JW Insider
-
Posts
7,727 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
450
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by JW Insider
-
-
21 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:
Can't see a crown of thorns on the stake picture in WT 1 Feb 1991 p 9
It was never consistent, and there were more examples without it. There are several pictures from the 80's that do not show it. There are several pictures that also tend to use solid black hair, sometimes even with a "spiky" hair style (when on the stake) that tends to make the picture ambiguous. Also in the January 15, 1992 p.11, (the only such WT picture that year) there is no crown of thorns unless it's hidden in dark hair. (The picture is small.) But in the June 1, 1993 issue, page 10, issue the next year, it's back again while Jesus is dragging the stake. Also, the crown of thorns made the cover very prominently on the July 1, 1993 issue (and p.17), but this is in front of Pilate.
-
I already replied to this topic.
-
On 8/28/2016 at 9:02 PM, Witness said:
JWInsider, do you have a comment? I have read some of your reasoning and find it "perceptive".
Sorry to disappoint. lol. I have no "perceptive" comments to make on this. I'll take a guess, below, but first, a small clarification:
On 8/25/2016 at 5:01 PM, Witness said:In all pictures of Christ when dying, he is depicted in the Watchtower magazines without the crown of thorns.
This isn't true. Unless you are speaking only of current magazines, after the 1990's. While I was at Bethel we still had file cabinets with a lot of the old artwork and there were several pictures of Jesus with the crown of thorns, not just in front of Pilate, but also while on the "torture stake" or on his way to the place of execution, while dragging the stake. I don't know if they all had been used in print, but I remember seeing a few of them in print, and I remember seeing at least one or two more in the 1990's.
But here is my guess. The Art Dept at Bethel gets the articles from Writing with requests for appropriate artwork. The artists makes two or three sketches which go back to the Writing Dept. A choice from the sketches is made and when the art is finished it gets incorporated into the page layout of the article. Almost no Biblical or historical research went into most of the old artwork from the 1950's to the 1970's, but since the 1980's the organization has become more and more sophisticated with research.
As you might imagine, when I was there, the Art Dept rarely got questioned about anything, and rarely had to redo artwork with one exception: pictures of Jesus. Pictures of Jesus got scrutinized outside the Art Dept, and sometimes the discussion went beyond the writer and editor. (By "editor" I mean someone like Rusk, Swingle, Barry, or Adams in the 70's and 80's.) A couple members of the GB worked in the Writing Dept and they might be questioned if pictures of Jesus were taking on a different quality from previous pictures.
There were a few things you could never do with Jesus. You couldn't give him even a hint of a hooked nose, and he always had straight hair, never curly (dark brown or black). You should make him "handsome" and with slightly above average muscles. We don't do this any more, but we used to avoid any pictures of blood and wounds after he was whipped or while on the stake. (See the picture in the Knowledge book for an example.) By 1978, we settled on a Bethelite as a "model" for Jesus' face and used that same general likeness for every picture for several years.
Just a few years before, artists weren't allowed (for about 30 years) to give Jesus a beard . And that fact alone probably explains the problem with the crown of thorns, too. It makes Jesus look too much like the pictures that "Christendom" produces. This should be pretty clear when you just take a look at the comments made over the years about the crown of thorns:
These articles came out when we still depicted the crown of thorns on the stake:
*** w56 4/15 p. 251 par. 14 Gaining the Prize of Life by Active Training Now ***
He was stripped of his clothes, nailed to the stake, wearing on his head a crown of thorns.
*** w81 5/15 pp. 20-21 pars. 15-16 The Kingdom—Is It Real to You? ***
There is no indication that Jesus tried to remove that crown of thorns. It remained on his head, and that served to highlight the issue at stake. No one was to be left in doubt.
*** w91 1/1 p. 9 “Look! The Man!” ***
After this torturous beating, Jesus is taken into the governor’s palace, and the whole body of troops is called together. There the soldiers heap further abuse on him by braiding a crown of thorns and pushing it down on his head. They put a reed in his right hand, and they clothe him with a purple garment, the type worn by royalty. Then they say to him mockingly: “Good day, you King of the Jews!” Also, they spit on him and slap him in the face. Taking the sturdy reed from his hand, they use it to hit him on the head, driving even further into his scalp the sharp thorns of his humiliating “crown.” [In 1991 we still drew the crown of thorns worn on the execution stake, the "driving further" might have helped someone rationalize that it stayed there throughout the entire ordeal. Also, it's sometimes drawn as a kind of brambly thistle which would be difficult to remove from the hair.]
The following types of statements underscore the sensitivity to depictions of Jesus that make him appear too much like those of Christendom:
*** sl chap. 3 pp. 42-43 par. 29 A Transformed Messiah with Whom Politicians Must Cope ***
By their crucifixes and their church Masses the clergy of Christendom have caused the political element of the world to view Jesus Christ as a bedraggled figure. They claim that at his ascending to heaven he even took along with him the human body in which he was nailed to the stake, still bearing the scratches of the crown of thorns in his forehead and the gory nail holes in his hands and feet and the spear gash in his side.
*** sl chap. 3 p. 30 par. 2 A Transformed Messiah with Whom Politicians Must Cope ***
2 Political rulers, especially those of Christendom, are more or less familiar with the Gospel accounts of the earthly life of Jesus Christ. Likely the most familiar mental picture that they have of him is that presented by many religious artists, that of a Jesus with drawn facial features beneath a crown of thorns, nailed hand and foot to a cross. Little, or, rather, not at all, do the political rulers of today count on having a confrontation with Jesus Christ as a mighty heavenly King all equipped to fight with his earthly enemies. To their utter amazement, it will be a transformed Messiah whom they will have to confront shortly.
*** ip-2 chap. 14 p. 198 par. 11 Jehovah Exalts His Messianic Servant *** [This quote is from 2000, which was the same year when a picture was made that explicitly removes the crown of thorns while Jesus made his way to Golgotha, the place of execution.]
11 Today the misrepresentation of Jesus continues. Most people picture Jesus as a babe in a manger or as a tragic figure nailed to a cross, with his face distorted in agony under a crown of thorns. Christendom’s clergy have encouraged such views.
-
Thanks for the response. I'm not arguing for the correctness of the list or the Wikipedia quote. I barely skimmed the list. But if you have found differences, some here might find those interesting, too.
-
On 3/23/2016 at 0:29 PM, Mr_VHC@WNF said:
this Wikipedia list differs in many parts from our list on the WT Library CDRom
The WT Library CD-ROM list is not intended to be a comprehensive list of doctrinal changes. It's from the "Index of Watch Tower Publications" (since 1985), and its purpose is to show which particular changes happened to be mentioned in print after 1985. Notice that about 110 years of Watch Tower publications (references from 1875-1985) are missing from that list. There was another such list made in the 1935-1985 Index, but again this was not comprehensive, and was intended to mention only the changes that had come up for discussion (in print) during that same period. Also, there were several changes to doctrines made that were not referenced specifically as a change which usually meant that the Index had no reason to mention them.
- The Librarian and lentaylor71
-
1
-
1
-
The article says:
Those most affected are Muslims, Protestant Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses who can be punished for offering religious literature the state has not approved in places the state has not permitted, talking about their beliefs with other people without state permission, or meeting for worship without state permission. The power to impose summary fines without initial due process was first given to police in 2015.
Interesting that they are aware enough of our beliefs that they do not list us along with the "Protestant" churches. Can't tell whether that's a good thing or a bad thing though. I believe the [Russian] Orthodox church is not considered Protestant in Kazakhstan. At least they don't tie us to Muslims, even though our talk of "theocracy" might sound similar, and our promotion of a time when the whole world will become Jehovah's Witnesses might sound like a "caliphate."
The worst part of their system of control is the fact that they give so much power to local police. This means that a local police force can feel empowered beyond what the state would allow, when that local force is biased against Baptist missionaries (who are known for smuggling Bibles in and proselytizing) or biased against JWs (also known for "Western" literature and proselytizing).
-
6 hours ago, JW Insider said:
The Jews in Zechariah's day also understood that this was a 70-year period (about 587 BCE to about 518 BCE). The events were too close in their memory in Zechariah's time to have made the 20-year mistake that we have made today. In any case it shows that persons living in Zechariah's day understood that there were NOT 70 years from the destruction of Jerusalem to the second year of Cyrus, as the Watchtower has traditionally claimed:
Another thought on this is that some people remembered both temples. They remembered the old one destroyed 70 years earlier, according to Zechariah, and were celebrating the dedication of the new temple in Zechariah's and Haggai's time. Of course, the Watchtower's tradition that this was a 90-year period instead of 70 means that these same people who were celebrating were likely about 96-100 years old or more. Since the Bible says that a lifespan was 70, or 80 only "by special mightiness" it is surprising that nothing more was said about these persons of super "special mightiness" who were nearly 100 years old or more. (And survived the ravages of war and forced travel as prisoners and exile and long travel back at an advanced age.)
Of course, if Zechariah was right that these persons were more likely only 75 to 80 or more, then it's understandable that there could have been quite a few of them.
- (Psalm 90:10) 10 In themselves the days of our years are seventy years; And if because of special mightiness they are eighty years,. . .
- (Ezra 3:12, 13) 12 Many of the priests, the Levites, and the heads of the paternal houses—the old men who had seen the former house—wept with a loud voice when they saw the foundation of this house being laid, while many others shouted joyfully at the top of their voice. 13 So the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shouts from the sound of the weeping, for the people were shouting so loudly that the sound was heard from a great distance.
Note, from Ezra, that there are enough of the 75-85 year olds (per Zechariah) that their loud weeping competes with the loud cries of joyfulness. If these were really 95-105 year olds (per current teaching) among the remnant who came back, then it is less likely that such a small mumber in this "remnant" of a "remnant" would really have been able to compete in volume.
-
20 hours ago, Kurt said:
Apo-states and other opposers argue that Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 BCE, but in 587 BCE
It's not just apostates and other opposers who would say that the destruction of Jerusalem was within a year or two of 587 BCE.
It's easily about 99% of everyone who has studied the currently available archaeology and the evidence. There is still no evidence that it could be anywhere near 607 BCE. The idea of 607 was promoted by some Adventists who influenced C.T.Russell to accept the date. Today only JWs and a few remaining Russellites and Adventists hold to a date near 607. In fact, over the years, even Adventists who have studied the evidence have had to become "apostates" to their original Adventist belief.
Also, there were at least 3 members of the Governing Body, at least one since 1974 and at least one since 1978 who also didn't believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607, and at least one who later admitted he had problems with that belief while writing the Aid Book article on chronology (admitting this in a book from around 1983 after being disfellowshipped.) There was at least one additional member of the GB who may or may not have believed in 607 but who didn't believe we were correct in saying that the generation had started counting in 1914. I worked for that same "one additional member" from 1977 to 1982. In 1980, he was able to get the two other members of the GB Chairman's committee to sign onto a proposal that would have moved the start of "that generation" from 1914 to 1957. That would have brought the total members of the GB who had in some way expressed doubts about 1914 from 4 to 6. There may have been others, but I have never heard that any others had said anything to anyone, if that were the case.
I knew the beliefs of two of these GB members personally, and learned of one other from his book after he was disfellowshipped. A very close friend and confidant told me of the beliefs of the 4th member.
I have no idea what the current members of the Governing Body believe about 1914 and/or 607 BCE, but I do personally know one member of the current Writing Department who does not believe that either of those dates are related to Daniel's prophecy.
I know that the implication that it's "apostates and other opposers" actually comes from the link you provided where that same wording is used in the introduction. But I don't believe it is right, because it implies that even members of the Governing Body could be counted among these same apostates and opposers.
Also, I should add that those links you provided are full of false claims, false information, and specious reasoning.
- Ann O'Maly and HollyW
-
2
-
Wow! Ann! Much appreciated.
I started to work out a post like yours, but didn't have time yesterday. Even if I had, it wouldn't have been as good and not half as complete. Also, I got bogged down in finding some other interesting material. I even read about half of a book called:
The Bodleian Manuscript of Jerome's Version of the Chronicles of Eusebius
It was most interesting in the introduction where it discussed the state of the extant manuscripts and how closely they came to going all the way back to manuscripts that were written in a hand that matched the time of Jerome himself. It's easy to forget that everyone worked from copies, and errors sometimes creep in. But sometimes these types of errors can be corrected when there are at least two "families" of copies and translations of Josephus, or two major manuscripts of Eusebius. (The translation of Eusebius from the old Armenian copy is excellent: http://www.attalus.org/armenian/euseb2.htm by Robert Bedrosian.)Eusebius' Chronicle - The Chaldean Chronicle
Of course, Eusebius (4th century - Constantine) compared some of these same discrepancies among the classical historians. Some of the items that Eusebius reviewed get directly to the point that the Watchtower ultimately wishes to make about the 70 years. In his section quoting Josephus, he is able to show that Josephus is in agreement with the Bible chronology:
Nebuchadnezzar . . . . He had reigned for 43 years. His son Amel-Marduk took the kingship. . . He was murdered by his sister's husband, Neriglissar, after ruling for two years. Then that Neriglissar, who had committed the murder, held power for four years. The latter's son Labesorachus ruled as a child for nine months. . . . After his murder, the conspirators . . .placed . . . Nabonidus on the throne. . . . Now in the 17th year of his reign, Cyrus [g72] came from Persia with an enormous army with which he conquered all the other kingdoms. . . . . After Cyrus had taken Babylon, he ordered that the city's outer wall be razed to the ground because of its [effective] fortification and the trouble it had presented [to him] in capturing the city.
This is all true and in accord with our literature, which states that in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar our temple was destroyed, and remained ruined for 50 years. In the second year of the kingship of Cyrus the foundations were laid and in the sixth year of Darius' reign it was completed.
That "50 years" is the same period for which the Watchtower has traditionally assigned a period of "70 years." (Eusebius: c. 587 - c. 537 B.C.E.) The temptation to make that same mistake goes back many years because the temple destruction seems like a more definitive event from which to start counting the 70 years, instead of counting it from closer to the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's rule. Just a couple of sections back when Eusebius is reviewing Polyhistor's account, he makes a specific point to note that the beginning of the 70 years must begin with the start of Nebuchadnezzar, not the 18th year. (i.e., 19 years prior to the temple destruction).
The account chronologically is in harmony with what is [g43] written in Scripture. According to Polyhistor, Sennacherib ruled during the period of Hezekiah for 18 years; his son succeeded him for 8 years; Sammuges followed, for 21 years; followed by his brother, for 21 years. Then Nabupalasar ruled for 20 years, followed by Nebuchadnezzar, for 43 years. From Sennacherib up to Nebuchadnezzar the regnal years total 88.
If one examines Hebrew writings, nearly the same [information] will be found. For following Hezekiah, his son Manasseh ruled over the remaining Hebrews for 55 years. Then Amos [ruled] for 12 years, followed by Josiah, followed by Jehoiakim. At the beginning of the latter's reign, Nebuchadnezzar came and besieged Jerusalem and took the Jews captive to Babylon. From Hezekiah to Nebuchadnezzar there are 88 years, just as Polyhistor calculated from the Chaldean sources.
. . .Then Nebuchadnezzar ruled for 43 years. He massed troops and came and took captive the Jews, Phoenicians, and Assyrians. Since the Hebrew sources are in harmony with Polyhistor here, there is no need to elaborate.
Following Nebuchadnezzar, his son Amilmarudochus [Amil-Marduk] ruled for 12 years. . . . After him, Polyhistor says, Neglisarus ruled the Chaldeans for 4 years, followed by Nabodenus for 17 years. It was during his reign that Cambyses' son, Cyrus, massed troops and came against the country of the Babylonians.
Berosus described the Chaldean kings briefly one by one, and so does Polyhistor. Now it is quite clear that from the time when Nebuchadnezzar massed troops and took the Jews captive until the time of Cyrus' rule over the Persians, 70 years had transpired. Hebrew history also confirms this, considering that they had been in captivity for 70 years, reckoning [that event] from the first year of Nebuchadnezzar until the time of Cyrus, king of the Persians.
Eusebius was able to add up the 88 years from Senacherib to Nebuchadnezzar and check it against the Bible account correctly. So he must have also been able to check that from the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar to the 2nd year of Cyrus was about 70 years. Yet, Polyhistor is listed in Eusebius as having 12 years for Amel-Marduk instead of two which would make this same period about 80 years. But since he elsewhere noted that Amel-Marduk ruled only two years, and he summarizes the total as if it says only 2 years, then it's clear that there is a copyist error that crept in somewhere.
(If Amil-Marduk's reign may have been documented somewhere as only about 18 months, this could also explain the "18" in the Josephus column, but we also know that Eusebius quotes Josephus above as having correctly listed it as only 2 years. So in either case a copyist error is obvious.)
The potential to assume 70 years instead of 50 from the destruction of Jerusalem to the first couple of years of the reign of Cyrus is a mistake with a long tradition among Jewish Bible commentators, and it was easily fixed by historians who looked at the specifics more closely, which of course included the work of Berossus who actually lived in Babylon only a few hundred years after these events, and who could also read the cuneiform writing.
Some interesting footnotes in the book here https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0567629309 in the section on "Priestly Chronology of the World." on page 40 and 41 showing that some Jewish traditions had shown confusion over the 50 and 70 year periods so that later Jewish tradition moved the 70 years "desolation" from the destruction to the foundation in the second year of Darius, not Cyrus using Zechariah 1:1. Footnote 30 says:
- Bimson is incorrect . . . 2 Chronicles 36:21; the previous verse refers to the prophecies of Jeremiah. However the Jeremiah passages which refer to ta period of 70 years ascribe this to the total duration of Babylonian domination, which followed Nebuchadnezzar's victory at Charchemish in 605 ('the fourth year of Jehoiakim).
See also the comments on page 78 of his book: https://books.google.com/books?isbn=9004117911
Of course, one of the most interesting types of corrections is when the author makes it himself in a later attempt to address the same chronology. You mention this with Josephus when he wrote "Against Apion." Previously he had assumed, evidently, that 70 years had transpired from the time of the destruction of Jerusalem to Cyrus, but after all these years of writing and reviewing sources like Berossus, he made a correction -- and even stated that the source was already to be found in various other Jewish books, too. The direct quote from Josephus (not just through Eusebius) is in "Against Apion" Book 1, 21: (found here: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/apion-1.html )
Josephus' Against Apion
These accounts agree with the true histories in our books. For in them it is written, that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, (16) laid our temple desolate; and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years. But that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus, its foundations were laid; and it was finished again in the second year of Darius.
The second year of Darius was considered to be 70 years later, so this was a solution that addressed the confusion over tying a 70-year period to two important events betwen the temple destruction and the restoration of the Jews by Cyrus (the second year of Cyrus). The Jews in Zechariah's day also understood that this was a 70-year period (about 587 BCE to about 518 BCE). The events were too close in their memory in Zechariah's time to have made the 20-year mistake that we have made today. In any case it shows that persons living in Zechariah's day understood that there were NOT 70 years from the destruction of Jerusalem to the second year of Cyrus, as the Watchtower has traditionally claimed:
The Bible - Zechariah
(Zechariah 1:1-16) 1 In the eighth month in the second year of Da·riʹus, the word of Jehovah came to the prophet Zech·a·riʹah son of Ber·e·chiʹah son of Idʹdo, saying: 2 “Jehovah grew greatly indignant at your fathers. . . . 7 On the 24th day of the 11th month, that is, the month of Sheʹbat, in the second year of Da·riʹus, the word of Jehovah came to the prophet Zech·a·riʹah son of Ber·e·chiʹah son of Idʹdo, saying: . . .12 So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?” . . .16 “Therefore this is what Jehovah says: ‘“I will return to Jerusalem with mercy, and my own house will be built in her,” declares Jehovah of armies, “and a measuring line will be stretched out over Jerusalem.”’
Because of the 20-year mistake required to make the 607 BCE date work, the Watchtower has been forced to claim that this period that the angel of Jehovah called "70 years" (587-518) was actually about "90 years" (607 - 518).
-
I just checked out JW Advisors and Opposers Dismythed. I didn't read much of the content yet, but I like the overall look and navigation of both sites. They are very well designed, and I also like the kinds of questions that are being addressed.
-
19 hours ago, Jay Witness said:
Add 2 or 12 or 18 years
It's very easy to be misled by the chart, because it was only looking for the major areas of disagreement. In fact the chart should have had at least 10 columns that would show the many ways in which we find agreement among historical and archaeological sources. The idea that we even need to care what classical historians said about the Babylonian period can also be misleading. That's because we have contemporary records (thousands of them) that already give us a complete picture of the Neo-Babylonian chronology. On average, we dozens of documents from EACH YEAR of the reign of EACH king of the Neo-Babylonian period from Nebuchadnezzar through Nabonidus. We also have BABYLONIAN official records, and additional banking/commerce records that summarize the entire period.
So literally THOUSANDS of sources already give us a complete picture of the chronology of the period. We do not need to rely on Josephus or Ptolemy or Berossus or Polyhistor.
Of course, if anyone is interested, it turns out that all these thousands of contemporary sources create the exact same picture and summary given by Berossus and Ptolemy, which are in perfect agreement in the above chart.
Also, not that it should matter, but it turns out that Josephus is in agreement with Berossus and Ptolemy, too. I might add another post to show why.
-
Very good! Thanks.
-
5 hours ago, JWTheologian said:
The ultimate answer, is we need Gods government to succeed this broken system, not prolong it by mindless ideology.
I agree with much of what you have said in your post. The areas where we disagree the most have been discussed earlier and I have no need to discuss them with you any further until you have tried to answer the scriptural reasons that were brought up at the time. Besides, those discussions mostly touch on subjects that are not of much concern in this current topic.
Consider:
*** w95 6/15 pp. 21-22 “Sacred Service With Your Power of Reason” ***
Slaves of God and Christ, Not of Men
13 Elders have to allow those under their care to use their power of reason. The members of the congregation are not slaves of men. “If I were yet pleasing men,” wrote Paul, “I would not be Christ’s slave.” (Galatians 1:10; Colossians 3:23, 24) In contrast, the Pharisees wanted people to believe that it was more important to gain the approval of men than that of God. (Matthew 23:2-7; John 12:42, 43) The Pharisees took it upon themselves to become moral dictators who formed their own rules and then judged others by how well they measured up. Those who followed the Pharisees were weakened in the use of their Bible-trained conscience, in effect becoming slaves of men.
14 Christian elders today know that the flock is not principally accountable to them. Each Christian must carry his or her own load. (Romans 14:4; 2 Corinthians 1:24; Galatians 6:5) This is as it should be. Indeed, if members of the flock were to be slaves of men, obeying simply because of being monitored, what would they do when those men were not around? Paul had reason for joy over the Philippians: “In the way that you have always obeyed, not during my presence only, but now much more readily during my absence, keep working out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” They were truly slaves of Christ, and not of Paul.—Philippians 2:12.
-
2 hours ago, JWTheologian said:
There seems to be a pattern of that here.
Agreed.
2 hours ago, JWTheologian said:The fact that you stipulate the WTS hide things, is not congruent to scripture.
Strange. I assume that you would stipulate that Brother Jackson was telling the truth at the ARC. Then you are also stipulating that WTS hides things, since he admitted as much. Welcome to the club. Of course, it's not even wrong to hide some things. There is often a good purpose for confidentiality and sometimes even secrecy. My concern about the topic at hand is that hiding some things for the purpose of saving a reputation can hurt it in the long run. This is based on Jesus' words:
(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.
If we really love the brotherhood, then we will candidly and honestly admit and address both the good and the faults, too. This will help us improve faster, and move on from embarrassing situations that have recently come to light.
2 hours ago, JWTheologian said:Just because you were at the Bethel House, doesn't make you an expert.
That's correct. You'd be jumping to conclusions if you thought that it did. You'd be jumping to conclusions if you thought that I thought that it did.
2 hours ago, JWTheologian said:You weren't privy to all the inner workings of the Bethel House.
That's absolutely correct.
2 hours ago, JWTheologian said:So your exaggeration is not different than any other person here that criticizes the WTS.
You'd be jumping to conclusions if you thought I was exaggerating. I can only tell as much as I've learned. After all, I wasn't privy to all the inner workings of the Bethel House. There might be much more to tell, but that's for someone else to tell if they wish. I can only relate what I've learned. I should add that I have held back from telling many, many stories and experiences that you might apparently find unbelievable. I think if people knew some of the things I could tell from personal experience that many of us would have a healthier view of Jehovah's overall organization. We'd be more humble, and our message could be even more appealing to many people. But it's not true that everyone is ready to respond positively to true information that humbles us and makes us even better appreciate Jehovah's work with us.
2 hours ago, JWTheologian said:I don't expect you to defend the WTS, but then again, don't lie about them either. That's what you do when you agree with "thespians" here.
There are times when we need to agree with the "thespians" (actors). You probably remember (from a previous post you responded to) that Charles Taze Russell published this idea in the very first issue of the Watchtower. We all know about the good that the WTS does, and the good name that it still holds around the world. But many of the persons who complain about certain processes and systems of doctrine do so because they sincerely believe something should change. Almost every change that has been made in recent years has been a change that some persons somewhere had brought up previously in a complaint or a question or sometimes even from someone who "raised a stink" over the way they were personally or conscientiously "hurt." When these things are considered humbly, we often find ways to improve. Not all of them of course, but in just a few of them. These are the topic areas that I am also interested in, because I love the international brotherhood, and I want to see what is "approved" become evident. Here's one way to put it:
(1 Corinthians 11:18-19) 18 For first of all, I hear that when you come together in a congregation, divisions exist among you; and to an extent I believe it. 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident.
According to the Bible, then, even divisions and sects can serve a good purpose when we are humble enough to learn from them.
-
12 hours ago, HollyW said:
Well, would an allegation made by a victim to you be a complaint that you'd definitely report to the police?
With only a few exceptions. I'm not going to get into details, but I'm sure I could manage to get whatever is necessary reported to the proper authorities and also meet the obligations of the congregation.
-
1 hour ago, HollyW said:
Direct evidence? Do you mean an eye-witness? Are you excluding suspected abuse then?
I do not mean just eye-witness evidence; after all, eye-witness or video evidence is rare. I mean "direct" in the sense that the case, or a confession, or complaint, were brought directly to my attention.
Having spoken at some length with a couple of abuse victims, I also know that behavior and trust characteristics on the part of the victim can also be evidence, but I am no expert in such difficulties. I'm talking about persons who suspect that a child has been abused, or when parents, guardians, or the child himself/herself makes the claim, or an adult makes a claim about a past case of abuse (or series of abuses) when they were a child.
At this point, the suspicion may not even deal with who is suspected of being the perpetrator (although this is usually part of the accusation). Parents don't want to believe a relative or spouse can be guilty, and often refuse to suspect the right person, or even provide evidence that they suppress psychologically or purposefully. The remaining evidence is often just the claim of a victim, and it often comes to light many years after the abuse occurred -- and by this time memories and projections and confusion will often need to be factored in. There are cases when an abused person, years later, will even blame the wrong person, sometimes a parent who was only indirectly responsible through negligence or suppression of obvious clues. Also, victims often go through stages of behavior after abuse that make them vulnerable to multiple abusers through their lives, and dealing with the painful memories of multiple abusers is often a factor that leads to mistaken memories. And sometimes it's a very simple matter, even if it happened years ago. Sometimes there is a diary, or letters to a parent, relative, or friend. Often there is the evidence that shows up when an accused perpetrator moves to another congregation, and new accusations come to light in the next congregation, or a search into his background shows up previously unreported accusations from a prior congregation.
These complexities just point out that we need all the help we can get in such situations. Whether the evidence is recent or from years ago, we still need to inform the authorities as quickly as possible. We need all the help we can get from persons trained to investigate such matters. (Romans 13)
-
On 8/18/2016 at 5:44 PM, JWTheologian said:
your as ignorant as your rant JWinsider. Have you ever considered, that Allen Smith is my Brother? Proverbs 13:16
16Every prudent man acts with knowledge, But a fool displays folly.
Now, what were you saying some time ago, about such experiments being a kind of “Deception”. I see you don’t heed you own words JWinsider. And you call yourself an ex-bethelite. Buddy, you should have been disfellowshipped long ago!!!!
Yes. I already considered the possibility that Allen Smith is your brother or even that Allen is your sister or grandmother. I even thought of using the expression "your twin" in an ambiguous way so that it would cover a few other possibilities. But it was a minor slip-up you made among your uses of the same names over on jw-archive that made me feel confident enough to dismiss these options as unnecessary speculation. We all end up living more of our life by the principle of "Occam's razor" than we probably realize. If you get up to go to the restroom during a talk at the regional convention and come back in 5 minutes (or come back in 20 minutes if it's the ladies room) and you hear the same voice and see the same face on the stage and hear the same topic being discussed with the same tone and same vocabulary, you don't assume that the speaker might have been replaced in the last 5 minutes with an identical twin or triplet or quadruplet while you were out, do you? Yet, it's a distinct possibility.
The experiment was not a deception at all. Claiming that I said something a long time ago about experiments being a kind of "deception" truly is a deception. Experiments aimed at learning are, in some ways therefore, the opposite of deception; it's the very basis of the scientific method to avoid deception.
Also, you gave evidence of confusion in some other previous posts, not understanding why your ad hominem's are sometimes pointed out to be ad hominem's. So, I'll use your post as an opportunity to point out a couple of Latin phrases based on the last two sentences in your post above:
non sequitur: "And you call yourself an ex-bethelite."
ad hominem: "Buddy, you should have been disfellowshipped long ago!!!"
-
3 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:
I thought the sauna/pool incidents you mentioned you had previously attibuted to someone else you had described as "the oracle." Percy Chapman perhaps?
If I called him the "Oracle" it's only because I was avoiding using his name. It was still Freddy Franz. You should be able to confirm from several sources that it was ONLY Freddy Franz who was ever called the Oracle at Bethel. Percy Chapman was homosexual, and I'm told this was well-known by all the personnel at the Canadian Bethel, but he was before my time. It didn't seem to bother anyone the way it might today.
-
17 hours ago, HollyW said:
Does that mean that if you found out a JW had abused a child, would you go to the police or the elders, or maybe both?
If I had direct evidence that a JW had committed a serious crime (murder, rape, child physical abuse, child sexual abuse). I would definitely report it to the police. My wife, as a school principal has had to report several such instances, even of suspected child physical and/or sexual abuse, because she has always worked in very large school districts, where she has had an obligation under the law to do so..One of those instances involved a JW parent. I have never witnessed or seen direct evidence of a JW committing a serious crime.
I guess, to be totally honest, I should explain what I mean by "serious crime.".I don't consider a typical spanking the same as child physical abuse although I have seen some borderline situations, but have never reported them. In almost 50 years as a baptized JW, I have also heard many admissions of guilt in a congregation setting (admission of smoking, abortion, adultery, etc. - against such things there is no "law."). Outside the judicial setting I have learned of financial fraud, insurance fraud, welfare fraud, shoplifting, theft of services, returning used clothing as new, etc. I have never reported such things to secular authorities, and only reported to the congregation in one case when I knew it was another brother defrauded, and "we" (mostly "I") took it to the other brother first. In these cases, I expressed my personal disapproval, offered scriptural counsel, recommended confession to the elders, and recommended ways to make amends. I do not think that every such case needs to be reported to the congregation (elder body) by me personally.
When a Bethelite robbed me of a couple hundred dollars, I took it to his congregation elders, not Bethel elders, after warning him that he had 2 months to pay me back. (The kinds of things I believe Paul had in mind that the congregation could try to handle without going to court are internal cases of financial and property fraud between brothers.)
I have turned in a lecherous photographer to park authorities, who was obviously focusing on getting lascivious pictures up little girls' dresses and that sort of thing. I'm almost 100% sure he was not a JW, but it never occurred to me. I would not have asked and it would not have made a difference.
-
4 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:
Who's 'we'? Your duplicate accounts don't count.
LOL! Hilarious response to AllenSmith (and JWTheologian).
I was thinking about the reasons for the use of duplicate accounts by Allen. Anyone here who has the IP address displayed already knows for a fact that AllenSmith and JWTheologian are the same person. Not that anyone actually needed specific evidence since Allen has also used these same two names (among a couple of others) in the JW-Archive forum. And he ties them together with a unique vocabulary including the same misspellings, and the unique use of words like "recreants" etc.
But what actually ties them together even more clearly is the fact that he regularly resorts to using the language of abuse and bullying. On the jw-archive forum, in fact, his new names were used specifically so he could continue his abusive behavior when prior user names had reached the limits of the abuse allowed by moderators.
I did a little experiment with Allen that might seem either funny, revealing or embarrassing. I'll explain below:
As many people know, Allen's prime use of the two names on this forum is not so much to allow him to hide his abusive behavior. After all, both names are still in use, both have been equally abusive, and I'm sure that AllenSmith is aware that the two names don't really fool anyone here who is involved in dialogue with him.
In fact (and this may be the primary use) both names: AllenSmith and JWTheologian have been used to bolster the reputation of each other. AllenSmith very often give "likes" or a "reputations" to his own posts of both names. And JWTheologian has also given "likes" or "reputations" to his own posts of both names. In fact, for most of his posts that have been given a like or reputation, he is the only one who likes them.
Knowing this, I wondered how important that self-made reputation was to Allen. I decided to give a "Down-vote" as a "reputation" which hurts AllenSmith's and JWTheologian's overall numerical "reputation." But I only gave that "down-vote" to a small number of his posts. (In fact there have been a couple of posts in the past where I have given a "like".) I only down-voted a few of the posts where AllenSmith and/or JWTheologian had already boosted his own reputation by giving himself an up-vote AND where he was being nasty, abusive, or was clearly using an ad hominem.
The experiment worked. Both AllenSmith and JWTheologian quickly came back at past posts of mine under several topic areas. He left some with a "minus one" reputation and some where he just knocked a point off the overall count where others had already up-voted my post.
It seemed a bit ironic in topics like this one where one of the sub-topics is a discussion of how and why a society or entity will cover up abuse for the sake of "reputation." My own view has always been that I should do my best, where possible, to expose this kind of problem, whether I would learn of evidence of it in a local high school, or a sleazy photographer surreptitiously taking pictures of children in our local park, or even our own Organization. Exposure is the best solution that most of us can help with.
And now, I've also done my small part to expose the abuses of an individual perpetrating abuse, ad hominem and bullying on this forum while simultaneously trying to boost his own reputation.
- HollyW and Ann O'Maly
-
2
-
14 minutes ago, HollyW said:
No doubt those with higher authority want to protect the organization at all costs and they are the ones responsible for the poor procedures they insist on for child abuse cases.
Yes, this is true of JWs and true of so many other organizations too. One might argue that the reputation of the organization is even more critical among JWs because we are dependent on reputation for disciple-making for growth, and growth is still tied to proof of Jehovah's blessing. The unjust procedures were kept for too long, and this might have been based on the fact that they served to protect the reputation of the organization. If so, that's a travesty.
44 minutes ago, HollyW said:For instance, elders are told to report these crimes, not to the police but to the WTS legal department. Nor are the elders told to tell the victim and/or the victim's parents to report it to the police.
I don't know if anyone has posted the latest procedural updates anywhere but they have improved the procedures about as far as I had ever expected the organization to go. (I'm referring to the August 2016 update to the previous 2012 procedures. They are still just incrementally better than the previous version, but better nonetheless.) It's true that they do not ask the elders to automatically report sexual abuse of minors to the authorities, but it is assumed that the legal department will always make sure that local jurisdictional laws are always followed correctly by the elders. It's also true that neither elders nor the legal department will always providing counsel for victims to report the crime. .
This gives the impression that they will only do the minimum required under the law in any particular jurisdiction, but I believe the organization now has almost as much incentive to handle things correctly with the secular authorities. The reason is that the organization has been "burnt" so many times by not doing the right thing that the previous bad habits (process-wise) have also brought reproach on the organization. And, as stated, this organization is dependent on reputation.
I think the best thing that any of us can do as Witnesses is to just expose the problem so that the organization faces it more honestly. Hopefully, I have done that above. The idea that it's better to hide such things, including any and all accusations, continues to produce an environment that is passively hostile to exposure. Exposure is the best medicine. The criminals should know that no one will side with them to help them hide their crimes. Also, exposure of all accusations (within reason) will also help a congregation learn that not all accusations are immediately credible and this is a good reason to ask for all the help we can get investigating such accusations as early and openly as possible. We should be glad that the secular authorities, who are generally trained, will thus take some of the burden off the elders and the organization where almost no professional training in such matters exists.
- AllenSmith, HollyW and Ann O'Maly
-
2
-
1
-
On 8/13/2016 at 11:59 AM, The Librarian said:
Anyone know what the typical Pioneer School Gifts were back in 1960? Just curious
As of 1956, pioneers began receiving a reduced rate on the magazines. (See "Informant" February 1956, p.2.) At that time they were sold for a nickel, and yes, we were still using the word "sold" into the 1950's. The reduced rate was a penny. The magazine quota for Special Pioneers was 110 per month, and for Regular Pioneers, it was 90. If they made their quota, that was about $4 per month they could now "pocket" but it usually went to transportation expenses.
[Edited to add that I don't think there was a Pioneer School in 1960. Even in 1973, you just became a Pioneer if your application was approved, and there was no school.]
-
Reminds me of Acts 1:11: "Why stand ye gazing into the sky?" (ACV)
-
7 hours ago, The Librarian said:
@JW Insider You probably know more about the inside dialogue about this progression when you were in the art department in the 70's. I think I remember quite a number of changes during that period to the logo. Did they ever say anything about the subtle change publicly?
No, nothing was said publicly as far as I can remember. The branches responsible for their own language mastheads had to be informed, and I don't recall any discussion or reasons given in those communications either. These changes weren't even well publicized within the headquarters.
Suggestions for changes began when phototypesetting became available -- and a new masthead became easy. Artists pushed for more room on the front cover for artwork, now that art could become much more detailed, and there was talk of getting a complete press changeover to "offset" which would make it much easier to make the changes in record time. The new "Photoplate Department" was started over in the 8th floor of factory #1 (117 Adams) to fit into this new process. That department was located just below the Computer Department.
(The computer department was also set adjacent to the new MEPS typesetting equipment which had a feed built right down into the darkroom area of Photoplate..Note however that MEPS had nothing to do with the masthead changes; it was only a new part of a new defined process where changes were to be made more quickly. For a few years it just created an expectation of a faster process. It took a while to get fully implemented.)
Still, the ease of changing the masthead was in place, and it could be changed almost as easily as artists could order specialty fonts (headline fonts) for article titles. You'll notice that in the late 1970's we started using dozens of different fonts for the first time that weren't hand-drawn. (A few hand-drawn titles kept being made into the 80's.) The process was not as easy as using a computer, since every font was actually a set of characters set onto a negative filmstrip on a long "stick". The "stick" was positioned in a machine over a light source and a couple lenses so that it shined the light directly through the character, and onto a piece of "stat camera" film. The light exposed the shape of the letter, and that portion of the film turned black, and then the next letter was found on the stick and positioned onto the film. The font size was made by repositioning the light. "Kerning" -- the space between letters -- was all done manually, so that we could overlap letters if we wished. We could play with the exposure and switch between negatives and positives on the stat cameras to create outline fonts, or manipluate the letters into the artwork. Artists from the home art department would go over to the factory and play with this equipment when it was new, but soon started letting Photoplate personnel do all the work when the novelty wore off.
But back to the masthead changes. A couple of the early customizations were driven by an artist. When it seemed easy (it wasn't) it drove a more official "branding change" to look more modern, we were told internally. But that turned out to be a big problem for other branches and languages. (In the 70's the Spanish magazine came out a few weeks after the English, but other languages were sometimes a few months behind. So their masthead changes were sometimes a version or two behind, or they just ignored the change.) So it was decided (one more time) to make a "final" masthead decision from the top down with more consensus. Naturally, not everyone liked it even after voting for it. So it changed again. I forget how many changes there were from 1975 to 1980, but there were several obvious ones and a couple more subtle ones.
The Crown of Thorns
in Topics
Posted
No. The Watchtower has not forgotten how Christ was persecuted on our behalf, nor have they forgotten that he set the perfect example under the harshest of trials. We are reminded that this was for the benefit of our own example to imitate. We are also reminded that Jesus was under the added difficulty of knowing that every move would be scrutinized even more closely because he was also claiming to represent his Father perfectly through all of these trials.
I don't believe it's fair to imply that the Watchtower removed this in some of the images of Jesus as a way to minimize just how much he suffered. Our memorial invitations have shown Jesus wearing the crown of thorns. The jw.org website shows it several times (I'll attach a couple of them below). But more importantly, these Bible accounts are discussed exactly as they appear in the Bible -- nothing is removed.
Art work often includes some conjecture. Some would conjecture that the crown of thorns was removed from Jesus at the time the cloak was removed, or at the time that his outer garments were replaced, or that it must have fallen off during the harrowing experience of carrying his own "stauros" (and perhaps even falling under its weight when the task was given to Simon the Cyrene). They might conjecture this based on the fact that the crown is not mentioned at the time that the soldiers cast lots over his garments, nor in connection with the sign that says "King of the Jews." There is nothing wrong with such a conjecture, because one should be careful about adding anything that might not be there.
Others would assume he still was wearing it at the time of execution, and yet there is no scripture that states this. On the other hand, there is no scripture that says it fell off, or that it was explicitly removed either. So one would also be justified to include it in the pictures after he left Pilate.
If one were to read the 4 different gospel accounts carefully, there are some differences among all the accounts that can make it difficult to make sure one is drawing the scene correctly. If you the four gospel accounts included below, you might wonder at some differences in detail. For example, at what point was Jesus carrying the stake, and at what point did Simon the Cyrene enter the picture? Did Simon carry it alone, behind Jesus, or did he carry it with Jesus? John does not mention Simon and says only that Jesus carried it himself. Another point of difficulty is whether Jesus was was completely naked on the stake since Matthew and Luke say that the soldiers took "his garments" and John explicitly says they even took his inner garment. Matthew only mentions that they distributed his "outer garments." (This nakedness could be considered part of his suffering, but for various and perhaps obvious reasons, the Watchtower does not depict him this way on the stake.) There is even a question about when Jesus would have actually been wearing the crown of thorns during the questioning by Pilate. (It is nearly certain that he was NOT wearing it when questioned about whether he was indeed "a king.")
Many of us probably hadn't even noticed that Jesus appeared TWICE before Pilate, and on only one of these occasions, the second one, was he in front of Pilate when the purple robe and crown of thorns were put on him. The purple robe might actually have come along from Herod's soldiers, who dressed him in a splendid garment, and perhaps he was RE-dressed in that same robe in front of Pilate. In one of these accounts, it was only after Jesus left Pilate's immediate audience that the soldiers did this to him. In another account, Pilate presents him while Jesus is wearing the crown and robe.
Therefore, The Watchtower has made various pictures of Jesus standing in front of Pilate both with and without his hands bound, both with and without wearing his own garments, and both with and without any indication of having been whipped, and both with and without wearing a crown of thorns.
In other Watchtower pictures, he carries the stake both with and without outer garments, and both with and without the crown of thorns. In other pictures, especially recently, he has a large purple bruise on his face from being struck prior to being handed over to Pilate.
Perhaps the details mentioned in the article in the Watchtower of December 15, 1990 caused some discussion about the time and exact place when the crown of thorns was worn.
*** w90 12/15 p. 9 From Pilate to Herod and Back Again ***
Disappointed, Herod and his soldier guards make fun of Jesus. They clothe him with a bright garment and mock him.
Notice that Matthew, Mark and John never mention Herod. So they do NOT say that a garment was put on him by Herod's soldiers but mentions that Pilate's soldiers did this at the governor's residence. Luke, the one who says it was Herod's soldiers who put this garment on him, never mentions the crown of thorns or his wearing of purple in front of Pilate or Pilate's soldiers.
All these differences in details can still dovetail into a plausible explanation based on the perspective of each gospel writer, but this does not mean that differences in various pictures definitely makes one right and one wrong.