Anna

Just because (as a general rule ...) prostitutes and murderers wear shoes ... does notmean that everyone that wears shoes are prostitutes and murderers.
Although it would be imitative and suggestive to wear a brown shirt during the Nazi reign ... does not mean that today wearing a brown shirt indicates one is a Nazi.

The trick will be, through social media and the like, to make this the beating known around the world. It won't be easy, because atrocities are a dime a dozen today. Countermanding this is the fact that everyone knows Jehovah's Witnesses have done nothing deserving of this. There will be none of: 'Well, he must have done something wrong.' Everyone knows he did not. You can be sure that those doing these things would like to do it in secret. Do not let them.
   
 

So far, you have not demonstrated in what way post-funeral hospitality amongst Witnesses is in any shape or form bound up in superstitious or pagan practices, or that it is a "worldly" practice.
"Worldly" weddings are also "connected to folkloric, custom, beliefs, superstition . . .   And here we have great variety of customs around the world."  We don't eschew weddings simply because some of the customs worldly people include originate in superstitious practices.  We omit what would be offensive to Jehovah.  Likewise with funerals and association thereafter.

When I was visited by two elders because of my association with an adult child who no longer was professing to be a Witness and whose life choices meant she would have been disfellowshipped if only they could contact her, I asked, "When I am old and need help will you be over here taking care of me?  Because I know my daughter will."
The subject was never brought up again.  And I'm still in good standing, but then my congregation elders have never been hardliners. 
 

I think its a cultural thing too. Some countries do this, others don't so much.

Yes, customs are quite different in different countries.
In Ireland weddings and funerals are usually accompanied by 5 days of very heavy drinking Irish whiskey.
The difference between an Irish Wedding, and an Irish Funeral is ....
(wait for it ...)
.... one less drunk.

I think you are saying that the Watchtower's research here is already beyond impressive. I agree that on this topic the Watchtower's research is especially impressive. We have excellent explanations for the reasons the NWT contains God's Name so many times, and numerous examples and manuscript facsimiles to help us understand the LXX examples which have informed the decisions made for adding "Jehovah" to the Greek Scriptures. I think you are also saying that we shouldn't think of a single scholar's work as impressive, or at least we shouldn't think of Gertoux's work as impressive. This is just a statement, however, unless you are ready to counter the lines of evidence used or his conclusions. But again, I hope that this topic does not turn into a debate about whether a particular person or his research is "impressive." I hope that we can look at the evidence itself without reference to what we think of the people behind it. It will always happen to some extent but let's deal with evidence, not with general statements that supposedly allow us to be dismissive of someone's work.
Yes, I agree that this isn't impressive either, just as you imply since it's not so different than just another form of Yahweh, which is already known and accepted. Of course, I'd also like to see a link evidencing this "new interpretation" by the Pope.
Absolutely.
I didn't see any examples or evidence that they have done a poor job, or not. I hope to avoid empty claims. I might offer some of these myself because we all bring our opinions to the table. I hope someone will point out the places where I do the same. There will be times when some of us can agree with each other that something appears to be true by consensus or "common sense" and we can move on without going to the trouble of finding evidence to back up our opinions. But when it comes to merely denigrating the qualifications of a person or group, I hope we can back up such claims with evidence if asked.
The work of Wilkinson seems like it's another useful resource which I would be willing to discuss as "another place to start" for exactly the same reasons that I thought Gertoux's work would be a good "place to start." I hope you will feel free to explain what you think he brings to the table that might be useful.

I have downloaded several that I never read. His papers on specific Bible-related chronology issues are interesting but I haven't completed them, and he keeps more papers coming.
A quick word on my own personal bias here. As I told the author: "I am very much aligned with your work on the topic. Naturally there are a few specific things I question, even if I end up with an overall conclusion that is generally like yours."
I think that when I bring up questions, just as I have on several issues coming from the WTS or GB, there are always a few persons who believe this is highly disrespectful, and they make it clear that to question the GB is tantamount to questioning God. Of course, I not only consider it our Christian obligation to question, it also serves the purpose of refining. Even the questioning by various sects helped refine Christian truth according to Paul.
(1 Corinthians 11:19) For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. This fits the idea in Greek that testing is the same as refining.
(1 Peter 1:7) 7 in order that the tested quality of your faith, of much greater value than gold that perishes despite its being tested by fire,. . . The NWT in the footnote here says that "tested" could be translated as "refined."
So I propose we should put any argument through the fire. It's not a sign of disrespect for the author. (Abraham didn't think it was such a bad thing to question God!) It can mean just the opposite, that we are treating someone's words the way we would treat nuggets of newly found gold . . . to refine them and make sure that what holds up is pure. Mostly, however, I think we should question and test and put all ideas through the fire so that we can have a better understanding ourselves, and thus be better prepared to defend what we believe. (1 Peter 3:15)

I am quoting here from that long sentence that begins the essay found here: http://areopage.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Gertoux_UseNameEarlyChristians.pdf (which contains copyrighted material).
Gertoux packs a lot into this sentence, and this is just the first part of it. To begin, Matthew 15:3 says:
In reply he said to them: “Why do you overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition? And then Jesus goes on to say in verses 9-11:
9 It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’” 10 With that he called the crowd near and said to them: “Listen and get the sense of it: 11 It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.” The natural instinct is to think that since Jesus had just given an example of what the hypocrites do to dishonor their mother and father, that this applies even more so when we think of ways in which we can honor our heavenly Father. And one of those ways would be to call him by his personal name in the way that the Hebrew nation had done for  1,000 years, since Moses around 1500 BCE, or even since Abraham, more than 500 years before that!
But, for the sake of argument, we might also want to put ourselves in the shoes of the Jewish nation and try to figure out why this idea of not pronouncing God's name ever caught on so widely in the first place. There is very good information in the Insight book on this topic under "Jehovah" but it admits that we don't know the reason for sure.
*** it-2 p. 5 Jehovah ***
When did the superstition take hold? Just as the reason or reasons originally advanced for discontinuing the use of the divine name are uncertain, so, too, there is much uncertainty as to when this superstitious view really took hold.

Thanks @JW Insider, it should be a good discussion. I have already got a few of Gerard's papers downloaded from the academia website when we were discussing the controversial "desolation of Jerusalem 587/607" subject. But that's another topic.....
I will take a look at this paper

Actually, had she passed on the Summer Olympics, the verbiage you favor would be close to appropriate. Wasn't it a couple hundred of those young girls who were molested by the team doctor, now serving several lifetimes in prison?
Imagine, the sister passing on such a priviledge. What in the world is wrong with her, Jack?

Jack. I think you are trying to say that experience is bogus because it doesn't make complete sense to you. And it appears like a contradiction when we consider those famous persons who have been associated either as Witnesses or those who may have identified as JWs due to the influence of their Witness parents or family members.
I understand the cynicism about some of the experiences. I have previously shared my own discomfort when I watched  a committee of brothers enhance the experiences of Witnesses who provided experiences for the special Bethel "Family Night" gatherings. It smacked of dishonesty to me, but there was always a grain of truth in what they were enhancing, and they were usually quite careful with the wording so that it was not technically or legally an untruth. But for "Family Night" I watched the committee edit the person's own story and his own recollections with facts not in evidence just to make it sound better, and it was clearly to enhance the reputation of the WTS, and to change something just slightly so that it would not detract from that same reputation. At Bethel, I had also learned how the resume of Fred Franz' educational background had been enhanced in ways that were never corrected until the Proclaimers book came out.
But I don't know that this story in particular is enhanced. I see some potential problems, and a wise person will not simply believe everything he hears. I think the story might be perfectly true. "She was asked to take part in the Winter Olympics . . ." There is nothing unbelievable about this. Many very talented people have been on their way toward stardom and have given it up for religion or ideology or rethinking what it would mean to their life. But notice that no one is claiming that this person was invited to participate as an athlete to represent her country. It may have been that a coach wanted her there to watch. Perhaps, she showed promise as a skier, and it was a parent who asked her to go on to another few years of training to be able to take part in the Winter Olympics. This could be construed to create the statement that she was asked to take part.
Or perhaps she had already trained, and was ready, and was considered a viable competitor, but was also completing her studies with the Witnesses and was preparing for baptism. A single statement from the person studying with her might have made her change her mind. The statement in the WT above may be perfectly legitimate and not enhanced at all. I'm sure you see this as a possibility, too, even if you disagree with the decision she made.
There are non-JW experiences like this too. I remember hearing about a professional basketball player named Robinson, I think, whose mother told him he had to graduate a four-year college even though he had been asked to sign on professionally right after high school. He was offered a multi-million dollar contract, and had to give it up, and who knows what change of direction his life might have taken during that four years. He could have lost his contract, he probably cut four years of his earning potential away, but he did it for his mother, or for his agreement with her particular ideology about life and priorities. Others look at this and say B*S* because he could have played for 4 years, made millions and then gone to college if the basketball "gig" didn't work out, right? But younger people often don't know how to handle fame and money, and there are countless bodies of evidence, sometimes dead bodies, in support of this fact.
On the other hand, what is the overall point of the experience? It's the same point that should be pointed out to any who wish for fame when there are other more important things that could bring potentially more satisfaction. There is also the drive for fame and money that many young people are not realistic about. They could end up spinning their wheels for a lifetime in pursuit of something that was not really attainable. Or even if it was attainable, it may be much more transitory than they realized.
One of my daughter's good friends from high school was  a young model who was asked to work on a soap opera. She did this for two years, and did commercials, and photo layouts for fashion, and was on a billboard for years in the NY diamond district. But it only lasted for about 5 years. Although she can be proud of her work, she is today ... get this @James Thomas Rook Jr. . . .a shoe salesperson. Literally. She works in London selling Louboutin shoes, making good money, and she seems happy. Only her parents and siblings still push for her to try to get back into acting and modelling as if it were some pinnacle of achievement. (On a side note, my wife and I are in Paris right now, with my daughter, and we expect to see this same friend of hers next weekend.)
What about being the ability to be both satisfied and happy with something different than fame or money? Something that is better for oneself and others in both the short run and the long run?

.... and my favorite, Mickey Spillane.
Agenda driven examples of ANYTHING are only generalizations, that may .. OR MAY NOT apply.
Infinite experiences....
.... Infinite results.
Often as we get older ... not having been able to make the cut as a helicopter or commercial airline pilot causes us to remember that our goal was always to be a shoe salesman.

Jack Ryan is getting a little carried away, perhaps he needs to go for a jog or take up some kind of sports...?

@JackRyan get real man! (I think?)
Surely this is how you view everyone? You posted it!

This is made to sound in the newspaper article as if ALL notes on a judicial matter are destroyed. An official copy of the proceeding is to be kept no matter what. What they want to avoid is the inclusion of multiple notes taken by all the elders that include personal comments, sometimes questions going through their heads to ask or get answered before a decision. Sometimes these, since they weren't meant to be critiqued, can appear to be contradictory or incriminating to one side or another even if they were not intended that way.
Also, it is very misleading to say that the rules require a sexual assault victim to go out and find two witnesses. It shows that they are ignorant of the fact that the victim himself (or herself) is already a witness to the crime. Without a confession of course the idea of a second witness is still very unlikely, but circumstantial evidence will be heard from a second witness, and a second witness can be another victim of the same crime from same abuser.

Why would true Christians expect fair treatment? 
“Happy are you when people reproach you and persecute you and lyingly say every sort of wicked thing against you for my sake." Matt.5:11

So it was! And now, it's changed again!!! Yippee!!

Isn't there a big difference between active condemnation or criticism of the LGBT community and a mere non support of it? Isn't being forced to support that movement or being criticized/ostracized for not supporting it actually interfering with human rights?

Many times Satan does not have to come after us at all .... we embark on courses of applied stupidity and self destruction all by ourselves.

Yes, it reminds me of the Newsweek cover a few years back emblazoning the headlines of recent disasters on all fronts, then concluding (on the cover) with a nice reassuring message for the children , because it didn't want to frighten them: "What the !@!* is next?" it read.
http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2011/04/what-the-is-next.html

It just isn't possible to understand the Bible's code of conduct unless you accept it as of divine origin and obligatory. With that as a basis, then personal difficulties with it's requirements remain in that context, as a problem for the individual to resolve, not a problem with the requirement.
It just isn't possible to compromise the Bible's view on specific LBGT behavioural issues, despite the attempts of various religionists. So there will always be conflict between those who reject the Bible standard for sexual behaviour and those who adhere to and promote it. This conflict extends into the legal arena as the conflict has been blended with a human rights issue which basically excludes a consideration of God's will on the matter.
The Bible does not always give the reasons for why a course of conduct is right or wrong in God's eyes. That determination is left to the individual and may either be deduced by logic or by observation, over time. (Why circumcision on the 8th day? Also, see the book "None of These Diseases").
The basic, ubiquitous reason given for keeping God's requirements is the rather generally stated: "That it may go well for you" but this is just not enough of a reason for many. In fact, no reason is sufficient for those who just do not want to live by the Bible's code of conduct. What is most puzzling however is the fact that those who "do not" seek to impose by force an acceptance of that preference on those who "do". This takes the conflict into the thorny area of state control v freedom of religious expression.
Nevertheless, this conflict will continue. The fact remains that Jehovah's Witnesses do not discriminate against those who describe themselves in the terms of the LBGT movement. However they do discriminate, vigorously, against the sexual practices that identify such ones, and that will never change.
There's nothing new about rejection of the standards of the God of the Bible, and there's nothing new about the attempts on one group or another to introduce a reversal of those standards, even to the point of asserting that the practice once abhorred is now promoted by God. It follows the pattern of behaviour prevalent at the time of the prophet Isaiah and expressed at Isaiah 5:20:
"Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!"

I wonder why they would choose that theme?
Yeah, like how police have shown up in Russia, typically in full riot gear, to arrest members of the faith.

I am not too comfortable with this idea either, only because of the simple fact that Jehovah gave the Bible to everyone, and he gives holy spirit to anyone asking, so that they can understand the Bible.  From experience I have known spiritually mature brothers and sisters express some ideas which were not at the time "officially" taught, but did become so later on. It seems like they had divine insight? Or was it just that they were very good Bible students and reasoned on things logically? Even ones who had not known what Jehovah's Witnesses taught,  like @Gone Away were able to work some things out that were contrary to popular belief in Christendom. I believe it is the capacity of every good Bible student, whether of the anointed or not, to have insight. The important thing is though to have the wisdom to wait if we have reasoned out something which is not an "official" teaching. Are we going to get upset about the 1% or more that we think is not right, and forget about the bigger percentage that has benefited our lives as one of Jehovah's Witnesses? I have know people who had previously been involved in all kinds of religions who upon reading one of JW publications have declared "this is the Truth". One studious lady (a staunch Catholic) who became a very good friend of mine, even flung the "Truth Book" across the room because she could see that what she read made perfect sense and that what she had previously believed was wrong, and that upset her so much. My own mother in-law, who had always been God fearing, after reading the "Truth Book" , said all those unanswered questions she had were answered, and all the pieces of the puzzle came together. There are many, many more examples I could cite, and I am sure you have read the many experiences of people who have benefited from learning from a small group of anointed Christians who collected their perception of what the Bible "really" teaches into publications, which helped them understand the Bible's message more clearly. I think when we start doubting  the "exclusive group" it is good to focus on the positive things we have gained from our "associating" with them.

I am not too comfortable with this idea either, only because of the simple fact that Jehovah gave the Bible to everyone, and he gives holy spirit to anyone asking, so that they can understand the Bible.  From experience I have known spiritually mature brothers and sisters express some ideas which were not at the time "officially" taught, but did become so later on. It seems like they had divine insight? Or was it just that they were very good Bible students and reasoned on things logically? Even ones who had not known what Jehovah's Witnesses taught,  like @Gone Away were able to work some things out that were contrary to popular belief in Christendom. I believe it is the capacity of every good Bible student, whether of the anointed or not, to have insight. The important thing is though to have the wisdom to wait if we have reasoned out something which is not an "official" teaching. Are we going to get upset about the 1% or more that we think is not right, and forget about the bigger percentage that has benefited our lives as one of Jehovah's Witnesses? I have know people who had previously been involved in all kinds of religions who upon reading one of JW publications have declared "this is the Truth". One studious lady (a staunch Catholic) who became a very good friend of mine, even flung the "Truth Book" across the room because she could see that what she read made perfect sense and that what she had previously believed was wrong, and that upset her so much. My own mother in-law, who had always been God fearing, after reading the "Truth Book" , said all those unanswered questions she had were answered, and all the pieces of the puzzle came together. There are many, many more examples I could cite, and I am sure you have read the many experiences of people who have benefited from learning from a small group of anointed Christians who collected their perception of what the Bible "really" teaches into publications, which helped them understand the Bible's message more clearly. I think when we start doubting  the "exclusive group" it is good to focus on the positive things we have gained from our "associating" with them.