Anna

Seems that a glossary differs from an encyclopedia in that it is an alphabetical list of terms. Biographical information is only included when it is relevant to explaining the use of what might be considered a personal name in a terminological sense. For example some background biogaphy is necessary to understand the use of the name "Jacob" as a term for the nation descended from him.
Terms such as Christ, Christian, Chief Agent, Firstborn etc are defined as they are terms. The name Jehovah is viewed by some as a term not having personal significance. That is clarified in this glossary.
There is no need do do the same for the personal name of God's Son, Jesus, as his name has not become a "term" in the sense of being  "a word or phrase used to describe a thing or to express a concept".
If this was a Glossary relating to the Roman Catolic Church, then there might be a case for including the name as it relates to the term "Jesuit". Or indeed the word "Trinity" as it relates to the peculiar concept of the nature of God held by many members of that denomination. Of course, these terms have no relevance whatsoever to the Holy Scriptures.

Thanks, but I don't want to watch it again. (I already have it saved, no idea why though, since I don't want to watch it again...)

It will not readily yield to change, if history is any guide. About the best I can hope for is some circuit overseer acting similarly as he did with another “crisis.” During a transitional lull from one main point to another, he will say that the expression “Now let us turn the platform over to the next speaker” is ridiculous because it evokes an image of turning the platform over. With that, I eventually heard the expression less, though it still pops up from time to time.
It is not easy to correct anyone on anything, especially on a triviality, though occasionally people jump instantly on the trivialities but ignore substantial things. Finding the right degree of emphasis is tough. One recipient will say “Thanks for the new RULE!” and his companion will say “Huh? Did you say something.”
There was a certain sister ages ago who enjoyed explaining things to others and eventually left the truth because not enough people listened to her. She had even begun to partake of the emblems. “What the Society is trying to tell us is....” she would often employ as a preamble. She is the inspiration (in this one regard only) for John Wheatandweeds, from Tom Irregardless and Me, who will not let the brothers go in field service in the morning because he insists as the conductor of rattling on and on about the day’s text, and he resists counsel  to shorten that part eventually to as short as 7 minutes, and he talks at such length, drawing out comments, that eventually nobody is in the mood to go out anymore. “What the Society is trying to tell us...” he responds to every bit of counsel on the subject. Finally, the Society interrupts him mid-sentence to say “We’re not trying to tell you anything—we’re telling you.” So he finally responds by getting everyone out the door in reasonably short order—not seven minutes, but neither seven years—however he makes up for it by chatting away in the parking lot.

I must admit, I agree with you. But then I wonder, maybe it's me who is seeing it "wrong". Attitude, after all, is everything...

I must admit, I agree with you. But then I wonder, maybe it's me who is seeing it "wrong". Attitude, after all, is everything...

I could be in serious trouble. They just finished remodeling the Kingdom Hall, and there are two quarter walls, one left of stage and one right. Gulp. Will the brother start entering and exiting the platform via those quarter walls, just like I saw them do in the other congregation?
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/forums/topic/79559-you-don’t-enter-stage-from-behind-the-quarter-walls/
The circuit overseer was visiting, so I started pumping him on it. “‘Don’t let the brothers walk behind the quarter wall to go on-stage,” I told him. I was not too insistent, one mustn’t overdo it on these things. I mean, I don’t want to be the brother who meets him in the parking lot to tell him that all the brothers are no good, and they aren’t loving at all, and they are deadwood in the ministry, and come to think of it, they don’t even like God, and so he, the circuit overseer, has a lot of work to do here, and he says “Yeah, I think I’ve found the problem already.”
I did about as much as I could. He seemed to be sympathetic. “Yeah, I know,” he said. “You see them, then you don’t as they walk behind the wall, and then you do as they emerge from the other side—it IS a little funny.” So I gave it a good try. But he was just biding his time to get away from me. He is not going to do anything at all, I don’t think, other than tell the brothers to go on the platform when it is their turn to speak. What does he care how they do it? It doesn’t bother HIM any one way of the other. It’s ME it’s driving nuts, and then he will say “Well, you were mostly there already.”
I have always tried to stack the deck. Those elders way back in the day would have a meeting coming up and I would pump various ones separately over  multitude of picayune things, so that one of them said at their meeting (as I was told later) “Wait a minute. Who’s running this congregation? You, me, or Tom Harley?”
But lo! A miracle has occurred. Never never never NEVER did I think I would EVER agree with @Jack Ryan. But I do on something. Jack Ryan! who if a Bethel brother so much as farts, he starts a derogatory thread on it. Jack Ryan! who has been known to start as many as a dozen critical threads in a single day. Jack Ryan! who I think regards himself as some sort of a secret agent/freedom fighter. What is it with this character?
Yet, I saw, yes—I witnessed it while visiting another congregation, brothers clapping after each and every exchange that took place up front, whether li8ve or on video, just the way Jack was complaining about. Suddenly he becomes as a prophet from on high. That too, drove me nuts!—all that clapping. You don’t clap over every single skit of one sister offering a tract to another, who, of course accepts it a just little too eagerly, it seems to me, from what I recall in the actual ministry. You clap spontaneously when something really knocks your socks off. You clap when a child or even anyone gives his or her first talk on the school. You clap when the spirit genuinely moves you, for anything. You clap after the public talk, even giving the speaker the benefit of the doubt if it wasn’t that—um—good. But you don’t clap for every minor exchange of trivial words! It only cheapens the times that there really is something to clap for.
I know where this comes from, just like I know where walking behind the quarter walls came from. Some pious brother doubtless wanted to “show appreciation” for everything under the sun and so started up the habit, thinking he was setting a ‘good example’ and that others would follow, and those others, not wanting to seem unappreciative, did follow, even some half-heartedly. 
However, it is possible that it is not the pious brother at all who is responsible, but rather the one who is too swayed by the new-agey mantra that you have to lavish praise on children non-stop just for showing up, for the sake of building self-esteem, and so they clap if a brother so much as clears his throat. I mean, don’t go pinning this one on “theocracy,” Jack—it could just as well be that trendy “world” that you are so enamored with.
This will not the easiest habit to break. I mean, you can hardly sit there and scowl, so as to provide the counter-example. The best strategy is just to contain it, as you might strive to do with a measles outbreak. Don’t send speakers to that congregation for awhile, until the illness passes. I doubt I can even enlist the circuit overseer in any serious capacity on this one. He will probably just roll his eyes when I meet him about it in the parking lot. C’mon, DO IT RIGHT, BROTHERS!

That seems to be the trouble with those who apostatize in this manner. They were idolators themselves, but having realised it, they just can't come clean and admit it, they have to accuse everyone else in the organisation they have now renounced of the very practice they themselves engaged in.
They turn themselves into "once-duped" but now "enlightened"victims to gain sympathy and acclaim from their newfound peers. Their self-appointed crusade might provide some temporary relief for the resentment and embarrassment they feel, but needs constant repetition.  
The sad thing is that they think they left the organisation they now oppose. But, actually, they were rejected. 
1John 2:19: "They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out so that it might be shown that not all are of our sort."

Whether this is deliberate or not is a matter of opinion of course. In any case, I would hesitate to say that anyone makes deliberate mistakes unless they are truly evil. So you are suggesting that the GB are evil. Well, I do not think they are evil.
No one condones Pedophilia.
You make very general sweeping statements here about what and how Witnesses believe. Most of the Witnesses I know (I would say 99.9%) have a deep and private relationship with God themselves, with Jesus as their mediator. It must be just your idea to somehow involve a third party, the GB,  in this relationship. I do not know anyone who does that!

Whether this is deliberate or not is a matter of opinion of course. In any case, I would hesitate to say that anyone makes deliberate mistakes unless they are truly evil. So you are suggesting that the GB are evil. Well, I do not think they are evil.
No one condones Pedophilia.
You make very general sweeping statements here about what and how Witnesses believe. Most of the Witnesses I know (I would say 99.9%) have a deep and private relationship with God themselves, with Jesus as their mediator. It must be just your idea to somehow involve a third party, the GB,  in this relationship. I do not know anyone who does that!

Oh my. It seems Billy the Kid's imagination is running away with him!

Oh my. It seems Billy the Kid's imagination is running away with him!

Oh my. It seems Billy the Kid's imagination is running away with him!

If I didn't know better, I'd say you didn't have a disgusting and filthy mind.
The reason I stood up for Allen Smith and all your (his) aliases was made very clear. I always defended your right to say what you wanted. Of course, you had to know, and still know, that the content of what you were saying would be open to countering opinions that could contain criticism, facts and evidence. Even if some of the statements made by some of your aliases have been deleted, none of my own were, and this is how you can see that I never insulted you of made fun of you. I never made fun of your grammar either, which is something that some of your aliases kept repeating, and for which you always failed to produce evidence. I admitted that I could not always understand what you were saying. Several people here had the same problem understanding you sometimes, not just me.
I have apologized to you every time you have pointed out an error. This goes for all your aliases. And I'm not saying this because I think you have never pointed out an error. There have been several occasions when you were right and I was wrong. I still apologize for these mistakes, and have corrected them. By the way, I do not ask the same of you. You could say whatever filthy and disgusting things that might come into your mind. I might point them out, and sometimes I might just ignore them, but I won't ask you to apologize. 
This reminds me of typical corporate-sponsored news outlets, and other forms of propaganda, in which people obviously believe, hypocritically, that if they repeat a falsehood often enough, it will probably have some "sticking" effect.
Thanks. I have already done so from the first day you took up this last alias. But it does make it a bit easier to refer to you again, Allen.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that @JW Insider works for both sides in a different sense. I like the way Paul put it:
(1 Corinthians 9:19-23) . . .For though I am free from all people, I have made myself the slave to all, so that I may gain as many people as possible. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew in order to gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, in order to gain those under law. 21 To those without law I became as without law, although I am not without law toward God but under law toward Christ, in order to gain those without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, in order to gain the weak. I have become all things to people of all sorts, so that I might by all possible means save some. 23 But I do all things for the sake of the good news, in order to share it with others. Early Christianity started out in the context of Judaism, which had become steeped in end-of-the-world eschatology, and the legalism of the Pharisees. But end-of-the-world eschatology, although dangerous to Christianity on its own (per Jesus), still naturally drew out crowds of people who sighed and groaned over the injustices of their world. They wanted a new heavens and a new earth, and they wanted it as soon as possible.
So early Christians would be mistaken to focus on eschatology, but many good Christians, desirous of a new heavens and new earth, would naturally come to Christianity through this path.
Jesus gave several illustrations showing why focusing on eschatology was so dangerous to true Christianity, and we have the words of Peter to explain how Christians must transform into those who would be the very same type of person they ought to be, whether the parousia came in their own lifetime, or whether it came 1,000 years after their own lifetime.
Another major focus of Jesus' illustrations and teaching was about legalism. Early Christianity was still steeped in Judaism, and still attempted to put Christians under law, even after it was recognized that the Judaic system didn't apply to gentiles.
Jesus' illustration in Matthew 24:45 of the unfaithful servants --who would beat their fellow slaves and try to lord it over them when the master was gone-- is a good illustration reminding us of the dangers of both eschatology AND the dangers of legalism/Pharisaism.
Paul played both sides of Pharisaism/legalism because he was accused of being an apostate from Judaism. So they asked him to pay for some legalistic customary preparations for the persons going with him to the Temple.
(Acts 21:20-24) . . .but they said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the Law. 21 But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or to follow the customary practices. 22 What, then, is to be done about it? They are certainly going to hear that you have arrived. 23 So do what we tell you: We have four men who have put themselves under a vow. 24 Take these men with you and cleanse yourself ceremonially together with them and take care of their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is nothing to the rumors they were told about you, but that you are walking orderly and you are also keeping the Law. So rather than claiming that the GB have gone off track, I believe they are continually getting more and more ON track. I believe they naturally started partly off-track as would be expected with a very eschatological Russell and a very legalistic Rutherford. But all the while, it was the right kind of heart condition being attracted to and joining into the religion -- a religion with a greater focus on the type of person we ought to be for Jehovah, for ourselves and for one another. This was much like the form of Judaism that naturally made persons fit for transformation into Christianity. Legalistic Judaism was like a tutor leading to Christ. But we must still be transformed.
Paul played both sides in order to win more persons over to Christ. To Jews he became a Jew. To Greeks he became a Greek.
Still the core of the religion itself is one that does perhaps the best job of all religions in fighting the machinations of the Devil: avoiding taking one side over another in politics and war, pointing out the unchristian influences on supposedly Christian traditions, and pointing out the value of Christian morality, and unity of purpose in preaching, meeting together, etc. To me these are the most important things. Granted the Pharisaism still keeps us hanging on to rules (like turning in time so that our right hand and our left can distinguish different types of Christian service, and misuse of the two-witness rule so that mercy and protection of children has often been sacrificed, etc.). And eschatology will keep rearing its head now and then, too.
But these things are getting better over time, getting more on-track, not off-track. Pharisees don't want to be questioned, but we must all take our Christian duty and responsibility very seriously. We must question. We must make sure of all things. And we can only expect more questioning as more persons from all walks of life keep coming into the organization. I find that this forum is still a fair enough place to question and get feedback to help test whether those questions are on the right track.

My goodness topic wars. (A bit like Robot Wars only funnier) 
We we are all totally off topic of course and we all have our own opinions.
@BillyTheKid46 I honestly don't know who is a Witness and who is an ex-Witness, or who was never a Witness at all
My opinion was that @JW Insider is still a Witness but working for both sides, a bit like Judas did. My feelings are that he/she thinks the JW Org as a whole has the 'truth' but that maybe the GB are going off track. 
As for @Anna , I'm totally confused. I thought she, I presume she is a she, was a Witness as I thought she wrote in the present time about her kingdom hall and elders. 
And you Billy, even you confuse me. Sometimes I think you are a Witness and other times I think you are a religious person but not a Witness.
Hence, everyone, I tell you this, once again. When I upvote or downvote or make reference to a comment, it is ONLY about that ONE comment.  One reason for that is I have a bad memory and cannot remember ten comments back, and a second reason is that a lot of the time,such as now, we are totally off topic anyway, so we cannot be commenting on the actual topic heading.
I do wish people would be their real selves, real names, real photos, etc. It would make my life so much easier. 
Good morning From me in Devon England at 9.30am. I am not a robot    

It really is not about rejecting the organization, it's because not everyone who has faith in God qualifies to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. It's about rejecting God's standards. For example, you may have faith in God, but believe the Trinity. Or you may have faith in God but see nothing wrong with celebrating Christmas, or practicing homosexuality, or living an immoral life style, or smoking......etc.

It really is not about rejecting the organization, it's because not everyone who has faith in God qualifies to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. It's about rejecting God's standards. For example, you may have faith in God, but believe the Trinity. Or you may have faith in God but see nothing wrong with celebrating Christmas, or practicing homosexuality, or living an immoral life style, or smoking......etc.

Someone has to take out the trash.

Amateur drivel

Yes, I agree,  that's how it should be, but as you mentioned, Lawyers want to go where the money is, and abusers probably don't have the kind of money they want. JW child abuse cases are attractive to them because of jw.org. Also, I didn't realise but many lawyers go hunting for cases. For instance someone I know is being sued by a credit card company and as soon as the lawsuit was filed with the court she has been receiving numerous letters from different lawyers who want to represent her. Apparently they go down to the courthouse to find cases. Similarly, child abuse lawyers go hunting for survivors so they can represent them in court. This was one reason I believe Zalkin wanted the names of all the alleged abusers held by the org. so he could sift through them and find anything that he could use for himself. And once they find a "suitable" survivor, they no doubt persuade her/him to the effect that they shouldn't feel bad about suing, since they will be suing the organization, and the organization has plenty of money. Then they (the lawyers) go about finding ways to incriminate the org. It's all about making money, but often the survivor comes off worse, especially when there is a settlement. I believe the lawyers take the biggest lump, and since with a settlement there is also a gag order, the survivor can't even complain about how little they got. It's all a big scam and all about lining the lawyers pockets. There is no justice really. The only justice will be with Jehovah. So when someone says "wait on Jehovah" when it is apparent that nothing that can be done for the moment, then that makes perfect sense. Of course it goes without saying that that should never be used as an excuse not to do anything.

I do not know if the ARC did or didn't submit these findings to their legal brief. What I do know is that those letters had a very limited audience. Regular publishers had no idea about these letters, they had no idea how elders were supposed to handle these situations. They were completely in the dark. As a consequence, regular publishers were at the "mercy" of the Elders. The ARC changed that. Now everyone knows the procedure and can be on the same page. It's a pity this transparency didn't happen sooner.

Just noticed this post John. Yes, I acknowledge the org. has made mistakes, and I am sure no Witness on here would deny that the org. has made mistakes, why, even the org. itself acknowledges it has made mistakes. But you on the other hand are saying that the org. is tantamount to Satan's spawn. I don't think that.
 
 

Obviously it's aimed at everyone, otherwise the elders would receive this information in the form of a letter to the body of elders. So I don't know what point you are trying to make...?

Painting by Briton Riviere

Painting by Briton Riviere