Shiwiii

I think you are missing the point. If the org is involved in a major investigation, shouldn't the average person (jw or not) be informed? The instance of putting the Russian ban on the jw news portion of jworg but not other government investigations is dishonest. Either cover all equally or none. and NO if 1006 cases of child molestation and abuse have gone unannounced or exposed in Australia in the past 10 years, then I would have to disagree with your statement that exposure happens every time. I only quoted this portion of the response because I agree with you on the rest, to an extent. I wasn't saying that these two instances are equal in disgust, but rather should be treated equally in exposure on the "news" portion of the jworg website. But this IS the case, as proven by the ARC and admitted to by the representatives of wt au.

What other groups claim to be the way of salvation? There are many are there not? Each and every one of them should be willing to submit to scrutiny and criticism. For instance, Ford, Chevy and GM all claim that their product is the best. If consumers are told to ignore what the other company says about their product, and refuses to see any perspective other than their own, then that is ignorant and narrow-minded. It will only be a matter of time before the consumers find out the truth and act based upon the new found evidence. It will only be the staunch Ford/Chevy/GM guy/girl who refuses to even take into consideration of what the opposing car companies or independent studies show about those vehicles.

Actually no, I'm not looking for some sort of big announcement. I'd be more interested in the exposure of such wrong doings to children in the same manner as the wrong doings by Russia. Are both instances not affecting the org as a whole? The investigation by the ARC was on the practices and policies of the org, not on an individual case by case basis, much like the investigation by Russia. If a government is investigating the org as a whole, shouldn't everyone be aware of it? I think the difference is that with Russia it doesn't negatively reflect on the org, where as the investigation from the Australian government does. Keep away the stuff that makes the org look like a part of normal society (with flaws just like any other group) and instead only cover issues that make the org look like its being picked on. It increases the persecution complex of the group as a whole. I forgot to ask, is it your opinion that the Russian ban and label as "extremists" greater in importance that of a child being molested and the perpetrator being protected just because it is commonly accepted that it happens in most major groups?

fair enough, but it hardly makes a difference who labels which group as a religion or not. No one should be banned from worshiping in the manner in which they see fit. I just thought it odd that sexually abused children didn't get the same coverage as this, or even a mention on the official website.

You're speaking of Scientology right? They were banned in Nov 2015. I do understand your point. However I think that the actual abuse of children is far more significant. I agree with your statement that child abuse is not new among society in general, but innocent children being molested needs more representation than people not being allowed to worship in public as they see fit.

With this current "persecution" in Russia and it having made the official jworg page, I wonder why the Australian Royal Commission and their "persecution" of jws did not make the official page? Or did it and I missed it?

First of all, what portion of my statement is not true that I may need to change my source of information? Can one get unbiased information from jworg? I think not. What mention is there of the child abuse cases in which the org is involved in on jworg? NONE, and that is the problem. There is a campaign to send letters to Russia, to appeal to the gov't to allow jw's to continue to operate within the country. This is called lobbying, something the org says they do not do: "Why Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Maintain Political Neutrality? Jehovah’s Witnesses remain politically neutral for religious reasons, based on what the Bible teaches. We do not lobby, vote for political parties or candidates, run for government office, or participate in any action to change governments. "https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/political-neutrality/#?insight[search_id]=ae2710d7-f1e4-4dd7-afa4-57b369e71ab7&insight[search_result_index]=5 Lobbying: verb (used with object), lobbied, lobbying. 5. to try to influence the actions of (public officials, especially legislators). http://www.dictionary.com/browse/lobbying John, I'm not sure who you think you are, but this is a public forum. Not only that, but it is also within the section of Controversial Posts. The forewarning should have been enough for you to avoid this section if it hurts your feelings: Only enter this section if you feel strong enough spiritually to defend yourself biblically. As you probably are aware, not everyone on Facebook, Twitter and the Internet is nice and civilized. Some are rather rude. You are hereby forewarned. I am only pointing out the hypocrisy clearly shown from the org's own mouth. The question was "are they blessed", my comments were made to demonstrate my view and invoke discussion on the ideas raised. Now if this bothers you, don't reply, don't engage in discussion. Your response to me had nothing to do with the topic, but rather a knee jerk reaction of defense when someone calls your mom ugly. To continue with the Russian lobbying, I wonder what most jws are thinking when they hear that "the wild beast" is helping the org?

How is this not equivalent to passing the plate? Why would there be a need for an ATM, or many, at an event like this? There is no food to be purchased or items to buy that I am aware of.

Interesting topic. I've been wondering why the consolidation of kh's in north America? Is it possibly because they are not expanding, but rather shrinking? The magazines have shrunk, no more books being printed, but a massive compound built for the popes of wt with a remote controlled lake. How is it that there is this dire need for more money for world wide work, when operating costs have been reduced and actually freed up money? Where did that go? What about the sales of property in Brooklyn, where did that money go? As to the comment by The Librarian, the reference to Jesus' words is from John 15:18-25. Jesus said the world hates the disciples because they first hated Jesus and because they were not of the world because Jesus chose them out of the world. Jesus said that His followers would be persecuted for His (Jesus) name sake (verse 21).

That's just it, I don't think anyone knows. It certainly isn't being used to expand kh's or literature. What was the last "book" produced? God's Kingdom Rules? or the return to Jehovah ? I'd hardly call those "books", and as far as older books, those have been phased out almost completely with nothing to fill the gap left. Speculation is one thing, I'm not claiming they are using this money for this or that, but taking a hard look at what IS happening is a completely other thing. The past 5 years has not produced anything worthy of that kind of money.

So they have adopted the practice of the Catholics in this area? (as well as other things) Or could it be the other way around? Think about this for just a moment, I'll explain the other side of the coin I am referring to in a moment. So you both can see the manipulation, whether for good intentions or bad, and acknowledge that the move of money/assets to NY USA as well as detaching the "head" from the "tail" so to speak to protect those in NY from the government(s) who may strike out against the wt directly. Ok, I'm in agreement as to this happening, but I am not going to swallow it so blindly as to accept it as for the greater good. I do not want to derail this thread, so feel free to not reply, I just want to bring up some things. Ok, so we have all these cong's all over the world flowing money into NY for "the work of the wt", not to mention those older folks who have left their estate to the WT. What about the millions in real estate already sold within the last 5 to 10 years? Just in Brooklyn alone its astounding the amount of money that was able to be liquefied. now I'm sure that some of those buildings could have sold for much more, or less, but the point remains the same......tons of money on top of operating costs which were somewhat being sustained by monthly contributions world wide. Now to the point I am trying to make, what has happened within the past 15 years to denote furthering of the "work of the wt"? What expansion has been done? Warwick? ok, but that was planned ahead of time as guided by the Bible (Luke 14:28)? If so, then that cost had already been accounted for. What has happened to the length and structure of the wt and awake magazines? They have shrunk in half, using less paper, less shipping costs, lower printing costs, etc. You get the point. Take a look around and how many kingdom halls have been sold and cong's consolidated? Is this expansion? Is this the money being used to further the "work" ? Where is the evidence that anything has expanded? Is it the reduction of sound equipment in kh's in place of prerecorded talks? The only thing I can see new is the jw broadcasting (much like tv evangelicalism) and a countryside palace or sorts. Outside of that, there isn't much in the expansion pile but significant reduction in most everything else. All of this is only my opinion from my perspective, take it with a grain of salt.

Then why act as though they do? I'm glad you feel that way, I hope others do as well. There is of course a significant difference between a serial unrepentant murderer and someone who just doesn't feel that the wt is God's org.

Thank you first and foremost for genuinely answering. I really do appreciate the feedback. It helps me understand where some jws place their opinions and why. Can you elaborate on this a little? I mean, if we are to go strictly from the Bible, then there are plenty of changes that can be made. I agree with your assessment on question #4, it does seem to be building to an ultimatum, I just wonder what. I agree with you on #5 as well, I just feel it is a shame that it takes a secular gov't to bring this to light and force some sort of change. Shouldn't (we) be proactive in protecting not just our children, but the rest of society if there is a person preying on others criminally.? #6: Why should a society that claims God's backing have any weakness in which the courts or laws could leverage against? That is a complete side note, I just wanted to make that statement. I do understand that every group has its faults, but not every group is claiming sole ownership as "God's people", some do and some don't. I don't think that its fair to assume that this was mostly from the assistance of ex-jw's. That is just playing into the theory that "all ex-jw's" are "bitter" or haters or "mentally diseased", I thought it was compelling that Justice McClellan brought up the fact that there are going to be some who just cannot continue to associate with jws, based on how unfairly they were treated by the organization, and will have their whole social structure ripped out from under them. There are many cases where someone does not want to lose their family and friends, but cannot continue to adhere to wt policy. His point was that it was cruel. I'm not too sure this will have any impact, as groups can and do have their own rules, but it is still a human decency issue. was the law not clear cut in Pennsylvania? As far as clergy goes, I believe that the wt has stated many times that they do not have clergy, if need be I can dig up sources from the pubs if you like, only to claim this privilege in the Fessler case? Which is it? Do they or do they not? Does it only matter when in court? Or is it the amount of money they stand to lose if they choose not to use it? Also, if the support for the "elders" in the Fessler case was the use of clergy, then why did they settle instead of taking the full trial and seeing how the cards would fall? I mean a settlement is used as a way to save face if you know you are going to lose in the end.

If you realize this, then you know that it is not right. An 8 year old cannot fathom the consequences of many decisions an adult makes, but yet they are held to the same requirements as an adult. I have no doubt that Mr. Stewart did realize this fact, but the trial was more about the actions taken since the inquiry. Posting this from another thread: I'm curious as to what the average jw thought. Was it a good representation of the wt? Did the testimony make you proud to be a part of the organization? Do you feel that there was places in wt doctrine that could be adjusted or improved on? Was it succinct and complete? Do you feel that Mr. Spinks and Mr. O'Brian were in cooperation with the courts requests? Were the statements from the court and counselors "apostate lies"? Isn't this what the Elders handbook is for? To direct the elders in handling these types of matters? Hasn't there been letters to all congregations directing elders on how to handle these situations? Is there not a procedure in place for elders to follow? There is, so if there are elders who deviate from the direction given on handling such matters, they are rogue and not following the standard procedure, the standard procedure which is under investigation. The law was "clear-cut" in Pennsylvania, but Stephanie Fessler was not protected. Assumptions are never good at providing facts.

I am a bit surprised that there is no opinion from any jw what so ever about the latest ARC. Did no one watch it? I'm curious as to what the average jw thought. Was it a good representation of the wt? Did the testimony make you proud to be a part of the organization? Do you feel that there was places in wt doctrine that could be adjusted or improved on? Was it succinct and complete? My opinion, which is only an opinion, was that it did represent the wt and its policy correctly. The statements made by Mr. Spinks and Mr. O'Brian were exactly what I expected to hear. The rigid stance, the dancing around questions and repetitive answers which did not actually answer the questions raised, showed not only the court but anyone else watching that the wt will not be governed by the courts or their law, but rather by their own leadership. I do understand the premise that the Bible should be the authority and I agree. However, there are governments put in place to create a society, a society in which all should be protected and represented. This is actually backed by God Himself based on what is told to us in Romans 13: "Let every person* be in subjection to the superior authorities,+ for there is no authority except by God;+ the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God.+ 2 Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves. 3 For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad.+ Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good,+ and you will have praise from it; 4 for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath* against the one practicing what is bad. "

This was very interesting to watch and listen to. Something that I thought was of special interest was the facts brought out about shunning. Mr. Rodney Spinks and Mr. Terrence O'Brian both acknowledge that JW's are told to shun certain individuals. This admittance is in direct opposition to what jws, who man the cart, express when posed with the same question. Not only that, the "disassociated one is shunning the congregation" statement is also in direct contrast to what many people experience within their own family and friends. The DA one usually still wants contact with their family and friends, but they are shunned....even by parents. How is this loving as Christ loved? When a jw meets a stranger on the street, do they not say hello and possibly have some chit chat? If they KNOW this person is no longer a jw, they scatter or turn into a proverbial rock. That person who used to be a jw is treated less than, just because they do not align themselves with a group who admits they err in doctrine but still requires absolute adherence to company policy. I just hope this wakes a few people up to the unrealistic requirements of the wt and maybe take a stand for change. This speaks noting of belief in this or that, but about humanity and control.

June 2017 Watchtower 15. How does respect for theocratic headship reveal our love for Jehovah’s way of ruling?15 What is our response to divinely authorized headship? By our respectful cooperation, we show our support for Jehovah’s sovereignty. Even if we do not fully understand or agree with a decision, we will still want to support theocratic order. That is quite different from the way of the world, but it is the way of life under Jehovah’s rulership. (Eph. 5:22, 23; 6:1-3; Heb. 13:17) We benefit from doing so, for God has our interests at heart. So does this mean that if you do not agree with the "err" that is presented, you still must support it? YES it does. It states that if we do not, then we are not showing support or cooperation for Jehovah's sovereignty. So somehow the sovereignty of Jehovah is at stake if we do not side with the wt. Again, no proof that ANYONE authorized this leadership but they themselves. lets not forget: Watchtower (Study) 15 November 2013, page 20 (3) At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not. https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20131115/seven-shepherds-eight-dukes/

The part I find troubling is this, to whom do you need to answer these 100 questions and where in the Bible do we find these requirements to join Jehovah's organization? The simple answers are 1. Men and 2.You don't, but people subject themselves to this on the basis of men who claim authority directly from Jehovah with no actual proof. In fact it is just the opposite, there IS proof, proof that they are not chosen, not any different that anyone else. The proof is freely admitting by means of the "err" statement, but yet still claiming this authority. They are playing with a two-headed coin! There is only ONE requirement in the Bible to be a part of God's family, John 1:12

This is the point of the whole thread, no? It should be up to the individual to make such decisions based on their own understanding. While the wording of certain publications state this, and I'm sure some do look at it in this way, the actions still speak otherwise. For example, What reason is there that a "witness", not just a witness but a JW witness, must observe the signing of a ADD? Why must it be kept with the cong secretary? If this were really up to the individual, then there would not be a need for such forms and committees/liaisons in hospitals.

I like this, as we all should strive for the truth and not negate others positions unless we hold it up to scrutiny and see if it is indeed truth. This leads me to a question, not just to you JWInsider but to all here, and it comes from reading a portion of your previous post: If present "truth" replaces previous "truth" as seen here in this quote, and future "truth" may replace present "truth", what is the definition being used here for "truth"? Hi Anna, I am glad that you have not had reason to be distrustful thus far. Your description here brings to mind the times when vaccines were rejected based on the teachings of the society, as well as organ transplants. Those people held to the society's position, and some of them died. Now when the new "truth" came out and made these things acceptable, what then do you say to the families who lost loved ones? Oops? Sorry, we just didn't understand? I am glad to hear you have a balanced view, and most likely have a difference of opinion on somethings than what the society's position is, I think that is healthy. While I do agree that there are some who have much greater knowledge than I in various aspects, I respect them very much, I still hold to something you said : I'm glad you made this statement, it describes exactly how we should be approaching God's word, individually with help. I do not believe we should hold ANY man/men's interpretation as anything more than information for us to ponder and reflect. Sometimes we will align and sometimes we will not. God wrote to us individually and as a whole. We do not come to God as a group, but rather humbly as individuals.

His purpose has nothing to do with what ANY group is doing. His purpose and will are His own. It is up to us to align with that will and progress. God does not delight in the sin He allows to continue in this world. He allows it, because He allows us free will. I agree that soon God will intervene, some are going to be completely surprised and caught off guard, some won't. There will be no excuse for following men instead of God. Men should not dictate our behavior towards others, if we agree with them or not, regardless if they align to what the gb or any organization tells them they should be doing. Our relationship with God is a personal one not a group collective. Do I think that the gb err in the policy of shunning and disfellowhip? Yep, it causes people to treat others harshly, when it is God who is to repay wrath for evil (Romans 12:19). But still to this day, people are conditioned to accept the policy of men to shun even their own family/mother/daughter/son/father/etc. for what? smoking? not toeing the company line? not agreeing with the gb? for rescuing the lost sheep from the pit on the Sabbath (blood transfusion when needed)? Think about that for a moment,

right. This is why you say if the cap fits.

So you are saying that he is happy with the way the wt handles child abuse? He is/was happy with those people who died from not having organ transplants? This has not and cannot be proven whom he has appointed for anything, yet. No where in the Bible does God speak out and establish a governing body to do anything. question: Answer:

This strikes me as odd that one would have to even question such things. I mean, if your personal position does not align with the corporate stance, then I fully understand the question. If the question is raised out of curiosity because there is a need to find out what you are supposed to believe, because you forgot, then that is even more interesting.

Phillip Morris? Cardinal Health? Rand Cam? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?