held by the Word-of-God as Michael while among the angels. According to Adventist theology, Michael was considered the "eternal Word", and not a created being or created angel, and the one by whom all things were created. The Word was then born incarnate as Jesus.^[60]
• Seventh-day Adventists believe the name "Michael" is significant in showing who he is, just as "Immanuel" (which means "God with us") is about who Jesus is. They believe that name "Michael" signifies "one who is God" and that as the "Archangel" or "chief or head of the angels" he led the angels and thus the statement in Revelation 12:7-9 identifies Jesus as Michael.^[61]
• Seventh-day Adventists believe that "Michael" is but one of the many titles applied to the Son of God, the second person of the Godhead. According to Adventists, such a view does not in any way conflict with the belief in his full deity and eternal preexistence, nor does it in the least disparage his person and work.^[62] In support of the Seventh-day Adventist belief, Michael is also identified by them as being the very commander of Heavenly legions of the hosts of the LORD, God's invincible army, which helped Joshua son of Nun to lead Israel in to conquering Jericho [Joshua 5:14 - "And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant?"]
• In the Seventh-day Adventist view, the statement in some translations of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God" identifies Jesus as Archangel, which is Michael.^[63] (Other translations have "For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God.")^[64]And the Seventh-day Adventists believe that John 5:25-29 also confirms that Jesus and Michael are the same.^[63]

 

1. 11 ^ John A. Lees, "Michael" in James Orr (editor), ''The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia''(Eerdmans 1939)". Internationalstandardbible.com. 2007-07-06. Retrieved 2012-12-27.
2. 52 ^ Jump up to:^a ^b The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) - With slight revisions by C. H. Spurgeon Archived 2010-04-07 at the Wayback Machine. - spurgeon.org - Phillip R. Johnson - 2001 - Retrieved 12 September 2014.
3. Jump up53 ^ Morning and Evening - Charles Haddon Spurgeon - Devotionals by Spurgeon Sermons - Spurgeon Sermons with C.H. Spurgeon - Retrieved 12 September 2014.
4. Jump up54 ^ The Angelic Life - Charles Haddon Spurgeon - Sermon No. 842.
5. Jump up55 ^ Grace Abounding in a Believer's Life by Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Robert Hall and Lance Wubbels 1996 ISBN 1883002095 page 54
6. Jump up56 ^ Weapon The Blood of the Lamb, the Conquering Weapon - Charles Haddon Spurgeon - Sermon No. 2043.
7. Jump up57 ^ Robert Clayton, An Essay on Spirit 1751
8. Jump up58 ^ Dictionary of National Biography: Clayton, Robert
9. Jump up. . .
10. Jump up60 ^ Seventh Day Adventists: What do they believe? by Val Waldeck Pilgrim Publications (April 5, 2005) page 16
11. Jump up61 ^ "The Remnant". Adventist World. Archived from the original on 2012-07-24. Retrieved 2011-12-05.
12. Jump up62 ^ Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington, D.C., 1957. Chapter 8 "Christ, and Michael the Archangel".
    1. 63 ^ Jump up to:^a ^b Bible readings for the home by 7th Day Adventists. London. 1949. p. 266.

[if you get blue arrow icons over some of the references, just select/highlight and they will be easy to read, or go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_(archangel) ]

29 minutes ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Could not we have something similar? How hard would it be?

I don't think anyone can work on that kind of contextual commentary and continue to believe in the kinds of numerology and non-sense (in my opinion) required to uphold our specific eschatological beliefs. Therefore, anyone who is put on such an assignment is likely going to be fired as soon as they touch the book of Daniel or anything Jesus, Paul or Peter said about the Parousia.

There were hopes that, after Fred Franz died, the "type-antitype" calculus would disappear, and after Franz died, Brother Schroeder stuck his neck out and pushed for its disappearance calling it presumptuous. (He had also been on the very opposite end of this controversy for many years, and was behind the pushing out of all the brothers who worked on the Aid Book.) If you listen to the 2014 Gilead talk by Brother Splane you will notice that he quotes Brother Schroeder as a primary source explaining why and how we no longer rely on type-antitype explanations from parables and Bible narratives that are not already explicitly explained this way in other parts of the Bible. (With the exception that we still need the one making the faithful and discreet slave a "type" representing the Governing Body, and Daniel 4 where Neb is a type representing the Messianic kingdom, of course.). Schroeder had long been dead, when Brother Splane quotes him. Of course, the brothers who worked on the Aid Book had already dropped that kind of presumptuous thinking by the time the Aid Book was published in 1971.

Even in the 1990's and 2000's two brothers with the apparent qualifications to work on such a project were kicked out of Bethel very quickly after they started in Writing. I didn't know these brothers, however, and can't vouch for the Bethel stories surrounding them.

3 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

What I mean with this: I’m missing some kind of Bible Encyclopedia edited by JW.

For myself, I have a few litmus tests for the accuracy and honesty of a Bible commentary. These are much like the way most of us will immediately check John 1:1 when we find a new Bible translation.

I have found a commentary that I have only read so far with reference to two short Bible books. It appears to have been written by one or more JWs or ex-JWs. It is referenced as a "site of interest" from a site which is usually critical of JW.org. I am guessing that it was written by one of the brothers (might be an ex-brother) who worked on both the Aid/Insight book and very similar commentary-type material at Bethel and who was working on exactly the kind of Bible commentary for the Society that you speak about.

The site I found it from says it was by "brothers" (plural) but the site itself mentions only one brother on the home page, and elsewhere refers to himself in the singular:

• These renderings of Hebrew and Greek and Bible translations in other languages into English serve mainly for comparison purposes. In no way are my efforts intended to slight or detract from the conscientious labors of other translators and writers whose abilities and understanding of the ancient languages are far superior to mine.

I know of only two brothers who left Bethel from Writing after completing their work on the Aid Book and Bible commentaries who were kicked out for not believing in 1914, but who were not disfellowshipped. (in other words, not R.Franz or E.Dunlap) Only one of them, I think, had the ability and head-start to have been able to accomplish this kind of commentary. After he was kicked out of Bethel, he was still given a special pioneer stipend and was still asked by Brother Lyman Swingle (definitely) and then Lloyd Barry (possibly) to continue working on research and projects for the Writing Department over the next several years. His best friend at Bethel, who also worked on the Aid book and commentary material had an excellent grasp of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac. They made a great collaboration team at Bethel, but I have no idea if they are both still working together. I think the latter was either disfellowshipped or faded away.

I was in contact with the person who I think wrote this commentary for several years after he left Bethel, but he has either moved to another country or has decided to fade into anonymity. He has left no information about himself or his whereabouts on the Internet or any social media as far as I can see.

The site itself has "awful" navigation. If you go to the Home page: https://wernerbiblecommentary.org/?q= you can't even tell it's a Bible commentary. But if you click on the links to Jeremiah, for example, under What's New, then you will also see links to these 40+ Bible books. So far I can only recommend the ones I have read, but at least the style will be familiar to you, and you won't have to filter out the references to hell, Gehenna, Trinity, soul, spirit, etc., as you read. I think he did an excellent job on the parts of Romans I have read, and I will read Galatians next.

Bible Commentaries

1 hour ago, Gone Away said:

Are these repeat or individual reports?

A lot of repeats for both. You get a quick sense by the different dates and different states where something is reported. But I only did a spot check.

It's also interesting to consider that, when based on similar criteria, Jehovah's Witnesses are now about the same size as the Presbyterian Church, which is something I added later to the post above.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Per Google there are now about the same number of Jehovah's Witnesses in the USA as Presbyterians: 1,415,053 active members (2017) -- Presbyterian Church (compared with about 1,200,000 Jehovah's Witnesses).

According to PEW research, more than twice that number identify as JWs (2.8 Million), which might be based on Memorial attendance, it being the last religion they associated with, etc. This would make JWs a larger religion than Presbyterians.

@TrueTomHarley I hope you are not considering the idea that these search results prove that you are 30 times more likely to find abuse in the Presbyterian Church than among JWs.

1 hour ago, Gone Away said:

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

in the greater scheme of things

Did you realise that by this I mean Jehovah's overall purpose, not the overall progress of those who worship Him here on earth?

No. I mistook this to mean mostly the latter, although I suppose I was probably reading it more like "in the long run" based on how you compared it with "immediate benefits" (in 'the short run'). That's also because you also used an example that reminded me of "the overall progress of those who worship Him here on earth" which had apparently applied Rutherford's earthly experience to both to "the greater scheme of things" and the "immediate benefits."

On 7/4/2018 at 4:02 AM, Gone Away said:

Nothing changes in the greater scheme of things, but the immediate benefits far outweigh the costs.

I mean I am sure Bro Rutherford's experience was unpleasant at the time, but what was lost?

Of course, I was pretty sure you were not referring to the loss of his health which had been blamed on the penitentiary, and Brother Martin's related purchase of a San Diego residence in order to accommodate those health issues.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

prodding of the greater world.

I was also thinking that TTH should change the expression "the greater world" to "the greater scheme of things." It's a good replacement for "system of things."

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If someone abuses a child and both happen to be Presbyterian, will that connection ever make media reports?

I have a subscription to newspapers.com and just decided to do a quick search on Presbyterian church child sexual abuse. But even without a subscription you can do this search and at least see that the newspapers in their library produce this result:

• View all 112,267 matches for Presbyterian Sexual Abuse

I did the exact same search on Jehovah's Witnesses Sexual Abuse and got this:

• View all 3,787 matches for Jehovah's Witnesses Sexual Abuse

Per Google there are now about the same number of Jehovah's Witnesses in the USA as Presbyterians: 1,415,053 active members (2017) -- Presbyterian Church (compared with about 1,200,000 Jehovah's Witnesses).

But I also found this relevant write-up from a Google Search on the same:

https://religionnews.com/2014/06/20/denomination-confronts-child-sexual-abuse-positive-step-forward/

I'm reposting larger than usual excerpts from that article below about a Presbyterian acknowledgment, process and procedure to deal with child sexual abuse, apparently from about 2013 or 2014:

• There are some days when I am thrilled to report positive developments within the Protestant world about the slow but steady shift taking place on issues relating to child sexual abuse.  Just a few years ago, there was very little private or public discourse within most Protestant circles about abuse within the Church. Besides the ignored cries of survivors and a few advocates, public acknowledgment and dialogue on this subject was off limits.  As a result, children continued to be at risk in our churches and survivors continued to be silenced through blame and false pity.
• In the past year, I have encountered more and more folks who are beginning to realize that the Church has been largely silent — and this silence has had excruciatingly dark and grave consequences for countless individuals and for the very soul of the Church.  Through some amazing (and many very painful) set of circumstances, I believe a growing number within the Protestant community are finally beginning to realize that there is an epidemic of child sexual abuse within the Church and that silence and inaction are unacceptable.

. . .

• This acknowledgment was demonstrated this past week when the entire General Assembly (annual meeting of pastors) of the theologically conservative Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) unanimously and publicly adopted Overture 6 – perhaps the most robust statement on child protection adopted by any Christian denomination.  . . .
• This statement doesn’t pull any punches.  Not only does it acknowledge that child sexual abuse is an epidemic in our culture, it concludes that the silence of the church renders it complicit before God.  It urges all church leaders to use their influence to protect children, including preaching and teaching against child sexual abuse and exposing those who abuse.  It is also significant that this resolution implores the church to compassionately support survivors.
• Perhaps the most important and unique aspect of this adopted resolution is its call for action. It directs the various departments of the denomination to review their policies and practices related to the protection of children and the response to abuse disclosures.  They are also directed to develop future plans on how to help educate the denomination on issues related to child sexual abuse.  In order to prevent these denomination transforming tasks from disappearing into oblivion, this resolution requires a full report at next year’s meeting.
• Don’t get me wrong, we still have a very long way to go in the Christian world when it comes to protecting the vulnerable and embracing the hurting.  I was reminded of this when I read the results of a newly released survey that found 74% of faith leaders underestimate the level of sexual and domestic violence experienced within their congregations.  . . .  This same Christian organization hired a friend of the leader to conduct a “thorough review process” of the abuse allegations and concluded that God still desires to use this individual “for His work in the Kingdom of God.”

38 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

In Witness cases, however, the connection is always made.

I think the connection is made too often in our cases that reach the media. The vast majority of cases never make the media, nor law enforcement.

But the connection is NOT always made. A brother sent me a list of Australian newspaper articles related to cases that had been investigated and which had recently been turned over to the police. I think it provides good evidence that the connection is not always made even where I would have thought there was a perfectly legitimate journalistic reason for doing so.

26 minutes ago, Gone Away said:

I would like to trust this (the reliability of the source that is) but .......no..... I'm too suspicious of reliable (Witness) sources..I need all the w's before I even start weighing it up. Proverbs 14:15 "The inexperienced one believes anything," ?

I agree with the sentiment. I have been fooled by "reliable sources" in the past. And even the most reliable source might only be repeating something because they heard it from one or more reliable sources, which might themselves turn out to have placed unwarranted trust in unreliable sources. Or our reliable source may have misunderstood their reliable sources at any weak link in the chain. 'Let God be true though every man be proved a liar.'

It bears repeating that everything stated here is a kind of opinion, even if we state it as if it is a proven fact. Even common sense deductions don't always hold up. Even "proven facts" don't always hold up.

There are rules of evidence, logic and reason that make some deductions better than others, but that doesn't mean the conclusions are necessarily more correct than others.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

One begins to wonder if he is not speaking of unbelievers in the congregation making trouble, for battling apostasy is a steady theme in the Greek Scriptures; there is not an NT writer who does not deal with it.

I believe this is the general consensus of most major modern Bible commentaries. Even the expression "The Jews" as found in Acts is sometimes considered to mean the Jews who were now Jewish Christians. [believers still zealous for the Law, but unbelievers in "undeserved kindness" and Christian freedom from Law.]

Galatians 5:4 implies "apostasy" in the expression:

• (ESV) You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Interestingly, the only time the Bible uses the Greek word "apostasy" outside of the famous 2 Th 2:3, is in Acts 21:21 where Paul is the one being accused of apostasy from Judaism:

• (Darby) And they have been informed concerning thee, that thou teachest all the Jews among the nations apostasy from Moses, saying that they should not circumcise their children, nor walk in the customs.

On 7/4/2018 at 3:51 PM, Anna said:

I am so pleased we have a concise, transparent document now which informs not just the elders, but also the publishers and anyone else of how cases of child abuse should be handed. Every one can be on the same page now. I particularly like par. 10

Yes, indeed. I'm very happy about this too.

On 7/4/2018 at 3:51 PM, Anna said:

They did as a whole, however the problem was the total misapplication of 1 Corinthians 6:5-7 by some elders. I personally know of an instance where the elder advised to keep the matter away from secular authorities lest it brought shame to Jehovah. That was the attitude of some in the 80's as far as I know.

I've seen this happen for other types of abuse (1983, 1995, 2005), but have never personally seen it happen in a case involving child sex abuse. My father (in the 1970's) was part of a judicial committee that had to try to get a Witness disfellowshipped as fast as possible when police picked him up for a crime that would ultimately result in jail then prison time and, of course, some very bad press. The goal was to make sure that by the time the papers might have picked up on the fact that he was associated with our congregation, we could honestly say that he was a former Witness. This directive came directly from Harley Miller, who as head of the Service Department in those days, was sometimes considered to be "the Society." Elders at the time would actually joke that when someone said, "The Society says this or that" on policy, that they meant "Harley Miller says this or that" on policy.

My father complied because the person really had sort of slipped out of the purview of the congregation and had been known for drunkenness and running (riding) with a questionable crowd of worldly people, some of whom had been in trouble for robbery, B&E, etc. Had they bothered to follow up with him at earlier junctures they might have disfellowshipped him then too. I brought this up as a question at Bethel in '76 and was told that there "many" cases like this. But Harley Miller is now considered to have been very "old school" and harsh in his tactics. While he was the running the service department however, I could see a potential counter-claim to what you say here:

On 7/4/2018 at 3:51 PM, Anna said:

It was never the policy of the society on the whole though.

Another reason that could call this claim into question is that I have it from a reliable (Witness) source that the Society had already paid out "millions of dollars" long before Barbara Anderson went on that 20/20 program to expose a sexual abuse problem among the Witnesses. A primary goal, I'm told, was to pay for silence among victims.

14 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

For thousands of years, the Jews had a court system that was completely public, open, and transparent, and in the City Gates, where anyone could observe, and SEE if Justice was being done ...  see who was telling the truth, and see who was lying.

There is definitely a principle of transparency that is lost even in some Western judicial systems. There is one type of case, which is often used as a case against such transparency in child sexual abuse cases. These are cases of incest. It is believed that irreparable harm is brought to the child victim if such cases were completely out in the open. Of course, as these cases go to criminal courts, the accusations become known anyway. For us, (Witnesses) it's also been a matter of learning that some sins are also crimes, even if we hadn't really treated them that way in the past.

On 7/4/2018 at 7:15 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

The reason abuse is linked with Jehovah's Witnesses is that they have a policy of investigating it, along with all other types of wrongdoing.

This might be partially true, but I have not seen the evidence that there is a direct link between JW investigations and the linking of child abuse with Witnesses. We now have a couple sources of some data that goes back quite a ways and lets us know the number of cases that were investigated each year as a percentage of the population of JWs in a particular place where the data comes from. Even though the data sometimes goes back several decades, I see a very sparse number of cases from the earliest decades, and they often don't show up at all unless it was part of an ongoing series of accusations for a person who shows up as still having accusations from more recent decades.

If the JWs had been investigating child abuse, and had rooted out two or three persons per decade from every congregation in the world, the total numbers would appear astronomical to those who merely want to spin an idea based on embarrassing numbers. (As the number of congregations rose, so would the total numbers rise proportionally in more recent decades.) Yet, the numbers themselves would be easy to explain in these terms. From the perspective of the investigations, the complaint is not the number itself, or even the proportion of accusations as compared with say Catholics (or colleges, or Olympic trainers, or ballet schools, or the Boy Scouts of America, etc.)

The focus of outsiders has almost always included a need to investigate the process of our investigations. Our process produces questions that make outsiders cringe. How was it that in Australia the number of cases of sexual abuse that the Watchtower had admitted were on the order of "thousands" and the number that ended up being reported to the police were on the order of "zero"? How was it that persons in positions of authority had sometimes been given a pass to work with children again, and even had multiple accusations of child sexual abuse on their record? How was it that "the two-witness rule" could sometimes result in children being told that they cannot ever mention the fact that their abuser had abused them without the threat that children themselves could be accused of slander? How was it that in at least one case the accused sexual abuser who would later admit that he had threatened further harm to the child if the child turned him in, was still told that they had to meet face-to-face with such an accuser? And even when they did, the child was told that practically nothing could be done against the abuser, even when the elders on the judicial committee believed the child?

I think you will find that these questions, in their own way, come up in many non-JW cases, too. But we have a "process" that sometimes has "demanded" (in effect) that a JW investigation will turn out this way.

We are definitely not the only ones with the problem of trying to save the reputation of an organization and, because of that, forgetting about fighting for justice with respect to our "orphans." That is a subtext of many of these crimes in many different types of organizations. When it appears to an elder on a committee that we have an opportunity to either protect Jehovah's name or allow it to be sullied if the case were to make it to the police (or press) then this tendency will easily translate into protecting the accused, instead of protecting the victim. We may even have a greater tendency toward making this mistake because we think the stakes are so much higher in protecting Jehovah's name, than those on the outside who are trying to protect, for example, the reputation of a teacher in a school.  

On 7/4/2018 at 4:02 AM, Gone Away said:

But really, what's to fear or to lose? Nothing changes in the greater scheme of things, but the immediate benefits far outweigh the costs.

I agree with this idea, too. And as you mentioned a few other possibilities in your preceding paragraph, the few things that might change in the greater scheme of things could result in some longer-lasting benefits, too. As you said:

On 7/4/2018 at 4:02 AM, Gone Away said:

Processes will be reviewed and refined. Hopefully, victims will be acknowledged and gain some real benefit from the whole experience

And there are also longer-term benefits when any of the "evil" people (perpetrators or deliberate enablers) were in positions of responsibility, as is often the case, or when persons, through a misplaced sense of priorities or naivety, inadvertently contribute (enablers) are put on a correct path. As you said:

On 7/4/2018 at 4:02 AM, Gone Away said:

At the best, evil people who have wormed their way into the congregation will be exposed and ousted. The naivety of those inadvertantly contributing will be shown up and addressed.

I really appreciated that your comment was thoughtful and covered a lot of bases.

On 6/26/2018 at 8:51 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

Let us not be (overly) unkind here, but imo it is a good thing she got outmaneuvered from her true status as annointed. If she ever assumed powerful heavenly position, I would fear for the earth to spin the wrong way.

Even in discussions of religion and what we personally believe about God's judgment of others, no one should tell another person --in so many words-- that they are going to be judged adversely. Then again it's easy to creatively work around such judgmental words and still say much the same thing.

• We don't say: "You are going to hell!" (or Gehenna, or the lake of fire, or eternal oblivion).
• But as long as we don't make a habit of prickly accusations we could easily get away with "You are going to find yourself ending up in a place different from what you expect."

To the person being judged, however, the meaning is ultimately the same thing. Yet, there are so many factors to consider:

1. Is a person who may or may not be using their real name in a forum really ever making a personal attack on another person who may or may not be using their real name?
2. A discussion forum is just a set of personal opinions, and a discussion forum that tends toward religious topics is just a set of personal opinions about sets of personal opinions. The whole point of religion is to stake a claim that our opinions and interpretations about things that are largely unfathomable can still somehow reach a level that we can call "knowledge." 
3. Biblical religion, perhaps especially so, is known for trash-talking other religions, and therefore any person who takes on another version of Biblical religion probably already knows that he or she should expect the kinds of judgmental opinions that are so common. Here are some historical examples that make the point:
   • Look at Elijah and the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18:27. Did Elijah really have to imply that Baal was making a bowel movement? ( Holladay’s Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon says the verb could be translated as “bowel movement.”)
   • For that matter did Elijah really have to massacre the prophets of Baal in the way he did?
   • Was it so necessary to fling expressions of dung on false idols as was done so often in the Bible, in ways so that the expression "dungy idol" comes across as if it were using the "s" word?
   • Note that before the Bible had used many expressions about the ultimate eternal fate of people that it sometimes creatively reminds us that a person deserved to be no more than, for example, dog p**p, or bird p**p. (Jezebel eaten up by dogs for example.)

Anyway, the more creative idea that TTH had somehow dodged a future cosmic disaster by "Witness" not actually being one of the anointed was clever "trash talk." It was no more offensive to me than was a now-deleted initial post by Allen which referred to a generic list of unspecified sins or offenses by "Witness" that was so long as to be of Biblical proportion and which would result in bloodguilt before God at the time of judgment. Sure it was harsh and not clever, but what of it? We deal with topics about our belief in harsh judgments. The Bible itself is full of them. I vote for more leeway and flexibility.

Besides, did you notice who really did have the world spinning the wrong way as their primary backdrop for the Monthly Broadcast at tv.jw.org for three months before it was corrected? I called it to their attention (as did others, I assume) after the very first monthly broadcast in October 2014, and the next two broadcasts still had the earth spinning in the wrong direction. They didn't fix it until January 2015, and since then all is right with the world for these last 43 broadcasts up through the very latest (July 2018).

11 hours ago, The Librarian said:

What was the official name for these in English back then?

I believe you mean the "phonograph" itself, not the "phonograph talk."

The appliance itself was usually called a "phonograph" in both the US and UK, and the name "gramophone" or "grammophone" might have also been used by some, as that word remained somewhat more popular in the UK. But, I never heard that it was called a gramophone among Witnesses when it was introduced in 1934. It was just called "the phonograph" as far as I remember anyone from my family calling it. (My grandfather had one in Illinois, USA since the 1930's). Of course (depending on style and manufacturer) it could also be called the "Watchtower phonograph" "vertical [style] phonograph" "wind-up phonograph" "Watchtower record player" "vertical record player" "portable phonograph" etc.

The talks were called "phonograph recordings" "records" "phonograph talks" "Judge Rutherford's talks" "recorded lectures" "recorded Bible discourses" "phonograph disks" etc.

I have never seen one, but have been told that the Rutherford records were also available for old-style "transcription machines" which were usually larger and heavier than phonographs so they were rarely used portably at the door, but were used in the sound cars, and some of the congregations already owned these machines to play music and talks and voice recordings at the meetings for the previous 10-20 years. They had been invented in the 1880's (by Edison), and were already (1920's) a "staple" for large secretarial offices, and had regained popularity among a wider audience due to radio, both to record from the air, and for radio station programmers to pre-record interviews and performances that would be played on the air later. The older ones used cylinders, but more recent ones (1920's) took something like 16 inch disk records, not the smaller (10+ inch) 78's that the phonographs used.

The November 1935 "Director" (related to Messenger, Informant, Kingdom Service, Our Kingdom Ministry, etc.) shows that recordings were available from the Society for both phonographs and transcription machines:

• The time spent in sound machine service is not to be included in the total hours house-to-house witnessing. Beginning at once, each publisher will report two items of time spent in the service. First, total hours house-to-house witnessing, as heretofore. (This is to be put in the regular space on the report form.) Separate from this there is to be reported the total hours spent with sound machines, including the time spent with phonographs, transcription machines or sound cars. Change the heading on the report form from "Total number of meetings" to "Total hours sound machine service", and in this space make the report of time spent with sound equipment. This applies to all pioneers, auxiliaries, company and sharpshooter publishers. 
• What time is to be reported as "Total hours sound machine service"? Not the time spent in driving to meeting places, but the time spent in holding meetings. This is the time used in running lectures and musical numbers, in making announcements of the lectures, of meeting places, of radio broadcasts, and, in fact, all time in actual use of sound equipment, time at phonograph and transcription meetings, and in question meetings in connection therewith. Remember that this additional time and service with sound machines is in addition to getting in well over your quota of hours in the house-to-house witnessing with the literature.

...

• When a shipment of records is received, either phonograph or transcription machine, they should be immediately opened and checked. The contents should be carefully examined to see if the records are all in good condition.

Perhaps this restriction is mitigated by the principle in Titus where the verse says that wives should be "workers at home" which could easily be interpreted to mean that they should not work outside the home. Yet the primary principal appears to be so that the word of God may not be spoken of abusively. In different cultures, or as cultures evolve and change, certain practices that once distracted from the message no longer distract.

• (Titus 2:4-5) 4 that they may recall the young women to their senses to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sound in mind, chaste, workers at home, good, subjecting themselves to their own husbands, so that the word of God may not be spoken of abusively.

A custom among Greeks and Romans at the time was that most wives did not leave the house. Marriage usually meant that a woman left her mother and father's house and might never see them again. She would be kept safe through childbearing at home, and there could be no question about the paternal inheritance rights of the son because this practice protected women from seduction and predators while the husband was away working. For those women who did leave the house, the practice might still have been to have the women sit separately from the men in the congregation, as they did in Jewish synagogues, which might be partly why they had to wait to ask their husbands when they got home.

On 6/30/2018 at 2:43 PM, Anna said:

So isn't this because when Jesus is talking about "the least of these his brothers" he is not talking about just anyone (neighbor) but rather he is talking about his anointed brothers?

Yes, I think by mentioning his brothers, he is referring to more than just a neighbor and I believe he likely meant all Christians in principle, but more specifically all anointed Christians. I think this is clear in Hebrews 2:10 - 3:1, where Christ's "brothers" are explicitly described as "partakers of the heavenly calling."

But that might only make it worse.

My point starts with the explanation of the Matthew 25 parable as it was given in the ka book (God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years - Has Approached). The explanation shifted from what Jesus said in the parable to a point about how the other sheep since 1935 have come to the aid of the anointed, and the point of the parable is shifted to a new meaning coming from a separate parable in Mark 9:40 and Matthew 10:45 focusing on the "drink of water" and the fact that it was only because these other sheep knew fully that it was Christ's brothers they came to assist by joining them because they had literally and physically been thrown in prison and had literally hungered and thirsted.

*** ka chap. 14 pp. 277-278 pars. 47-48 Earthly Subjects of the Kingdom of God ***

• Rather, those whom the parable-teller Jesus designates as “sheep” and calls “righteous” do discriminate fearlessly. They intelligently and deliberately do good to Christ’s “brothers” because they recognize these to be such. They believe these “brothers” are imitating Jesus Christ and are doing the work that he commanded them to do. It is for this reason that their acts of assistance to Christ’s brothers have a special merit in his sight, for acts of that kind have a real Christian motivation. Such view of matters Jesus made clear to his apostles, when he said: “He that is not against us is for us. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink on the ground that you belong to Christ, I truly tell you, he will by no means lose his reward.” (Mark 9:40, 41) “And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water to drink because he is a disciple, I tell you truly, he will by no means lose his reward.”—Matthew 10:42.  The historical records reveal that during their work of preaching the good news of God’s kingdom and making disciples of people of all the nations down to the year 1935 C.E., and thereafter, Christ’s spiritual “brothers” have literally hungered and thirsted, they have needed clothing, they have been strangers and homeless, they have got sick and even been put in prison unjustly.

Here's one from a 1995 Watchtower:

*** w95 10/15 pp. 25-26 pars. 9-12 What Future for the Sheep and the Goats? ***

• Ever since Satan was cast down to earth, he has made the remnant a special object of his fury, bringing on them ridicule, torture, and death.—Revelation 12:17.  Is Jesus saying that everyone doing a small kindness to one of his brothers, such as offering a piece of bread or a glass of water, qualifies as one of these sheep? . . .  On the contrary, Jesus twice called the sheep “righteous ones.” (Matthew 25:37, 46) So the sheep must be ones who over a period of time have come to the aid of—actively supporting—Christ’s brothers and have exercised faith to the extent of receiving a righteous standing before God. Over the centuries, many such as Abraham have enjoyed a righteous standing. (James 2:21-23) Noah, Abraham, and other faithful ones count among the “other sheep” who will inherit life in Paradise under God’s Kingdom. In recent times millions more have taken up true worship as other sheep and have become “one flock” with the anointed. (John 10:16; Revelation 7:9) These with earthly hopes recognize Jesus’ brothers as ambassadors of the Kingdom and have therefore aided them—literally and spiritually. Jesus counts as done to him what the other sheep do for his brothers on earth. Such ones who are alive when he comes to judge the nations will be judged as sheep. If the other sheep are now preaching the good news with the anointed and aiding them, why would they ask: “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty, and give you something to drink?” (Matthew 25:37) There could be various reasons. This is a parable.

*** w66 3/15 p. 192 Questions From Readers ***

• Those among them who manifest a love for righteousness and who do good things for Christ’s brothers out of respect for the fact that they are his spiritual brothers or anointed disciples, are really showing a favorable disposition toward and support of the King Jesus Christ himself. (Matt. 25:34-40) If these persons continue to pursue such a course of action, they will receive lasting benefits, for theirs is the prospect of life everlasting in Jehovah’s promised new order of things.

It's easy to see a lot of things to criticize in these articles quoted above.

1. For one thing the parable emphasizes the surprise and the lack of knowledge about why it is that these sheep are gaining a reward. But our current view requires moving away from this parable to a different parable to make it seem as though these "sheep" are 100% aware of who Christ's brothers are, and that they are doing this on purpose with full knowledge that they are helping Christ's brothers.
2. Another thing is that there is no mention of preaching work in the parable, yet the primary method of fulfillment is preaching. (This preaching requires knowledge of the thing heard, and yet the parable highlights their lack of understanding about how, for example, Jesus separates sheep and goats.)
3. Another is that Jesus spoke of a reward for simply showing small act of kindness with no evident expectation of a reward, but the proper fulfillment supposedly requires not just preaching in support of the anointed, but an ongoing course of action. "If these persons continue to pursue such a course of action, they will receive lasting benefits."
4. The transition from coming to the assistance of anointed who were literally in prison, and literally hungry and thirsty had to be done carefully, because once it was no longer material support, the focus could not be on the food. The feeding of the "faithful and discreet slave" is the contradiction to the way in which Matthew 24:45 is read, where only the Governing Body feed others now. This illustration confuses that point by having the "other sheep" feeding the hungry Governing Body.
5. Also note the inaccuracy of statements like: "Ever since Satan was cast down to earth, he has made the remnant a special object of his fury, bringing on them ridicule, torture, and death." If 1914 is true, then this statement may also have been true for another decade or so, when 8 persons went to prison from 1918-1919 and when some were ridiculed for believing in pyramids, and the failed prophecy of 1925. But since then, and even since the Nazi persecution in Germany, it was not primarily the remnant who have been the special object of his fury. The brunt of that has been heaped upon the other sheep. 

More recently there have been some updates to the specifics of the understanding, but it's still a core parable for a discussion of who will be saved:

*** w15 3/15 pp. 25-26 par. 2 Loyally Supporting Christ’s Brothers ***

• Jehovah’s people have long been intrigued by this illustration and rightly so, for in it Jesus speaks about the fate of people. He reveals why some will receive everlasting life while others will be cut off in death forever. Our lives depend on our understanding the truths Jesus conveyed and acting on them. With so much at stake, we should ask: How has Jehovah progressively clarified our understanding of this illustration? Why can we say that the illustration emphasizes the importance of the preaching work? Who is it that receives the commission to preach? And why is now the time to be loyal to “the King” and to those he calls “my brothers”? . . . The outcome hinges on how they have treated the remaining ones of Christ’s spirit-anointed brothers on earth. With the end of this system so close at hand, how grateful we are that Jehovah has progressively shed light on this illustration and on the related illustrations recorded in Matthew chapters 24 and 25. . . . The illustration of the sheep and the goats shows that the anointed would have help. Therefore, one of the primary ways that those judged to be sheep show kindness to Christ’s brothers is by supporting them in the preaching work. What, though, is involved in providing that support? Does it consist only of material backing and emotional comfort, or is more required? . . . . The growing number of prospective sheep count it a privilege to support Christ’s brothers not only in the preaching work but also in other practical ways. For example, they give financial contributions and help to build Kingdom Halls, Assembly Halls, and branch facilities, and they loyally obey those appointed by “the faithful and discreet slave” to take the lead.

In the current understanding, the changes are mostly about the time when the judgment that distinguishes sheep from goats, which has now been moved to the future instead of saying it happens now as "goats" react badly to our preaching work. The other sheep coming to the aid of the anointed with food, water, clothing, and visitation in prison now refers primarily to the ongoing preaching work by the other sheep, and minimally to "material backing and emotional comfort." And of course, as most of us rarely see or work with any of the anointed, the focus has moved in a greater way to showing loyal obedience to the Governing Body, also known now as the "faithful and discreet slave" who claim to represent the anointed. The implication of all the recent articles is that Christ's brothers, the anointed, also show they are sheep by loyally obeying the Governing Body. But many specific statements are still mostly about the "other sheep" supporting the "faithful and discreet slave" (GB) through loyal obedience, preaching and donations of resources.

These are perfectly legitimate ways to show our appreciation, but it appears not be the scriptural meaning of this particular parable.

@Jack Ryan: Looks fake to me. Any evidence that it is real?

Even if this had been made up to try to match the general timing of the alleged murder/rape spree of Arohn Kee, that would not be any evidence that the letter is real. I can see three small bits of "evidence" that makes me think the letter is likely fake.

7 hours ago, Gone Away said:

and to keep oneself without spot from the world."

However, the final clause in that verse, with it's wider implications,  must not be overlooked. ?

Some would look at the last clause and immediately think it means, "See? We need to all be a part of an organization that is separate from the world." So then they perhaps they immediately copy the structures and hierarchies of the organizations of the world. In fact, "organization" when thought of as so all-important, might become one of the ways in which Christians become tainted by the world.

Jesus said as much each time he said, in effect: "This is the way it is done in the world . . . .but that is not the way it is to be with you."

• (Matthew 23) 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. . . .  5 All the works they do, they do to be seen by men, for they broaden the scripture-containing cases that they wear as safeguards and lengthen the fringes of their garments. 6 They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues 7 and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi by men. 8 But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. . . .  10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among you must be your minister. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

I see some evidence of Jesus' correctness even among us when a group of elders who are mostly corporate decision-makers are exalted to be seen (by many) as our spiritual Leaders, and even giving themselves a special title that implies they are "governors" of our faith.

In fact, I think that what James meant in 1:27, in context, could have been more aligned with what Jesus said, quoted above, in Matthew 23:5: "All the works they do, they do to be seen by men." In other words, it was the worldly motivation behind works that was the problem. The desire to be seen, the showy display:

• (1 John 2:16, 17) because everything in the world—the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life—does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world. 17 Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is its desire ,. . .

In fact, the solution to the apparent contradiction between James saying "faith without works" and Paul's discussions against "salvation by works" is easily resolved by the question of faith and love as motivation. Works that mean anything are only the things we do in response to "underserved kindness" out of faith and love.

• (2 Corinthians 5:14) For the love the Christ has compels us. . .
• (2 Corinthians 6:4-7) but in every way we recommend ourselves as God’s ministers, . . .  by love free from hypocrisy,
• (2 Corinthians 8:7) 7 Nevertheless, just as you abound in everything, in faith and word and knowledge and all earnestness and in our love for you, may you also abound in this kind giving.
• (1 Timothy 1:4, 5) . . .than providing anything from God in connection with faith. 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy.

I'm not against organization of course. In the list of highlighted ministries in 1 Corinthians 12, the very implication is that these ministries will come together as members of one body. Of course, Jehovah can see the "body" even if the members appear separated physically, which they often are. I believe you recently used the example of Elijah, in Romans 11:3,4, when he assumed he was alone when Jehovah saw 7,000 with him.

• (1 Corinthians 12:27, 28) 27 Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you individually is a member. 28 And God has assigned the respective ones in the congregation: first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powerful works; then gifts of healings; helpful services; abilities to direct; different tongues.

In addition to the overall implication of organization, here (and in other portions of the same letter) Paul highlights "abilities to direct" as one of the highlighted ministries. That's another indication that a congregation should be well-organized with persons who can take the lead in various ministries. Elsewhere, of course, Paul speaks of "order" in the congregations.

So this isn't about speaking against organization, but I believe the final clause in James 1:27 is more related to doing good works without the taint of worldly motivation, desire or hypocrisy. James has a theme of doing works out of faith in God, otherwise he mentions several motivations that would taint these works as meaningless.

@Shiwiii I appreciate the points and the thought you put into this. I do not believe that all these verses prove the same point. But I agree with something that @Space Merchant had said about how these promises about the earth which are also prevalent in the Hebrew Scriptures, are often tied into Jehovah's overall purpose. I don't actually know that we can state definitively what will become of the planet, and in what way the Bible means that God will reside with mankind. But the overall view presented in Watchtower publications makes a lot of sense of these verses in their totality.

3 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Revelation 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.   Here we have scripture stating that the old Earth is gone, dead, passed away. Could this be a restoration of the Earth, sure, but never the less the previous Earth is no more.

Here we also have a scripture stating that the old Heavens is gone, dead, passed away. Could this be a restoration of the Heavens? What makes the heavens new is the new Kingdom, the new reign, the new order. We could say the same about the Earth. You make a statement showing that you also believe there is a new earth, possibly in some sense "physical," which the new Jerusalem comes down to.

The rendering of a verse in 2 Corinthians, below, matches the ideas of Rev 21 & 22. I don't see it necessary to imagine the literal existing heavens hissing away for the verses to be fulfilled. I suppose it's a matter of whether we understand the same things to be figurative or symbolic and which ones we see as literal.

I will live in them and move among them. 
I will be their God. 
They will be My people. 
'So, come away from them! 
Be separate!' says the Lord. (2 Cor. 6:16,17 SEB)