TrueTomHarley

"that they may be all one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me."..... John 17:21  RSV
Is this not a clear example of Fifteenarianism? Come to my church (Pastor: Tom Harley) and I will tell you more.
As I pass the plate on the ends of long poles, they will shake to the music, so that coins will loudly chink. What we want is quiet money.

There was never a time when they were not allowed. Who's going to 'not allow' them?

I should hold up my end and comment here. But the three-in-one doctrine is so obviously a crock, put to bed 100 years ago, that it is hard to work up an interest.
When you have a situation that violates common sense, such as '3 are really 1', it is not up to the common sense person to persuade that common sense holds here as well. It is up to the loon to persuade that the loony interpretation, in this case, is the correct one. 
Sometimes the loony version turns out to be true. Not everything is as meets the eye. But that does not change the fact that the burden of proof is on the loonytunes person, not the common sense person, to prove his case.
And if all they can come up with is plays upon words, in a world in which literature routinely does that, that doesn't strike me as too persuasive.

I like @AveragePub
With a mere phrase or two, he demolishes mounds of drivel.
#signherekid

I had a Bible study that once said that the Bible condoned drug abuse. He used the Scripture that said "Stephen was stoned". Now you can see how Trinitarians try so hard to use that same kind of reasoning about  something that the Bible writers did not themselves even believe in. "Father Son and spirit are mentioned together means they are the same", by that reasoning "Abraham, Issac and Jacob" are also mentioned together several times does that mean they are all the same being? And BTW those three men were all JEWS and JEWS do not believe in God as a Trinity. {Shema Deut 6:4}.

Belief in the Trinity depends upon taking literally certain expressions that, in any other context, would instantly be recognized as figures of speech.
If they read 'beating around the bush' in an article, they understand the meaning. It they read it in the Bible, they look for the bush.
If they read of persons shedding 'crocodile tears' in an article, the understand the meaning. If they read it in the Bible, it is proof to them that the persons were really crocodiles.

Since I am retired and do nothing but write, I am putting together a short Ebook (which gets longer all the time) on the Russian ban, the letter-writing campaign, and things leading up to it. This one will be a freebee, unlike the others I have written that are on my profile banner – ‘free’ is more in keeping with the spirit of things. They should all be free, but unfortunately, writing is my sole gig. It’s either that or Mickey D. for me.

En route to gathering material, I came across a book entitled Dissent on the Margins, which is about the history of our people in Russia, published in 2014. The author, Emily Baran, is not a Witness, nor a cheerleader for us, but she gets it right with regard to her facts - she relates them accurately and impartially. She has been quoted on jw.org. Her book has given me much context, preventing what might be some clumsy missteps, and I recommend it. 

It’s pricey, but less so as an Ebook. And worth it, if you’re into history and non-biased commentary. Whereas my books are largely anecdotes and experiences, my ‘research’ mostly just nailing down the specifics of things or events I already know about or have recently come across online, she actually has done the academic kind. Her book is heavily footnoted with materials both from Witnesses here and in Russia, as well as government archives.
 

sometimes the best answer is a short one

It is of interest that the very arguments that the ones on the "outside" like the anti-cultist apostates from the Russian Ministry of Injustice say about "disfellowshipping"  and "some" here on this forum about those having "total control"  are EXACTLY the same arguments Korah brought up in Numbers Cp. 16. Like those taking the lead in Jehovah's Organization are "tyrannical"  "Now do you also want to make yourself an absolute ruler over us? as well as "Why, then, should you exalt yourselves above the congregation of Jehovah?  Num 16. Those were the words the REBELS said not the loyal ones!  Jehovah says showing such disrespect to his imperfect human reps such as Moses and Aaron was showing disrespect to Him. And we know what happened.

Not likely.

I think they're all crazy here, myself included. Well - if not crazy, at least they all have some special reasons for writing. Actually, some of them I like, and I may even cut myself a tiny bit of slack, but there's no getting around the fact that - this isn't the type of hangout the Watchtower has in mind when in speaks of associations, is it? Perhaps you could most charitably describe the atmosphere as avant-guard.
Do you belong here, Nicola? You come across as a very good person, a trusting person, who expected something very different than the exchange of remarks here. Even with your exchange with so and so, I suspect you would be fine friends in the congregation where you would work shoulder to shoulder, interact face to face, along with the other friends, and readily get to know where each other is coming from.
On the internet, there is no way to determine anything about anyone other than their comments themselves, and that takes a while and can never be known for sure. There's no point in asking someone if he is a brother or not. How would you know if he is being truthful? You don't even know if the profile picture he uses is genuine. The internet is not the congregation.
After an initial skirmish, I have carried on at great length about the ignorant, disgusting, controlling battleaxe of a Librarian, who I'm not afraid of one bit. My DESCRIPTION fooled even HIS LOUDNESS. In fact, she is a he.

I think they're all crazy here, myself included. Well - if not crazy, at least they all have some special reasons for writing. Actually, some of them I like, and I may even cut myself a tiny bit of slack, but there's no getting around the fact that - this isn't the type of hangout the Watchtower has in mind when in speaks of associations, is it? Perhaps you could most charitably describe the atmosphere as avant-guard.
Do you belong here, Nicola? You come across as a very good person, a trusting person, who expected something very different than the exchange of remarks here. Even with your exchange with so and so, I suspect you would be fine friends in the congregation where you would work shoulder to shoulder, interact face to face, along with the other friends, and readily get to know where each other is coming from.
On the internet, there is no way to determine anything about anyone other than their comments themselves, and that takes a while and can never be known for sure. There's no point in asking someone if he is a brother or not. How would you know if he is being truthful? You don't even know if the profile picture he uses is genuine. The internet is not the congregation.
After an initial skirmish, I have carried on at great length about the ignorant, disgusting, controlling battleaxe of a Librarian, who I'm not afraid of one bit. My DESCRIPTION fooled even HIS LOUDNESS. In fact, she is a he.

I think they're all crazy here, myself included. Well - if not crazy, at least they all have some special reasons for writing. Actually, some of them I like, and I may even cut myself a tiny bit of slack, but there's no getting around the fact that - this isn't the type of hangout the Watchtower has in mind when in speaks of associations, is it? Perhaps you could most charitably describe the atmosphere as avant-guard.
Do you belong here, Nicola? You come across as a very good person, a trusting person, who expected something very different than the exchange of remarks here. Even with your exchange with so and so, I suspect you would be fine friends in the congregation where you would work shoulder to shoulder, interact face to face, along with the other friends, and readily get to know where each other is coming from.
On the internet, there is no way to determine anything about anyone other than their comments themselves, and that takes a while and can never be known for sure. There's no point in asking someone if he is a brother or not. How would you know if he is being truthful? You don't even know if the profile picture he uses is genuine. The internet is not the congregation.
After an initial skirmish, I have carried on at great length about the ignorant, disgusting, controlling battleaxe of a Librarian, who I'm not afraid of one bit. My DESCRIPTION fooled even HIS LOUDNESS. In fact, she is a he.

I like the frank statement in Paragraph 12 of Sunday's Watchtower stuydy: “The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction.”
 
There is no finer way to get some grumblers going than to say: “oh, we changed that.” Hostile people scour past publications, discover where you’ve once said ‘A’, whereas now you say ‘B,’ and pounce all over the ‘flip-flop.’ They thereby reveal that they themselves reason like 10-year olds.
 
It's not a piece of cake looking into the future - everyone knows that - so if you mess up, you back up and tackle the subject anew. We do it all the time. For decades, we have spoken of ‘tacking’ and the ‘light getting brighter.’ What is that if not an admission that we’ve often been wrong? We’re very open about it. So when the grousers come around with their grousing over teachings that have changed, they look pretty silly if they harp on it – we’ve never said that they don’t. There are many examples in the Bible of faithful ones doing or saying things that did not pan out.
 
The logical extension of this is that with any new understanding, one can always accept it as tentative, the best understanding available at the moment. Nobody expects you to herald these new understandings from the rooftops. They are not the basic fabric of the truth that we teach to our Bible students – they are for our own edification. So long as you don’t go setting yourself up as a counter-authority with your ‘better understanding,’ everybody gets along just fine.
It’s all a matter of respect for authority versus contempt for authority. That point the Governing Body just clarified? You may have noticed that point some time ago in your own private study of the Bible. And if this was the greater church world, you would have run out and started up your own sect over it. Instead, we wait on the human authority Jehovah has provided.
One character hoo-haws over the fact that growth among Western nations is quite modest and sometimes has even reversed. He thus reveals his bias that these are the only people who matter. One explanation for what he observes is that nowhere is contempt for authority of any sort more prevalent than in the West – independence is the revered goal held before all here. Another is the effect of this world’s ‘higher education,’ which pushes with all its might an atheistic view. 
 

A while back there was discussion of the NPR story:
"Lack Of Education Leads To Lost Dreams And Low Income For Many Jehovah's Witnesses" 
I read the article, but I didn't have to. The title says it all. Just where do you look for fulfillment of your dreams? This system of things or the one to come?

A while back there was discussion of the NPR story:
"Lack Of Education Leads To Lost Dreams And Low Income For Many Jehovah's Witnesses" 
I read the article, but I didn't have to. The title says it all. Just where do you look for fulfillment of your dreams? This system of things or the one to come?

A while back there was discussion of the NPR story:
"Lack Of Education Leads To Lost Dreams And Low Income For Many Jehovah's Witnesses" 
I read the article, but I didn't have to. The title says it all. Just where do you look for fulfillment of your dreams? This system of things or the one to come?

Well? Don't just sit there. Tell me if I can do it or not.
One brother said about such articles: "I read the question, then I skip to the end to see if I can do it or not."
Alright, alright, he was not being serious. He was kidding. But there were likely some who did it just that way. After all, it's not a joke unless there's a kernel of truth in it. People are people, inside God's organization or out.

Well said. The same happened in the Fist Century when Jesus said to eat his blood and flesh which his hearers knew was wrong yet many left following him anyway without a hint of respect for the signs that indicated he was the true one that was to come. If they just waited they would have been blessed. Many other examples like Korah and so on...You would think some would learn such principles if they only read the Bible instead of being complainers. Jehovah does not like ANY complainers or murmurers for obvious reasons such as in Numbers chp. 16 where Korah's arguments sound EXACTLY like JTR's with the tryanny "Now do you also want to make yourself an absolute ruler over us? as well as "Why, then, should you exalt yourselves above the congregation of Jehovah? Num 16. Jehovah says showing such disrespect to his human reps was showing disrespect to Him. And we know what happened.
   Of course as the end nears the world is becoming more secular and athiest and agnostics are the fastest growing religion for that reason. However here is an interesting article:
https://priceonomics.com/jehovahs-witnesses-a-case-study-in-viral-marketing/
Note this quote below :" But Jehovah’s Witnesses are actually net-positive. Despite their heavy leakage, Jehovah’s Witnesses are the largest Christian group gaining American membership. They’re winners!"
 
Jehovah's Witnesses: A Case Study in Viral Marketing
· 46,623 views · More stats
   Share Do you still hold your parents’ faith? If they raised you a Jehovah’s Witness, it’s likely your answer is, “No.” There’s over a 6 in 10 chance, in fact.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have their origins in a 1870’s religious movement, called the “Bible Student Movement”. Charles Taze Russell’s independent bible study lead him and his cohort to novel interpretations of the bible, which they codified and disseminated through publications like Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ Magazine. The church’s Governing Body -- which is responsible for refining the church’s interpretation of the bible -- is a group of seven men, and is based in Brooklyn. They still oversee the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society corporation, which was formed in 1884 to distribute the movement’s tracts and bibles.
Like many organized religions Jehovah’s Witnesses have their fair share of rituals, prophesy, and dogma. They refuse blood transfusions, believe that Armageddon will happen within in our lifetimes, and they abstain from holidays with “pagan origins” -- including Easter, Christmas, and birthdays.
But what tends to set Jehovah’s Witnesses apart in American society is their commitment to evangelism. All baptized members of the church are considered ‘ordained ministers’ and termed “publishers.” This authority comes with a mandate: publishers are required to go out and preach to the best of their ability. Hence the armies friendly young Jehovah’s Witnesses in their suits, spending their Saturday going door to door with bibles and armfuls of colorfully-illustrated Watch Tower pamphlets.

On the point of house-to-house ministry, the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization quotes the bible: “Jesus told his followers to “make disciples of people of all the nations.” (Matthew 28:19, 20)” But unlike many of the more common Christian denominations, Jehovah’s Witnesses are required to report back on their evangelical efforts to a central organization.
If a baptized Jehovah’s Witness fails to submit reports monthly, they’re termed “irregular” and investigated by the community elders. If he or she fails to submit a report for six consecutive months, the publisher is termed “inactive”. Extreme breaches of conduct can result in disfellowshipping -- i.e. banning from the community. The church tracks “active” publishers as its main membership statistic.

When you consider the fact that 39% of self-identifying Catholics attend religious services in the range of “A few times a year” and “Never” -- or the 46% of Mainline Protestants, 45% of Jews, 68% of Buddhists -- Jehovah’s Witnesses have a comparatively steep requirement for membership. The cultures of these faiths allow for individuals to affiliate informally, with minimal external, measurable engagement. Jehovah’s Witnesses, on the other hand, keep track of who is in and who is out and keep track of their participation. They don’t practice infant baptism for this same reason: “Instead of specifying an age to get baptized, God’s Word describes the spiritual condition of those qualified to take that step [...] baptism is for those who are already disciples of Christ.” To be in, you really have to be in.
It’s to be expected that this opt-in system and paperwork-heavy user experience would cause a terrible churn rate. This is not a seamless religion by any stretch.
A Highly Competitive Marketplace

When Pew Research Center surveyed Americans on their religious affiliations, they reported that the United States has a “very competitive marketplace”: “every major religious group is simultaneously gaining and losing adherents.”
A lot of this dynamism is lost in top-line statistics. For example, about a third of all Americans raised Catholic no longer identify as Catholic, but the percentage of the population made up of Catholics has remained relatively stable for the past several decades because these multitudes have been offset by new immigrants to the U.S. identifying as Catholic.
These attrition rates start to look pretty good, however, next to some other numbers. Jehovah’s Witnesses have the lowest retention rate of all the groups -- that’s them all the way on the right. 63% of Americans who were raised Jehovah’s Witness say they aren’t Jehovah’s Witness anymore.
Still “Winning”
But as our bar chart shows, the large religious groups that allow for more informal membership are losing members too -- every major religious group is. According to Pew, 44% of all adult Americans have changed their religious affiliation, and the group that has grown the most by a long shot is the sector of Americans who claim no religious affiliation.
By Pew’s analysis, Protestantism, Catholicism, and Mormonism are all net-negative: there are more people raised in the religious groups who have left, than there are people who have converted into the religious groups. Even Hinduism -- which has the lowest attrition rate -- is just breaking even. But Jehovah’s Witnesses are actually net-positive. Despite their heavy leakage, Jehovah’s Witnesses are the largest Christian group gaining American membership. They’re winners!

In a shrinking market, it pays to invest in some viral-marketing. Which is where the 1-million-plus Jehovah’s Witness ministers in America come in. They’re all active recruiters. If Jehovah’s Witnesses were a SaaS company, every ‘customer’ would have to spend several hours a week reaching out to prospective customers, or they’d get their subscription cancelled.
Jehovah’s Witnesses gain about 30,000 members a year through baptism -- some of those are children of Jehovah’s witness families, and others are converts. If they didn’t lose so many members to conversion they’d be growing at an even faster rate.
We can actually model how much faster, with a simplified formula for viral growth. Viral marketing depends on existing customers recruiting new customers -- like how you can get more free storage capacity on dropbox if you refer your friends. If you know how many users you have (current_pop), on average, how many new customers each existing customer can recruit in a year (baptisms_per_publisher), and if you know what percentage of your customers drop out of the service per year (annual_churn_rate), then you can calculate future populations based on your current population: 
According to JWFacts.com (whose statistics seem to match up with the annual Watch Tower reports), there were about 982,5233 active publishers in 2002. The conversion rate is tiny, at around 3 baptisms a year for every 100 publishers. But according to this model, the steady stream of converts means Jehovah’s Witnesses can still grow -- even if their recruitment strategies are responsible for some of their attrition.
The average churn rate over the past decade has sat at around 1.5% of the total population. If they were retaining members at the rate the Catholic church used to -- .4% in the early 1980s -- they’d hit 2 million publishers in the United States by 2032.


There are a lot of assumptions that go into viral marketing. Companies tend to like these projections because investors tend to like the look of exponential growth, but like many attempts to predict the future they’re imperfect. Some things that could disrupt this model are changes in church policy and prophesy, and major world events. Apparently membership ballooned right before 1975 because church leaders had “built up hope” that the world would end that year. Membership declined in the years following, when it didn’t. The actual Armageddon would also probably halt the church’s viral growth.
Which brings us to another factoid that might disrupt this model: being a Jehovah’s Witness is not for everyone. This market is not infinite. It has a ceiling, and in fact, given the American trend towards secularism in the past few decades, that ceiling is getting lower. But for the time being, Jehovah’s Witnesses make up about 1% of the U.S. population. This means they have a lot of room left to grow, and -- unlike the other major Christian denominations -- they’re making headway, modest though their growth factor may be.

Jehovah's Witnesses clear out their property
WHAT DO JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OWN IN ST. PETERSBURG?
One of the most influential religious organizations in the world has now fallen under a ban in Russia
Moskovskii Komsomolets, 5 May 2017
 
The Supreme Court has actually ruled that the Jehovah's Witnesses conducted extremist activity. Now they are required to cease their work immediately, which they have already done. Further, apparently, there will be new owners of their property. And these believers' property is good, especially in St. Petersburg.
 
People left in tears
 
In the northern capital, which has traditionally been considered to be multi-confessional, a place was found for the Jehovists also. Here they own a dozen hectares of land in Kurort district in the village of Solnechnoe, with dwellings and office buildings. They also own a congress hall with 2,500 seats on Kolomyazh Prospect, building 21, with a hectare of land. And several smaller buildings.
 
The central office of the Russian Jehovists is located in Solnechnoe. In the plan of its  arrangement it may be compared with a monastery. Families of clergy worked and lived there. In all, about 300 persons worked in the settlement of the Administrative Center.
 
Now the buildings on the shore of the Finnish Gulf are empty. The inhabitants began leaving with their things as soon as they learned of decision of the court. Many had lived and worked here for years and therefore they departed in tears.
 
"We will challenge the decision, but we do not want to create in the authorities the impression that we are not obeying the court," one of the former leaders of the center explains.
 
Instead of a dump they built a palace
 
There existed the myth that back in the early 1990s Mayor Anatoly Sobchak presented the Witnesses a parcel of 10.5 hectares in Solnechnoe and a hectare on Komomyazh. However, as it turned out, according to documents the religious organization acquired the territory of a former Pioneer Camp in Solnechnoe, which included residences, buildings, and a boiler house, from a construction company for 150 million rubles. According to representatives of the Jehovists, the camp had been completely ruined and they rebuilt it and turned it into a well landscaped lot.
 
At the time, fellow Jehovist believers from Finland, Sweden, and Norway worked on the construction. They brought a Finnish architect. The Scandinavians brought construction materials and hired workers. The construction began in 1992 and by 2002 the entire "camp" was ready. And all of this belonged to citizens of other countries, the Witnesses aver, and therefore it cannot be confiscated.
 
While the construction of the camp was underway, the Witnesses found the land for the Hall of Congresses. Mayor Anatoly Sobchak signed an order to transfer to the Jehovah's Witnesses one hectare on Kolomyazh Prospect. It was leased for 49 years under the condition that for each square meter they were supposed to pay 10 rubles as their contribution to the development of the city. It turned out that the land was not without a surprise—under the future building was found a hazardous waste dump. But the Jehovists paid for the complete disposal of harmful waste.
 
Despite the rumors about the foreign imprint in the immovable property of the Jehovists, according to information of Rosreestr [Russian Register] both the land in Solnechnoe and the hectare on Kolomyazh today are registered to the Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia. The foreign owners, who might have been able to protect the property of their Russian fellow believers, could not be found. (tr. by PDS, posted 5 May 2017)

If 'going beyond the law' is the new gold standard, why doesn't that become the law? Could any solution be more straightforward?

I like the frank statement in Paragraph 12 of Sunday's Watchtower stuydy: “The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction.”
 
There is no finer way to get some grumblers going than to say: “oh, we changed that.” Hostile people scour past publications, discover where you’ve once said ‘A’, whereas now you say ‘B,’ and pounce all over the ‘flip-flop.’ They thereby reveal that they themselves reason like 10-year olds.
 
It's not a piece of cake looking into the future - everyone knows that - so if you mess up, you back up and tackle the subject anew. We do it all the time. For decades, we have spoken of ‘tacking’ and the ‘light getting brighter.’ What is that if not an admission that we’ve often been wrong? We’re very open about it. So when the grousers come around with their grousing over teachings that have changed, they look pretty silly if they harp on it – we’ve never said that they don’t. There are many examples in the Bible of faithful ones doing or saying things that did not pan out.
 
The logical extension of this is that with any new understanding, one can always accept it as tentative, the best understanding available at the moment. Nobody expects you to herald these new understandings from the rooftops. They are not the basic fabric of the truth that we teach to our Bible students – they are for our own edification. So long as you don’t go setting yourself up as a counter-authority with your ‘better understanding,’ everybody gets along just fine.
It’s all a matter of respect for authority versus contempt for authority. That point the Governing Body just clarified? You may have noticed that point some time ago in your own private study of the Bible. And if this was the greater church world, you would have run out and started up your own sect over it. Instead, we wait on the human authority Jehovah has provided.
One character hoo-haws over the fact that growth among Western nations is quite modest and sometimes has even reversed. He thus reveals his bias that these are the only people who matter. One explanation for what he observes is that nowhere is contempt for authority of any sort more prevalent than in the West – independence is the revered goal held before all here. Another is the effect of this world’s ‘higher education,’ which pushes with all its might an atheistic view. 
 

I like the frank statement in Paragraph 12 of Sunday's Watchtower stuydy: “The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction.”
 
There is no finer way to get some grumblers going than to say: “oh, we changed that.” Hostile people scour past publications, discover where you’ve once said ‘A’, whereas now you say ‘B,’ and pounce all over the ‘flip-flop.’ They thereby reveal that they themselves reason like 10-year olds.
 
It's not a piece of cake looking into the future - everyone knows that - so if you mess up, you back up and tackle the subject anew. We do it all the time. For decades, we have spoken of ‘tacking’ and the ‘light getting brighter.’ What is that if not an admission that we’ve often been wrong? We’re very open about it. So when the grousers come around with their grousing over teachings that have changed, they look pretty silly if they harp on it – we’ve never said that they don’t. There are many examples in the Bible of faithful ones doing or saying things that did not pan out.
 
The logical extension of this is that with any new understanding, one can always accept it as tentative, the best understanding available at the moment. Nobody expects you to herald these new understandings from the rooftops. They are not the basic fabric of the truth that we teach to our Bible students – they are for our own edification. So long as you don’t go setting yourself up as a counter-authority with your ‘better understanding,’ everybody gets along just fine.
It’s all a matter of respect for authority versus contempt for authority. That point the Governing Body just clarified? You may have noticed that point some time ago in your own private study of the Bible. And if this was the greater church world, you would have run out and started up your own sect over it. Instead, we wait on the human authority Jehovah has provided.
One character hoo-haws over the fact that growth among Western nations is quite modest and sometimes has even reversed. He thus reveals his bias that these are the only people who matter. One explanation for what he observes is that nowhere is contempt for authority of any sort more prevalent than in the West – independence is the revered goal held before all here. Another is the effect of this world’s ‘higher education,’ which pushes with all its might an atheistic view. 
 

Really, really staunch Church members do not cease being Church members when they are not attending Church - say, when they are working at their government jobs.

Go-pher it!