JW Insider

No the apostles did not honestly believe they were above Christ. Some did believe they should be above other Christians, even above each other, and Jesus counseled them about that. (Mark 10:35+) So why bring up a "false" allegation that somehow Witnesses are giving "undue reverence" to the Governing Body? Easy. Because the Watchtower said they were. If you don't believe the Watchtower's claim, take it up with them. Did you think that the counsel in the 1/16 Study Watchtower was unnecessary? *** w16 January p. 27 “We Want to Go With You” *** At times, well-known representatives of the Christian congregation—perhaps circuit overseers, Bethelites, members of the Branch Committee, members of the Governing Body as well as their helpers—may attend a convention or theocratic event that we also attend. The counsel given referred to the kind of attitudes matched in the picture above from the same article. Similar counsel was repeated again in the 3/17 Study Watchtower. *** w17 March p. 9 par. 6 Give Honor to Whom It Is Due *** Most imperfect humans are strongly influenced by the spirit of Satan’s world. That is why people tend to idolize certain men or women rather than just show them appropriate honor and respect. They place religious and political leaders, sports figures, entertainment stars, and other celebrities on pedestals, often considering them to be almost superhuman. . . . However, Jehovah’s Witnesses refrain from treating religious leaders as ones who merit extraordinary honor, even though those leaders may expect it. Due to the problem of people worshiping Charles Taze Russell as if they were in a cult, up until at least 1931, Rutherford did all he could to separate from that type of mentality and move that kind of adulation to the theocratic organization itself, rather than a human being. You may have already seen the discussion on this topic linked here:Charles Taze Russell: Was he recently "canonized"? The Watchtower itself claims that the Watchtower was in error (at one time or another) with respect to almost every prophecy they have ever attempted to explain. It's only the current version of the explanation of any of these same prophecies that is considered not to be in error, unless of course, they also go back to one of the previous explanations and say it was correct after all, which has also happened. I'm sure you think yourself a good judge of what degree is "fine" and what degree is "NOT fine" in this regard. However, there is no scripture that says that God inspires, entrusts, or commissions the GB to understand scripture for our benefit. I accept that they do understand scripture for our benefit, but there is no such commission by God specifically for the GB to do this. We accept their leadership in this regard because it works for unity and peace and consistency in our teaching, which therefore allows for the efficient distribution of Bible-based publications with a common message we can all support whole-heartedly. Every religious group realizes that some can preside better, some can speak better, some can manage better, and some can teach better. Among true Christians today these are considered "gifts in men" where such ministries combine to help to maintain peace and unity in the worldwide congregation, just as they would in individual congregations. So there is nothing unbiblical and nothing wrong with accepting the services and benefits of a Governing Body. But they are not inspired and there is no Biblical commission for this specific group of brothers to teach and understand the Scriptures for us. I am pretty sure I don't claim to share in the "anointing of the holy spirit" in the same way that you and others here might claim to share. This might not have been addressed to me, but since I chose to respond I thought I should clear up the fact that I certainly don't claim to be one of the 144,000 anointed. I agree that there is more to say on these topics, but I think the info about God's name is more relevant to the topic at hand, so I'll bring those points up in my next post.

I don't see any direct parallels here, but it is curious that the scripture you used referred to "false brethren secretly brought in who had sneaked in." In the context of Galatians 2:4, it appears that it was at least one member of the "Governing Body" who sent these false brethren. (Galatians 2:11, 12) . . .. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, . . . (Galatians 2:6-9) 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary, . . . James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars,. . .

But it was "Pastor Russell's" own journal "The Bible Students Monthly" that included the following, in 1915, while Russell was still alive. I'll include the entire portion, although it was not the only contribution of its type found in issues of the Bible Students Monthly. http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/st paul defences.htm How Pastor Russell Ranks in Greatness Dr. Jackson Analyzes Elements That Constitute True Greatness of the Man A LEADER IN MANY LINES His Temperament Poetic, Literary, Scientific, Analytical and Strong for Business The world seldom recognizes its great men. Few or none saw the magnificent greatness of Lincoln until after his death. To the prominent and learned of the Roman Empire, Saint Paul was only an insignificant Jew; but we can see that in all that constituted real greatness he towered above them all, like a giant among pigmies. So it is today. If you ask "the man on the street," who are the great men of today, he is not likely to name Charles Taze Russell first, but let us see: C. T. Russell commenced business for himself while yet a boy and with very little capital. When he was eighteen he owned a store, when he was twenty-four he owned five stores and was worth three hundred thousand dollars, and this at an age when John D. Rockefeller had hardly made a start, and J. P. Morgan, with his inherited capital, had but little. If C. T. Russell had devoted his life to business it is easy to guess that John D. would not now be the richest man in the world nor J. P. Morgan have been the prince of financiers. However, that is the least remarkable thing about the career of Pastor Russell. With all this phenomenal talent for business he gave it all up and surrendered the most brilliant opening for obtaining wealth and power that has ever been offered to an American in order to take up a humble religious work. Such a thing as a man with surpassing wealth-getting power, voluntarily giving it up was unknown before in all history. He made no mistake, for the Master said, "Whosoever would become great among you shall be your servant." With an insight into the higher things that enabled him to choose aright, he saw from the Scriptures that the time had come for the greatest work of the ages to be done, and as he was the right man for the place, the Lord chose him to be his servant to lead the visible earthly part of this work, namely, the harvest work of the end of the Gospel Age. In the case of the Apostle Paul the Lord chose a man of great business ability to do his work then, but in this "End of the Age," when business is on a scale a thousand fold greater than in Paul’s day, business talent is all the more necessary, and so the man chosen for His work today is a Napoleon of finance and business. History shows that other men great in business and finance have not been richly endowed in other departments of the mind, but Pastor Russell in addition to his financial talent has remarkable mental talents of the most varied character. He has a frame of mind that may be described as a poetical mind that gets an insight into deep things by intuition, like a great poet or a Hebrew seer; it is as if Isaiah and J. P. Morgan were united in one individual. Poets are not usually of a logical scientific form of mind but Pastor Russell has these talents also, that is, he has the acute discrimination and analysis of a great lawyer, that can test the truth of things and sift the evidence on which they are founded. Thus the fallacies of the creeds of Christendom were brought to light as they had never been before. His literary talent would distinguish him among the writers of his generation if he was tested by this alone. Without any special literary training he writes English in a simple and idiomatic style that sometimes reaches the sublime and that will make many passages from his pen take their place among English classics. Another phase of his many sided greatness is his scientific talent. He has the mind of an investigator and student, a scientific love of truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; the freedom from bias, the willingness to accept truth wherever found, willingness to be corrected, no difference how humble the instrument, in short a mind like Agassiz and Newton. The field of research to which Newton applied himself was the physical world, the earth and sea and sky wherein God’s plan is revealed in regard to physical things. The field of research which Pastor Russell chose was the moral world, the plan of God in regard to mankind as revealed in the Bible. As Newton discovered the great Law of the Attraction of Gravitation which binds the universe together and brings order out of seeming confusion, so Russell discovered the grand "Plan of the Ages" which binds all history together and brings order into the field of theology where before there was so much confusion and error; founding all his teaching upon the impregnable rock of Holy Scripture, his position has been unassailable. The united talent of Nominal Christendom has striven for thirty-five years to overthrow his teachings but has not been able to meet him on his own ground (the Scriptures), with a single fair argument. Standing, as we do now, in the midst of the battle of Armageddon we can thank God and take courage because the Lord has sent us so great a leader. Courageous as a lion, pure as snow, wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove, a knight of God without fear and without reproach, no obstacle can turn him, no danger dismay him, no grief or pain distract him from his grand purpose. His motto is the words spoken for him by the prophets: "For the Lord God will help me; therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be confounded."

Yes. I corresponded with Schroeder and Swingle openly multiple times per year. Starting a couple of years before Brother Schroeder died, I started to send about one letter a year. I don't personally know any current members of the Governing Body except Brother Lett, and recently I have sent extra letters to Bro Splane on the generation, and Bro Jackson on child punishment and child abuse. The letters are not negative, and usually fairly short (believe it or not). They always agree with everything possible, then pose a problem and ask a simple question. The letters sent to them are intended to be anonymous, and I therefore do not expect a direct answer, although I kept a P.O.Box for this purpose for a while, and I always give an email address. But sometimes the answer comes in another way. I still speak on the phone with a couple persons (might be down to only one, now) whom I have known for years. I have had long conversations even until very recently with Fred Rusk, Ciro Aulicino, and Harry Peloyan until their health became an issue. All of them have been very well aware of my questions. And I have received many answers over the years.

Yesterday I responded to a months-old comment, here, about putting Charles Taze Russell on a pedestal, and it was under the wrong topic, so I am moving it here, and editing and splitting it into two or three comments because it is so long. The part about "canonizing" refers to the God's Kingdom Rules book, *** kr chap. 2 pp. 13-14 pars. 3-6 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven *** For instance, consider the prophecy of Malachi 3:1: “Look! I am sending my messenger, and he will clear up a way before me. And suddenly the true Lord, whom you are seeking, will come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant will come, in whom you take delight.” In the modern-day fulfillment, when did Jehovah, “the true Lord,” come to inspect those who were serving in the earthly courtyard of his spiritual temple? The prophecy explains that Jehovah would come with “the messenger of the covenant.” Who was that? None other than the Messianic King, Jesus Christ! (Luke 1:68-73) As the newly installed Ruler, he would inspect and refine God’s people on earth.—1 Pet. 4:17. 5 Who, though, was the other “messenger,” the first one mentioned at Malachi 3:1? This prophetic figure would be on the scene well before the Messianic King’s presence. In the decades before 1914, did anyone “clear up a way” before the Messianic King? . . . Those taking the lead among them—Charles T. Russell and his close associates—did, indeed, act as the foretold “messenger,” giving spiritual direction to God’s people and preparing them for the events ahead. Let us consider four ways in which the “messenger” did so. I can't help but see that he very carefully and deliberately put himself on a pedestal. It appears to have been his plan from the moment he began spending money to put himself on Barbour's masthead. His publishing career started with material he borrowed and presented as his own, but with added "humility" about how he is just God's servant which soon turned into a very humble way of saying that he was "God's mouthpiece." It's just that he was so good at 19th century "mock humility" that people truly thought he was humble. But a good portion of the Bible Students acted in the ways in which we think of certain groups as "cults" today, in a pejorative sense. Many members of the Bible Students worshiped Russell but would never have noticed this, thinking of it as only love for their leader. Russell didn't ask for a high level of control at first, but the format of his interactions with them were mesmerizing, including the way the Watch Tower publications presented ideas. The Proclaimers book very clearly admits the "cult" attitudes: *** jv chap. 6 p. 65 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) *** Others, on account of their deep respect for Brother Russell, seemed more concerned with trying to copy his qualities and develop a sort of cult around him. People were naming their first male child after Russell and additional children after his most trusted associates. People were willing to believe constantly changing, contradictory and failing information about when the rapture would occur, when the door of opportunity to heaven was being shut, the "divination" of lengths of the entrails (passages) criss-crossing within the pyramids. Russell could do no wrong. Russell made up stories about his divorce trial that can now be shown to be outright fabrications. But he continued to print letters of praise about himself and letters that called him the "faithful and wise servant." Without a kind of cult following, you can't get away with claiming that you are the one and only faithful and discreet slave, and the one and only mouthpiece of God, and the one and only channel of communication through which the "wise virgins" can prove themselves to be wise and not foolish. Rutherford, who wanted the high level of control, but without the mesmerizing charisma, was very clear about the fact that Russell was being worshiped. Referring to the attitudes toward Russell, Rutherford said the following, according to the Watchtower (and "Faith on the March" by MacMillan): *** w66 8/15 pp. 508-509 Doing God’s Will Has Been My Delight *** Why, brother, if I ever get out of here, by God’s grace I’ll crush all this business of creature worship. The 1975 Yearbook says the same: *** yb75 p. 88 Part 1—United States of America *** With the passing of time, however, the idea adopted by many was that C. T. Russell himself was the “faithful and wise servant.” This led some into the snare of creature worship. They felt that all the truth God saw fit to reveal to his people had been presented through Brother Russell, that nothing more could be brought forth. Annie Poggensee writes: “This caused a great sifting out of those who chose to stay back with Russell’s works.” In February 1927 this erroneous thought that Russell himself was the “faithful and wise servant” was cleared up. Of course it was Russell himself who pushed that idea that he alone was the "faithful and wise servant." He was satisfied for years to say it was all true Christians in this role, even while claiming that "meat in due season" came through the channel of the Watch Tower Society. But after about 18 years of publishing such claims in the Watch Tower he finally claimed (in 1896/7) that this role could be only one individual person at a time. He published several letters addressing him as "that Servant, faithful and wise" ["the faithful and discreet slave"] who provides "meat in due season" ["food at the proper time"]. *** yb74 pp. 97-98 Part 1—Germany *** For that reason Brother Balzereit asked Brother Rutherford for permission to buy a rotary press. Brother Rutherford saw the necessity and agreed, but on one condition. He had noticed that over the years Brother Balzereit had grown a beard very similar to the one that had been worn by Brother Russell. His example soon caught on, for there were others who also wanted to look like Brother Russell. This could give rise to a tendency toward creature worship, and Brother Rutherford wanted to prevent this. So during his next visit, within hearing of all the Bible House family, he told Brother Balzereit that he could buy the rotary press but only on the condition that he shave off his beard. This type of thinking was evidently still going on. Rutherford knew that up until the 1920's pictures of Russell and his close associates were still being sold. (I have a couple from about 1915 with Russell, Rutherford and my great-grandfather.) But this evidently was still going on in 1931: *** yb74 p. 106 Part 1—Germany *** Now at the Berlin assembly [1931] he called attention to the many pictures of himself and of Brother Russell that were being sold in the form of postcards or pictures, some of which were even framed. After discovering these pictures at the numerous tables in the corridors around the hall, he mentioned them in his next talk, urging those in attendance not to buy any of them and asking the servants in charge in plain words to remove the pictures from their frames and to destroy them, which was then done. He wanted to avoid anything that could lead to creature worship. Even in one of our most current and recent study books, we have a similar claim about Russell: *** kr chap. 2 pp. 22-23 par. 32 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven *** From within, the organization suffered turmoil as well. In 1916, Brother Russell died at only 64 years of age, leaving many of God’s people in shock. His death revealed that some had been placing too much emphasis on one exemplary man. Though Brother Russell wanted no such reverence, a measure of creature worship had grown up around him. Rutherford himself said this about Russell at his funeral: "Charles Taze Russell, thou hast by the Lord, been crowned a king, and through the everlasting ages thy name shall be known amongst the people, and thy enemies shall come and worship at thy feet." Then of course, Rutherford approved and praised the importance of a book in 1917, The Finished Mystery, and proudly distributed it until 1932. It said the following (with page numbers, unchecked, as copied from Gruss): "The special messenger to the last Age of the Church was Charles T. Russell.... He has privately admitted his belief that he was chosen for his great work from before his birth" (53). "Pastor Russell was the voice used. Beautiful voice of the Lord: strong, humble, wise, loving, gentle, just, merciful, faithful, self-sacrificing; one of the noblest, grandest characters or all history...Without a blemish in his character, with the loftiest ideals of God, and the possibilities of man, he towers like a giant, unmatched"'( 125). 'The mind of Pastor Russell was filled with Truth.... The mind of God's steward was as adamant. Adamant is literally, in Hebrew, 'a diamond point"' (383). "In 1878 the stewardship of the things of God, the teaching of Bible truths, was taken from the clergy, unfaithful to their age-long stewardship, and given to Pastor Russell" (386-87). "Then, in 1881, he became God's watchman for all Christendom, and began his gigantic work of witness.... He listened to the word direct from the mouth of God, spoken by holy men of old as moved by the Holy Spirit.(2 Peter 1:21.)... Pastor Russell's warning to Christendom, coming direct from God.... He said that he could never have written his books himself. It came from God, through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit" (387). "Pastor Russell was the most prolific writer of Biblical truth that ever lived.—Ezek. 9:2,3" (65). "The man in linen" was the Laodicean servant, the Lord's faithful and wise steward, Pastor Russell" (418). "The preaching and writings of Pastor Russell were heard by all classes of believers and unbelievers. It was the voice of Jehovah, represented as almighty to save, that was heard throughout the world" (422). The June 1, 1917 Watch Tower published by Rutherford, says: "Truly there lived among us in these last days a prophet of the Lord.... Any thoughtful man can interpret prophecy after is has been fulfilled. Pastor Russell interpreted these prophecies twenty years ago...." Throughout the 1920's, the Society began distributing the "Biography of Charles Taze Russell" included with Studies in the Scriptures claiming that Russell himself privately admitted to others that he was the "faithful and wise servant."

To most of us, I suppose this verse means wait and see what the Governing Body tell us about this. And the Governing Body has already told us that they think these numbers refer to some time periods in the 1910's and 1920's. So there is nothing to discuss. I would add that it's the personal responsibility of each one of us to let our reasonableness be made known to all. (Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men. . . . (Romans 12:1, 2) . . .present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason. 2 And stop being molded by this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. For me, if there is no contradiction with other Bible verses or Bible prophecies and our traditional explanations are presented as likely scenarios based on good evidence -- and not stated dogmatically -- then this is reasonable enough to accept without being too concerned. A wait and see attitude is a good thing, especially if we have nothing specific to offer as a viable replacement for the current explanation. But there are a couple problems with the current scenario that could reasonably be questioned. Should we question it then? If we see an issue, or a contradiction with the current scenario, should we let our reasonableness become known to all men? If someone has pointed out something that might be reasonably wrong with our current thinking are we under any obligation to "make sure of all things"? Or are we under scriptural obligation to sit and wait for "the prophets"? Today we tell everyone that Jehovah did one of the most important things he has ever done in all of human history in the year 1914. Yet if Amos 3:7 is appropriately applied above, we should have expected that Jehovah would not have done this unless he had previously told his servants, the prophets. Yet, not one person in advance of 1914 had any such thing revealed to them. Even after 1914 came and went not one person was able to say what had happened that year. There was no prediction in advance of 1914 that Jesus would become present in that year (still considered 1874) or that his kingdom would start in that year (still 1878). Not one prediction for the year 1914 turned out to be correct, not even the idea that the Gentiles would no longer trample literal Jerusalem, because those Gentile times had now ended. So what does it really mean to say that Jehovah will not do a thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his prophets? Who are his prophets today? What does it mean to be a prophet who has Jehovah's confidential matters revealed? Also, just because Amos said this in reference to a specific upcoming judgment, does it mean that these specific words are applicable to all future judgments. What if Jesus were to tell us that another future specific judgment would come as a thief in the night? Does that mean that this particular verse becomes wrong? or that Jesus was wrong? What about the rest of Amos 3, or the entire book? Is all of it generic to apply to all future prophetic scenarios, or only especially verse 7? So far, I'd say that it is reasonable to question the current explanations, because if there is a contradiction then this would mean that our belief might be contradicting the Bible and we should be careful not to contradict the Bible. But I will also say that I think the explanation given is not fully reasonable either. And on the issue of requiring that if we find a problem, we should be required to find something better, this is the best scenario, but it should not be required. The first step is to see if there really are contradictions and therefore be noble-minded enough to "test" whether these things are so. We could always send our questions to the Governing Body to see if they can come up with a scenario that does not create contradictions. I note that we have been asked to focus on the topic of today's anointed "prophets" in the current Bible reading. So far, in a much more reasonable way than we were asked to focus on today's anointed "prophets" in the years leading up to 1975. ----------------------------- Life and Ministry Meeting Workbook | October 2017 TREASURES FROM GOD’S WORD | JOEL 1-3 “Your Sons and Your Daughters Will Prophesy” Anointed Christians share in the work of prophesying. They speak about “the magnificent things of God” and proclaim the “good news of the Kingdom.” (Ac 2:11, 17-21; Mt 24:14) The other sheep support them by participating in this work Ask yourself, ‘How can I support the anointed in their work of prophesying?’

Your focus was probably on the reason for this practice, which I gave as "because it is easily understood in most contexts without spelling it out." The source you gave didn't include any reason different from the one I gave, but this new answer referring to the idea of an Israeli chemistry teacher gives a different reason which is worth considering. He evidently said it was because as you said: " The word in Hebrew for existence is a form of the name of God, and is not used as it is in English." Then the person who made that comment added the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah which says nothing of the sort. So we could easily consider whether the "zero copula" is due to this particular reason. One point to consider is that after reading the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_copula we notice that there are many languages that do the same, including Arabic, Russian, Turkish, Japanese, Maori, Ganda, Irish, Welsh, ASL, and several Native American languages. Again it's mostly done for the present tense in these languages, too. There are several situations in which we follow this practice in English, too. And we surely don't do it because it's a form of God's name in Hebrew. And these languages with no relationship to Hebrew surely don't do it because of an issue in Hebrew or any similar issue in their own language. It might also be worth considering that even when the name of God was spelled out in Hebrew at a time when there were no prejudices against using the name out loud, the zero copula was already in effect. We see this in at least 350 places in the Hebrew text. One obvious example is the twenty-third Psalm which says "Jehovah [blank] my shepherd I shall not want" יְהוָה רֹעִי לֹא אֶחְסָֽר So the practice could not very well have started because it is a form of God's name. Even in the context of Exodus 3:12-15 the same practice is found: It's found in the future tense in 3:12 and "famously" found in the present tense in 3:14, of course, but is left out of the surrounding verses: (Exodus 3:13-15) 13 But Moses said to the true God: “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is [blank] his name?’ What should I say to them?” . . . 15 Then God said once more to Moses: “This is [blank] what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is [blank] my name forever, and this is [blank] how I am to be [blank] remembered from generation to generation. Wherever you see an italicized "am," is," or "are" in the OT of the KJV (hundreds of times) you are mostly likely seeing the "zero copula." I have no problem with sarcasm in general. It's not usually necessary, but can sometimes help to make a point. It was just that, in this case, you said you were using sarcasm to make a point different from mine, and then immediately quoted someone who apparently agreed with me 100%, so the sarcasm lost its effect.

I believe this, although I don't know if what you think of as "many" is the same as what I think of as "many." One of my concerns was with the idea that so many sisters that my wife knows believe that they suffer more depression than non-JW counterparts due to lack of marital prospects, and some think that their only way of being noticed at all by brothers who are "marriageable" is to pioneer, for example. But this is not possible for all, yet the examples and attitudes presented at meetings/conventions from fellow sisters is nearly always presented by a sister who is also a pioneer. I've known sisters who quit their jobs to pioneer in good part to help solve this issue, which is ironic, because the second most important factor in a sister finding a marriage mate in our circuit anyway, is for the sister to have a job. I wasn't at Bethel at the same time as she was, although I had met her husband a couple times. I have a good friend in the Writing department who STILL has the highest regard for her, even though she is disfellowshipped.

My. You certainly get around. And I was worried a few weeks ago when a hurricane was pounding FL. My sister married and moved to Copenhagen from the US about 15 years ago. Took her several years of Danish lessons before they'd give her a citizenship. We are visiting next week. Last time we visited wanted a Norwegian cruise and missed the chance. Too cold, now, I think.

@Arauna I am a feminist but I still loved what you said in your post. It shows that you are keenly aware of what sisters think, what they go through, and how they should think in order to build up the congregation under their circumstances. You really should consider submitting a version of this to the brothers at Bethel. Your husband apparently knows your value and your values. I'm sure he would help facilitate this if it's not something you feel comfortable with. I know a sister who wrote a couple articles for the Awake! while her husband worked in the Service Department, and another sister (now ex-sister, unfortunately) who was very well respected by Brother Lloyd Barry and both Brothers Karl and Don Adams and put together a huge portion of the Proclaimers book. At least one sister I know is currently involved in research, perhaps there are more.

Bugs and Kisses, JWI

If you were trying to be sarcastic about it then why did you quote a source that agreed 100% with what I said?

Yes, and I'm all for advance preparation and written directives. But as I read the reviews of doctors who try to make sense of our general position about blood from a logical point of view I see that the medical literature already includes assumptions about us that we merely follow the direction of the "Watchtower" and call it "conscience." There have been additional articles in the medical literature that warn doctors that this assumption can be wrong, not because of any variations in how individual Witnesses treat fractions, but because so many Witnesses have evidently told doctors privately that they want all blood products that the doctor considers to be necessary, but that they don't want their family or congregation finding out about it if at all possible. The Watchtower's compromise on the blood issue by allowing fractions has greatly reduced the latter problem just mentioned, because most major Western hospitals have known the benefits of using and storing specific processed components for various purposes instead of using and storing expensive and wasteful whole blood products. On the Biblical issue of "individual conscience" vs "law" the spiritual concern should be that we have put ourselves under law in this regard if we have not made up our own mind. Among many of the Watchtower's writers, it had long been recognized that the expression "Bible-trained conscience" is merely a euphemism for "law." I think this topic was broached already here:

The attached might have been what you were looking for. I would be careful with how such a document is used. I haven't checked if it is up to date, and the use of such material, in case of future issues, could make it obvious to medical or legal professionals that decisions are not actually based on personal conscience, but on opinions provided through excerpts from Watch Tower publications included in the workbook. (For example, if someone states that he or she has based their "conscience" on the workbook, and then decides to update their "conscience" after finding out that the workbook was not exactly up to date with Watch Tower publications, then it might be difficult to argue that their decision was really based on their own conscience.) 209283018-Blood-Workbook-to-Assist-With-Conscience-Matters-Involving-Blood.pdf

@Gone Fishing I guess if you're Bent-on dowsing, and you get the "ley" of the land, then that's the place to go.

When we first moved to Missouri, the first farm-house we looked at in 1964 only had an outhouse, but they had two pumps, a hand pump and an electric pump in the "pump-house." So my father knew he could finish the piping to the house and dig a septic tank. It was a common expression that an outhouse was 50 feet too far away in the winter and 50 feet too close in the summer. They probably found it in the infamous book: Twenty Yards to the Outhouse by Willie Makit, illustrated by Betty Wont and published by Andy Dint

I don't support Raymond Franz. I think he made some terrible mistakes. This might be true, too. If anyone is given undue reverence it can result in trouble. Although I don't know anything about who this "Pete" is, I'll take your word for it. By the way, I had three of my posts in a row deleted with no explanation a couple days ago, until I figured out that I was evidently helping to support "spam" by another member who was trying to promote a personal blog here. I actually found quite a bit in the blog that I wanted to discuss, but I kept referencing the source URL of the blog, which has become a kind of habit that was not considered useful in this case. I finally figured it out when I saw that the posts from the blogger had also been deleted.

I think the explanation is in the slight adjustments to words that the Hebrews used in order to remember how to pass on their stories verbally: *** it-2 p. 457 Nabal *** (Naʹbal) [Senseless; Stupid]. A wealthy Maonite sheep owner who pastured and sheared his flocks in Carmel of Judah. Nabal was also known as a Calebite, that is, a descendant of Caleb. Few Bible characters are so contemptuously described as is Nabal. “[He] was harsh and bad in his practices”; “he is too much of a good-for-nothing fellow [son of Belial] to speak to him”; “he repays . . . evil in return for good”; “senselessness is with him.”—1Sa 25:2, 3, 17, 21, 25. I could guess, but I couldn't say what his real name had been, although naming a kid "Stupid" seems like a self-fulfilled prophecy in the making. Dozens of names were given slight adjustments in the Bible, the most notable of which were the ways in which a false god had his name changed to become something derogatory. Note the implication in this Insight book entry, starting with "Lord of the Flies": *** it-1 p. 275 Beelzebub *** (Be·elʹze·bub) [possibly an alteration of Baal-zebub, meaning “Owner of the Flies,” the Baal worshiped by the Philistines at Ekron. Alternately, Beelzeboul and Beezeboul, possibly meaning, “Owner of the Lofty Abode (Habitation)”; or, if a play on the non-Biblical Heb. word zeʹvel (dung), “Owner of the Dung”]. *** it-1 p. 234 Babel *** (Baʹbel) [Confusion].One of the first cities to be built after the Flood. Here God “confused the language of all the earth.” (Ge 11:9) The name is derived from the verb ba·lalʹ, meaning “confuse.” Local citizens, thinking of their city as God’s seat of government, claimed that the name was compounded from Bab (Gate) and ilu (God), signifying “Gate of God.” *** it-2 p. 39 Jerubbesheth *** (Je·rubʹbe·sheth) [Let the Shameful Thing Make a Legal Defense (Contend)]. The name of Judge Gideon found at 2 Samuel 11:21. Evidently this is a form of Jerubbaal, the name given to Gideon by his father Joash when Gideon pulled down the altar of Baal. (Jg 6:30-32) Some scholars believe that the writer of Second Samuel replaced baʹʽal with the Hebrew word for “shame” (boʹsheth) in order not to use the name of the false god Baal as part of a proper name.—See GIDEON. *** it-2 p. 424 Molech *** (Moʹlech) [from a root meaning “reign as king” or “king,” but with the vowels of boʹsheth, “shame,” to denote abhorrence]. *** it-1 p. 1224 Ish-bosheth *** (Ish-boʹsheth) [meaning “Man of Shame”]. Evidently the youngest of Saul’s sons, his successor to the throne. From the genealogical listings it appears that his name was also Eshbaal, meaning “Man of Baal.” (1Ch 8:33; 9:39) However, elsewhere, as in Second Samuel, he is called Ish-bosheth, a name in which “baal” is replaced by “bosheth.” (2Sa 2:10) This Hebrew word boʹsheth is found at Jeremiah 3:24 and is rendered “shameful thing.” (AS, AT, JP, NW, Ro, RS) In two other occurrences baʹʽal and boʹsheth are found parallel and in apposition, in which the one explains and identifies the other. (Jer 11:13; Ho 9:10) There are also other instances where individuals similarly had “bosheth” or a form of it substituted for “baal” in their names, as, for example, “Jerubbesheth” for “Jerubbaal” (2Sa 11:21; Jg 6:32) and “Mephibosheth” for “Merib-baal,” the latter being a nephew of Ish-bosheth.—2Sa 4:4; 1Ch 8:34; 9:40. The reason for these double names or substitutions is not known. One theory advanced by some scholars attempts to explain the dual names as an alteration made when the common noun “baal” (owner; master) became more exclusively identified with the distasteful fertility god of Canaan, Baal. *** it-1 p. 967 Goat-shaped Demon *** Just what such “hairy ones” (seʽi·rimʹ) actually were, however, is not stated. While some consider them to be literal goats or idols in the form of goats, this does not necessarily seem to be indicated; nor do other scriptures provide evidence of that nature. . . . Or, the use of “goats” in these references may be merely a means of expressing contempt for all idolatrous objects in general, even as the word for idols in numerous texts is drawn from a term originally meaning “dung pellets,” not denoting, however, that the idols were literally made of dung.—Le 26:30; De 29:17. *** it-1 p. 1172 Idol, Idolatry *** Often mention is made of “dungy idols,” this expression being a rendering of the Hebrew word gil·lu·limʹ, which is related to a word meaning “dung.” (1Ki 14:10; Zep 1:17) This term of contempt, first appearing at Leviticus 26:30, is found nearly 40 times in the book of Ezekiel alone, beginning with chapter 6, verse 4. The Hebrew speakers took advantage of the fact that only a small change in spelling or vowels could attach a bad meaning to another term. Biblical Hebrew "play on words" was a very common practice, and is found in the words of the prophets especially. But in order to remember a story to pass on verbally, there are often more innocent reasons for the wordplay. For example, in the story of Isaac, you can almost tell that the "Yitzak" from which we get "Isaac" is onomatopoeia for "laughter" and the name means laughter. But the root term is used for several parts of the story. Sarah laughs ("yitzaks") that she will have a child in her old age and this is a significant part of the narrative. (Genesis 21:6, 7) 6 Then Sarah said: “God has brought me laughter; everybody hearing of it will laugh with me.” 7 And she added: “Who would have said to Abraham, ‘Sarah will certainly nurse children’?. . . But the next part of the story is important too, because Yitzak can also mean mean yuk-yuk/tsk-tsk in the form of mockery, and to some, can even imply sexual abuse: (Genesis 21:9, 10) 9 But Sarah kept noticing that the son of Haʹgar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, was mocking ("Yitzack"-ing) Isaac. 10 So she said to Abraham: “Drive out this slave girl and her son, . . . But the relationship between Isaac and his wife is also remembered through the same word as they were yucking it up in the sight of the king, because the word can even imply sexual foreplay. (Genesis 26:8) 8 After some time had passed, A·bimʹe·lech king of the Phi·lisʹtines was looking out of the window, and he saw Isaac displaying affection ("Yitzack"-ing) for Re·bekʹah his wife. So we see who gets the last laugh in this story. These examples could be multiplied, and for some, might even provide an incentive to learn Hebrew.

That's the right question. A bit disturbing when you consider the question at that level, isn't it? Yet, it could have been done fairly and honestly. All the people involved had the ability to present it that way if they wanted to. Then, of course, it would not have the same appeal. And it would only be information already known in scholarly circles. But that would still be of interest even if it admitted questions for further research.

Haven't heard that expression in years. In Missouri, in 1966 just before I was baptized we actually had a whole Witness family in our congregation who were publicly reproved or "put on probation" or something like that for water witching. They had been doing this for years and somehow had come to think of it as a "service" they were providing for their fellow country neighbors who wanted to dig a well. Of course, in this part of Missouri, you could pretty much dig 50 feet down in any solid low area and find the aquifer.

At least half of the 20 GB members I have listened to over a course of several years seemed to be among the most humble of brothers. I can't say that for about 7 of them, but even where some might have seemed pompous at times, they were still usually likable and personable (F Franz, Sydlik, Swingle). Another 4 of them kept to themselves and didn't say much even during their weekly turns at morning worship from 1976 to 1982. But I have no trouble speaking out clearly and honestly about another 3 GB members who were more often pompous and insufferable to their fellow Bethelites and who even caused harm to the reputation of the Society and Jehovah's name. (1 Thessalonians 2:4) 4 but, just as we have been proved by God as fit to be entrusted with the good news, so we speak, as pleasing, not men, but God, who makes proof of our hearts. (Galatians 1:10) 10 Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave. . . (Romans 3:4) . . .But let God be found true, though every man be found a liar,. . . (Jeremiah 8:8, 9) 8 “‘How can YOU men say: “We are wise, and the law of Jehovah is with us”? Surely, now, the false stylus of the secretaries has worked in sheer falsehood. 9 The wise ones have become ashamed. They have become terrified and will be caught. . . . (Mark 4:22) 22 For there is nothing hidden that will not be exposed; nothing is carefully concealed that will not come out in the open. On a forum where some of us want to discuss Bible questions, it is all the more important to be open and honest about the times when "guardians of doctrine" have sometimes been guardians of traditions that made the word of God invalid. This is part of progressing to spiritual maturity. If the GB are given undue reverence some people will think that they cannot be questioned and then the discussion of Bible questions is rendered invalid.

(1 Samuel 25:22-25) 22 May God do the same and more to the enemies of David if I allow a single male of his to survive until the morning.” 23 When Abʹi·gail caught sight of David, she hurried down off the donkey and threw herself facedown before David, bowing to the ground. 24 She then fell at his feet and said: “My lord, let the blame be on me; let your servant girl speak to you, and listen to the words of your servant girl. 25 Please, do not let my lord pay attention to this worthless Naʹbal, for he is just like his name. Naʹbal is his name, and senselessness is with him.. . . Abigail spoke disrespectfully of her husband and she became David's wife. Others who spoke disrespectfully of their "lord" in front of David did not fare so well. David was nothing if not inconsistent.

Are there some? Not from the heart tissue itself. Transplant patients sometimes have psychological issues however. There are still many transplant candidates who won't go through with it, often out of guilt for having messed up an organ based on their own bad health decisions and realize that by getting the organ from a recently-healthy donor they are taking away from a more deserving person farther down the list of transplant candidates. Those prone to depression or suicide might find themselves more often pondering life-and-death issues which could be a trigger for further depression and risk of suicide. When heart transplants were first attempted, and people thought it Frankenstein-like, made-up stories started to appear about people who got transplants from criminals and then became criminals. Brother Schroeder (GB) started giving talks on this subject, where he made the heart the LITERAL, PHYSICAL seat of motivation, rather than just a representative one. Finally he got his long Watchtower article on the heart published that also made use of this idea. But this and similar articles were still getting responses with data that seemed to debunk it. (The letters I saw didn't come from Witnesses but from professionals who had been told this by Witness patients.) When I first started working for Schroeder as a researcher he wanted me to stay on the lookout for such things, not just about the heart, but about all anecdotes for any type of transplant. This was our position in 1975: *** w75 9/1 p. 519 Insight on the News *** It has long been known that heart-transplant patients have a higher-than-average amount of postoperative psychiatric problems. But it seems that the same is true with regard to some other vital organ transplants, such as kidney transplants. U.C.L.A. psychiatry professor Dr. Pietro Castelnuovo-Tedesco is quoted as saying: “An outstanding finding following transplantation is the not infrequent occurrence of serious emotional disturbance.” One study of 292 kidney-transplant patients showed that nearly 20 percent experienced severe depression after the operation, a few even attempting suicide. By contrast, only about one out of every 1,500 general-surgery patients develops a severe emotional disturbance. A peculiar factor sometimes noted is a so-called ‘personality transplant.’ That is, the recipient in some cases has seemed to adopt certain personality factors of the person from whom the organ came. One young promiscuous woman who received a kidney from her older, conservative, well-behaved sister, at first seemed very upset. Then she began imitating her sister in much of her conduct. Another patient claimed to receive a changed outlook on life after his kidney transplant. Following a transplant, one mild-tempered man became aggressive like the donor. The problem may be largely or wholly mental. But it is of interest, at least, that the Bible links the kidneys closely with human emotions.—Compare Jeremiah 17:10 and Revelation 2:23. The second paragraph is, of course, unrelated to the study quoted. Schroeder had linked himself rather closely with the literal side of this, and didn't like the "compromise" claiming that the problem "may be largely or wholly mental." You'd have to know more about the personalities of both Fred Franz and Bert Schroeder to understand a later incident, (below) but it would help to know that Fred Franz was considered "The Oracle" in Governing Body circles and Brother Schroeder was sure he deserved to be the next "Oracle" after Franz died. So Schroeder would even go out and give unapproved talks that made such claims as if he were the new messenger of new truths. Anyway, the "incident" was a Gilead talk that Fred Franz gave, in which you would never suspect that the entire 45 minute Bible-based talk was a tongue-in-cheek "attack" on Brother Schroeder. Most of Fred Franz' talks made it into the Watchtower, often as study articles. This one only got a small mention: *** w77 6/1 p. 352 Examinations Yet Ahead for a Graduating Class *** Before the distribution of diplomas, F. W. Franz also addressed the class. He reminded them of the school examinations that they had had earlier, but then arrested their attention by asking: “Have you had the more vital and serious examination of your kidneys?” He showed from Job 19:27 that in the Bible “kidneys” often represent the innermost recesses of one’s being. So, when Jeremiah 17:10 says that Jehovah ‘examines the kidneys,’ Franz explained, this is not a medical examination, but is done in a judicial capacity. In their postgraduate life, the speaker pointed out, the missionaries will face such an examination of their kidneys. How? In that new situations in life will confront them. When put to the test, what will they really prove to be, deep inside? The psalmist David, though a sinner, did not fear such an inspection by God. (Ps. 26:1-3) Nor should we. Concluding, Franz advised: “Be genuine Christians, not hypocritical, not counterfeit. Be sound Christians down to the core of your personality. If you are, you will pass the examination of your kidneys with everlasting credits to yourself and a clean bill of spiritual health.” The full talk was about the liver, the fat, the kidneys, and took several swipes at the idea that these Biblical representations were to be taken literally in a medical sense. Brother Schroeder was livid afterwards, and was even more anxious to find evidence to prove Brother Franz to be wrong. If I told him that the information he sought was in a library in Japan, I'm sure he would have sent me there. (Before I forget, Schroeder once asked me research his theory that people who were forced to change from left-handed to right-handed at a young age would become diabetic or get hypoglycemia [low blood sugar] problems. I have no idea what the Biblical connection could have been.) I should note that by 1980 the Watch Tower Society no longer disfellowshipped people for getting kidney transplants, and decided to expand this to all types of transplants -- even the heart! *** w80 3/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** Should congregation action be taken if a baptized Christian accepts a human organ transplant, such as of a cornea or a kidney? Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. . . . Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs. They may reason that in some cases the human material is not expected to become a permanent part of the recipient’s body. Body cells are said to be replaced about every seven years, and this would be true of any human body parts that would be transplanted. . . . Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation. It is well known that the use of human materials for human consumption varies all the way from minor items, such as hormones and corneas, to major organs, such as kidneys and hearts. . . . It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant. This was pretty much the end of the line for Schroeder's line of reasoning on this topic. But this March 15, 1980 reasoning had been approved from the nephew of Fred Franz, also on the Governing Body, and there were rumors that this person, especially after his work on the Aid Book, was already being thought of as the next potential "Oracle." This would be Ray Franz, of course, whose research was often reasonable, but which could also be a mixed bag. He was far from perfect, and also far too low-profile and unassuming to be an organizational leader.) It wasn't just about this issue, of course, but immediately after this article was written, Schroeder's personal campaign against R Franz ramped up, and Schroeder led every step of the campaign that resulted in R. Franz resigning from the Governing Body in May.

@TrueTomHarley, They have just opened a new wing of the Museum to cover the most important features of the Anglo-American empire... Visit it just after the Pharaoh Necco exhibit.

This is the first time I've seen this video. (About 3 AM this morning.) I watched it because I think it's something I should have seen before. Someone mentioned it a couple years ago, but I never went looking for it. Actually I think you still had to pay for it back when I first heard about it, so I figured I'd wait until it came out on cable or Netflix. Sorry if I biased anyone about the Reibling Foundation or their projects. I think most of their projects have been good, high-quality projects. But I'm concerned about the kind of money that has been transferred in their direction. I'll post a couple of items below that appear to be based on some evidence. I've also heard that Gene Smalley (Writing Department, Bethel) had evidently shown great interest in the Watchtower getting in on the ground floor investments in a device that hospitals could use in support of JW blood policy on autologous transfusions. The Reibling Foundation was paid 4 million for promoting support of this device (not from WTBTS, however). The WTBTS gave them the deal on one of their Brooklyn Heights hotels, where the Reiblings made about 10 million in profit reselling the building, and were able to take advantage of some volunteer labor under Bethel's control. Not even sure that JW apologist is appropriate. Don't think he has much of a relationship with JWs. He was hired for his voice and the ability to "independently" represent a point of view, even if it was completely scripted for him. With enough money, I suppose you could even hire Morgan Freeman to give the "independent" voice to a crazy conspiracy theory about UFO's abducting Hillary Clinton. (Look at the kind of stuff they call "discovery, history, or science" on cable's Discovery Channel, History Channel, etc.) I know that Poppenberg helped with other JW related projects, but I'd guess it's only because they already know he will. The production end of this video need not have been done by people with any JW interests. Nehemia Gordon gives several interviews to Christian "Jewish" Messianic outreach organizations, even though he also makes fun of some of these same groups on the side. The following is not completely checked out, but I've found info so far that confirms some of it, and nothing that disconfirms any of it. ----------------WARNING: some parts picked up from ex-JW sites----------------- A Common Bond's Response to the Documentary Knocking - part 2 Where the Money Came From On May 22, 2007, a documentary program entitled Knocking was shown on some Public Broadcasting System (PBS) stations throughout the United States as a part of their "Independent Lens" series of programs. Because PBS does not accept commercial advertisements, programming on this network is paid for through grants from various corporate sources, public and private foundations, and individual funding. Programming on PBS always discloses the sources of funding for it's shows at the time of the program's airing, as well as on the PBS website. An examination of the PBS website lists the following as providing major funding for Knocking: Walter Zaremba Gunther Reibling New York Community Trust A further examination of the Knocking website shows the following list of supporters at the bottom of each page: Independent Television Service Corporation for Public Broadcasting Reibling Foundation Note the name "Reibling" on both sites as a major contributor for the production of this program. A quick search on the internet found a connection between Gunther Reibling, the Reibling Foundation, and the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society on the Boston College website. Further research reveals the establishment of the Laura and Lorenz Reibling Family Foundation of Boston, Massachusetts as a charitable organization some time after Knocking had been funded. According to the website of Taurus Investment Holdings, Lorenz Reibling is the brother of Gunther Reibling. Unconfirmed sources we consider trusted and reliable believe both Reibling brothers to be practicing Jehovah's Witnesses. Whether or not this is true, the Reibling family does associate with people who have close ties to the Watchtower. An online bio of Lorenz Reibling states the following: Lorenz Reibling, Chairman, Taurus Investment Holdings Lorenz is Chairman and a principal of Taurus Investment Holdings, LLC. As cofounder of Taurus, Lorenz has been responsible for the acquisition and/or development of over 100 commercial real estate projects throughout the United States since 1976. He regularly participates as co-investor in Taurus-sponsored real estate transactions. In 1966, Lorenz completed an apprenticeship as Industriekaufmann at Obpacher AG, a Weyerhauser-affiliated, Munich-based printing and publishing plant. Lorenz subsequently graduated from Munchen-Kolleg and attended Technische Universitat and Ludwigs-Maximilians Universitat, earning degrees in Cybernetics and Psychology. His early research on personality changes in heart transplant patients was conducted at University Hospital Munich Grosshadern. After immigration to America he received a MS from Boston College in Organizational Management with focus on maximizing intellectual capital. He has attended and completed specialized courses at MIT and Harvard on real estate related subjects. Mr. Reibling's early career included employment with multinational corporations such as Hoechst (Cassella Riedl), American Hospital Supply Corporation, and CPI Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. specializing in sophisticated cardiac stimulation appliances. Mr. Reibling is a full member of the AHI Angel Healthcare Investor Group, The Massachusetts Historical Society, Friends of the Kunstakademie Munchen, and supporter of numerous philantropic organizations. He was appointed to the advisory board of MIT/CRE (Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Center for Real Estate). As a collector of 15th-16th century Bibles and Reformation literature, Mr. Reibling has initiated and co-sponsored significant research and exhibition projects, such as "The Art of the Book: A journey through a Thousand Years" and "Confront: Resistance against Nazi Terror." He is fluent in German, English, Spanish and Italian. His residency is in the United States with homes in Massachusetts and Florida. He is married for 26 years with three adult children. It is startling to note that Lorenz Reibling conducted research on "personality transplants" at around the same time that the Watchtower was teaching that organ transplantation was a disfellowshippable offense due to it's being considered cannibalism and a risk for the patient taking on the personality of the donor. Some time later, the Watchtower lifted the restriction against organ transplants, but failed to invite back the disfellowshipped members who had "sinned" by having life-saving surgery, but "went ahead of Jehovah" by doing so before the ban was lifted. Another way to trace the Reiblings' association with the Watchtower is by doing an internet search on the other name that appears on the PBS website as a provider of major funding: Walter Zaremba. A search on the internet revealed the docket of a federal court case: BIELERT v. NORTHERN OHIO PROPERTIES [No. 87-4031, 1988 WL 125357, at *5 (6th Cir. 1988)] was a 1988 federal lawsuit in which David Bielert alleged that he suffered employment discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because he was not a Jehovah's Witness. Northern Ohio Properties was a subsidiary of Zaremba Corporation, owned by Tim Zaremba, Walter Zaremba, and other members of the Zaremba family. The Zaremba family are Jehovah's Witnesses, and many of the investors and employees of the related corporations are believed to be Jehovah's Witnesses. Zaremba is linked to Reibling by a man named Aaron Gibitz who has worked for both Taurus (Reibling) and Zaremba: From March 2002 to the present, Mr. Gibitz has been a consultant to Taurus Investment Group,Inc., based in Deerfield Beach, Florida. Taurus invest in real estate and has other business interest including health and wellness consumer products and media/technology. From March 1997 through March 2002, Mr. Gibitz was an executive with Zaremba Management, based in Independence, Ohio.. ---------------- Westbrook declined to comment, but public records show the company paid $60 million for the 12-story building overlooking the Brooklyn Heights Promenade with views of the city. The Watchtower Society of The Jehovah’s Witnesses sold the building at 169 Columbia Heights for $50 million in 2007 to the Boston-based Taurus Investment Holdings, which converted it into 94 luxury apartment rentals shortly thereafter. [Taurus Investments is a Reibling company] ------------------ Then again, these amounts are only a small percentage of the real estate deals the Reiblings have been involved with. I found this in the New York Times: NYT: But building is not without risks, according to Lorenz Reibling, who came here from Germany a decade ago, and whose company, Taurus Investments Group of Boca Raton, Fla., typically averages one $5 million deal a month, bringing German and Swiss equity partners into American real estate. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/15/realestate/in-the-nation-foreign-investors-step-into-more-active-roles.html?pagewanted=all Don't know if you can still do this, but after Knocking came out, I looked up names on LinkedIn for the companies involved and was able to confirm a network of JWs involved.