All Eight Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses members are now individually named on two New York Child Victims Act case documents

[JW Insider]

12 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Agreed.

That was too easy. I think it's a trap!

[AlanF]

TrueTomHarley said:
     

Quote

 

    9 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Well, many times you've deliberately misquoted or distorted my words, or claimed I said something or have views that have nothing to with reality. Why should this time be different?

 

    
Note how this liar completely ignores what I said and doubles down on his practice of lying and his lousy reading comprehension:

Quote

Look, you windbag. Nobody else has this problem of producing lengthy texts that appear to be expounding upon your previous remarks and then blaming Admin for his inadequate software! Everyone else can figure out how to use the stuff.

Like I said, lousy reading comprehension. Few others seem to have a problem understanding what I write.

Perhaps long years of reading 3rd-grade level Watchtower publications have damaged your brain.

Quote

The trick is to not think yourself so important that you must, not only talk ad nauseam yourself, but quote others ad nauseam so you can argue with their every syllable!

I'm very thorough because I actually pay attention to what people write. You obviously don't.

Much of your reading comprehension problem is that you either don't seem to read carefully -- no surprise, given that WTS publications lend themselves to this -- or you simply haven't the mental acuity to put two and two together. I suspect it's a combination of both.

This goes along with your inability to write clearly. Your one blog post that I read is a real dog's breakfast of semi-gobble-de-goop.

As for the board software, if you make a post, and try to make another post immediately afterward, it merges the two. I've never seen this happen on any other board.

Furthermore, there appears to be no way to generate a quote inside a quote. If you've figured out how to do this, then do enlighten me, oh great software wizard. I won't be holding my breath.

[JW Insider]

53 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

WT have logic how all people from past until today who worship JHVH, ARE Jehovah's Witnesses. :))

Two things wrong with that:

1. In English, all those people in the past who worship Jehovah, were not Jehovah's Witnesses; they were Jehovah's witnesses. Note the smaller "w."

*** w58 4/15 p. 230 par. 11 A New Song for All Men of Good Will ***
God’s first prophecy through a man came through Enoch, the seventh man in line from Adam. Enoch was a man of faith in Jehovah God and so became Jehovah’s witness.

There is some ambiguity in such statements made before the 1970's, where the upper-case W wasn't used, even when referring to the modern-day religion of Jehovah's witnesses, except in quotes from others, or in titles, where such words are often capitalzed. Although it was funny looking at the bound volumes of court cases in the Writing Dept library where the titles embossed onto the books included the term "J.w.'s" not "J.W.'s"

2. The actual statements will sometimes make claims that "Jehovah's Witnesses" (uppercase "W") taught a certain thing before, during, or shortly after 1914 that they didn't teach. For example, more than 70 years before 1991, they were still teaching that Jesus had become king in 1878, not 1914.

 

 

8 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

53 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

WT have logic how all people from past until today who worship JHVH, ARE Jehovah's Witnesses. :))

Two things wrong with that:

 

9 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Furthermore, there appears to be no way to generate a quote inside a quote. If you've figured out how to do this, then do enlighten me, oh great software wizard. I won't be holding my breath.

Just above this quote from you I took my own post and started highlighting at the "WT" in "WT have logic how" and continued selecting the text down to the word "that." When the "Quote Selection" option showed up, I clicked it and got the quote within a quote above. Of course, if the quoted portion takes up more than about 4 or 5 lines, the quoted portion will include a "Read More" option. Most of yours do that anyway.

[AlanF]

James Thomas Rook Jr.

Quote

 

Posted 3 hours ago

One thing I really enjoy from the Governing Body is their new series of Animations, similar to the Caleb and Sophia animated cartoons, about how in the New System, all animals will be at peace with each other, play together, and be happy.

 

I wonder what their non-existent God will do with sperm whales' proclivity to eat giant squid. And baleen whales' need to eat fish and krill.

[TrueTomHarley]

4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I blurted out the first thing that came to my mind, "I do not think about them at all."

This is actually a very good answer. No one has to kiss up to these guys. It is enough not to oppose them.

No national leader stands by and sees his legitimacy trashed. You don’t get too far in Russia or China by doing that. Look how much trouble Trump is causing that “whistleblower” and the uproar over it from those who want to undermine him. Obama did the say with a different set of whistleblowers. 

It is enough not to try to grab the wheel of the bus. Simply “do not think about them at all” if you cannot get your head around everything they do.

[TrueTomHarley]

13 hours ago, AlanF said:

I asked him point blank: “In one sentence, is it or is it not true that elders are *directly* appointed by holy spirit?” He hesitated, hung his head, and answered, “No.”

If he hung his head, it was not in shame. It was in dismay at the literalism.

He was probably wondering, “How did this fellow ever get past ‘I and the father are one’ to become a Witness in the first place?

He was probably wondering, “How did this fellow ever come to believe in God?” since the cosmonauts traveled through the heavens and didn’t see him.

Lord, save us from the literalists.

By definition, you cannot get to see spiritual things. It is the wind that blows where it will and you hear the sound of it but cannot otherwise nail it down. (John 3:8)

In the ministry, I will not argue with a trinitarian (having learned from experience). I say, “95% of the scriptures that are said to prove the trinity would, if they were seen in any other context, be instantly dismissed as figure of speech.” Yet somehow grown persons make themselves children when they see them in the Bible, and insist: “The Bible SAYS what it MEANS and MEANS what it SAYS.” I simply cannot play that game. I don’t want to prove that “crocodile tears” does not mean the crying person is a crocodile. I don’t want to have to produce the bush after I have told someone not to beat around it. I don’t want to explain to a grown-up that there is no Santa Claus.

I have never had this problem at all of demanding just HOW elders are appointed by holy spirit. Jesus said (above) that it can’t be done. It is enough to say that appointees are measured against the Bible template, which is an acknowledged product of holy spirit, the measuring is done by existing elders, and is cleared by HQ, where presumably there is a file cabinet stuffed with holy spirit.

I do note, however—I mean it clicks together just now—a possible reason for that last letter from the circuit overseer. “I have appointed” so-and-so as an elder in the congregation, he said. It is a tactic to stay one step ahead of the scoundrels who are adept at “framing mischief by decree” to make clear that, contrary to their insistence that they are fighting a “corporation,” what they are actually fighting is the Bible itself, and to the extent that the Bible is God’s Word, which we believe that it is, God himself. Verses directly say that traveling ministers appointed elders. Frame it the same way today so that they must redirect their attack against scripture itself and thereby reveal exactly what is their desire. Many changed wordings and announcements likely come about for the same reason, causing JTR to rant about “legal machinations,” but it cannot be any other way, because attacks are often framed legally.

After changing the wording, then say, as did G Jackson, “the Bible says that there will be such and such, and we are doing our best to fulfill that pattern.” Surely THAT should not be illegal.

(What he said was: “Jesus said that in the last days - and Jehovah's Witnesses believe these are the last  days - there would be a slave, a group of persons who would have responsibility to care for the spiritual food. So in that respect, we view ourselves as trying to fulfill that role")

Davey the Kid, from the final chapter of Tom Irregardless and Me, is a real person, immensely capable, who served several years at Bethel. He died a few years back, so perhaps I could give his last name, but then some sorehead here will produce evidence that he farted once and will start a thread about that. Davey related that, while at Bethel, visitors would tour and some would say that they could feel holy spirit in the hallways. You cannot literally feel holy spirit in the hallways, Davey said, as he went on to discuss just how holy spirit can be expected to back those who do God’s will, as they do in a focused way at Bethel. 

I can picture 99 persons in the audience—who had said they felt holy spirit in the hallways—smiling at themselves that they ever thought they could literally feel holy spirit in the hallways, and AlanF stomping out of the building now that they have admitted to LYING to him for all these years.

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, AlanF said:

Obviously I was being facetious.

Perhaps I was projecting so much from my own past experience that I didn't notice. There had been a time when I missed the nightly broadcast news and so just caught the monologue of Jon Stewart on Comedy Central. Then I realized that it was a whole lot funnier, but not much better than if Rachel Maddow had gone the extra inch to turn her show into stand-up comedy. If you could stand her style of extra long setups before each punch line, then she already was doing a comedy show.

[JW Insider]

14 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Don't mix Bible Student publications with Jehovah's Witnesses publications. The conversion was made in 1931. They officially moved to it in 1933. The control started in 1942. Officially, all JW publications began in 1950. . . . If history is going to be placed as an argument, get it straight.

CC, I understand how you think it "protects" the Governing Body's reputation if you don't allow any discussion of their past errors from before 1931, or even 1933, or even 1943, or even from before 1950. You stretch the truth here, but I understand your motive of trying to protect their reputation.

But you are really trying to protect them in such a way that we get a completely different view of them than truth, history, and reality offers us. I've always thought that cover-ups of any kind are dishonest, even if the motive seems praiseworthy.

In fact, the history of the Governing Body as the Faithful Slave, according to our CURRENT view, now goes back to 1919. They removed Russell from his membership in the exclusive committee, so I'll agree that discussing Russell's failings is not so relevant, even if it is important to show how easy it is for men to follow men. The last thing I'll say on that score (about Russell) is that the Watchtower NOW says that about 5,000 International Bible Students were active in 1914, and about 4,000 were active in 1919. In late 1916, it was admitted that THOUSANDS of Bible Students considered him to be, as a single individual, the entire "Faithful and Discreet Slave." This included Joseph Rutherford himself, and according to A H MacMillan, all the rest of the 'governing body' of that time, too. Rutherford even complained that Russell was being WORSHIPED, even though he was just another human, another creature. The Faith on the March book, Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose book, and the  Proclaimers book admits that there was a CULT of WORSHIP around Russell.

It's true that love does not keep account of the injury. But trying to cover up their past errors is therefore not an act of love. Love believes ALL things that are true, it does not hide the truth. Love shines through even when it "bears" and "endures" all these true things. Perhaps it's easy to forget the final part of this passage:

(1 Corinthians 13:4-7) 4 Love . . .  does not brag, does not get puffed up, 5 . . .  does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. 6 It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Notice, that this point is made even clearer in 2 Corinthians:

(2 Corinthians 6:6-8) . . .by love free from hypocrisy, 7 by truthful speech, by God’s power; through the weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left, 8 through glory and dishonor, through bad report and good report.. . .

[Srecko Sostar]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

1. In English, all those people in the past who worship Jehovah, were not Jehovah's Witnesses; they were Jehovah's witnesses. Note the smaller "w."

In Croatian are some different rules about uppercase and lowercase letters in these sort of two words names, titles. Because of this, I wasn't careful enough about what it would mean in the English language. Croatian WT magazines are translated with small letter for word "Witnesses" in name JW.

When I connected the past and the present and all those various people who showed themselves to be "witnesses" for JHVH in some specific way, then that meant continuity. Not only or not at all the continuity of a legal entity - an organization, but the existence of a type of people, as individuals and as groups. That is something how JW organization and WT Society, as legal entities, looking on themselves ...as continuation, as heirs of true faith, as witnesses for JHVH, from the time of the all faithful man of old and old patriarchs. 

 

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

2. The actual statements will sometimes make claims that "Jehovah's Witnesses" (uppercase "W") taught a certain thing before, during, or shortly after 1914 that they didn't teach. For example, more than 70 years before 1991, they were still teaching that Jesus had become king in 1878, not 1914.

In that sense, a legacy that the WT Society draws from Bible Students of Russell (teaching, doctrines, ideas, beliefs, administration) legally belongs to today's JW as facts that created and been cause for future "destiny" of those who continued the work of founders in 19th century. In such way of logic, all Russell's teaching and belief system, later abandoned, stay as real history of this, today existed JW organization. Museums halls that exists in worldwide Betel's buildings (Branch Offices) proves this. JW of today are proud of their history and beginnings in 19th century (not before, because Bible pictures of faithful men and Israel nation is heritage that many other religions want to appropriate for themselves too). By publicly showing and talking and writing about that in such way, JW accepting all what was said (teachings) before 1931 as own spiritual heritage that must to be carry today (as sort of burden).    

[AlanF]

JW Insider said:
     

Quote

 

    47 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

    WT have logic how all people from past until today who worship JHVH, ARE Jehovah's Witnesses. :))

Two things wrong with that:

1. In English, all those people in the past who worship Jehovah, were not Jehovah's Witnesses; they were Jehovah's witnesses. Note the smaller "w."

 

True, but many languages don't distinguish capitals from lowercase in proper names. In French, for example, you have "les témoins de jéhovah". This is never capitalized. And you have German, which capitalizes all sorts of words (I don't enough to say more).

Quote

 

*** w58 4/15 p. 230 par. 11 A New Song for All Men of Good Will ***
God’s first prophecy through a man came through Enoch, the seventh man in line from Adam. Enoch was a man of faith in Jehovah God and so became Jehovah’s witness.

There is some ambiguity in such statements made before the 1970's, where the upper-case W wasn't used, even when referring to the modern-day religion of Jehovah's witnesses, except in quotes from others, or in titles, where such words are often capitalzed. Although it was funny looking at the bound volumes of court cases in the Writing Dept library where the titles embossed onto the books included the term "J.w.'s" not "J.W.'s"

 

The ambiguity was deliberate. It allowed the Society to make false claims about the history of "Jehovah's witnesses" by blurring the distinction between the modern religion and generic past "witnesses". Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose was especially dishonest in doing this.

Quote

2. The actual statements will sometimes make claims that "Jehovah's Witnesses" (uppercase "W") taught a certain thing before, during, or shortly after 1914 that they didn't teach. For example, more than 70 years before 1991, they were still teaching that Jesus had become king in 1878, not 1914.

In many cases the context shows that blurring the distinction between "W" and "w" is deliberate. Old timers certainly know the difference.

[Witness]

On 11/21/2019 at 12:39 AM, Arauna said:

JWs are not dictators and must rather err on the side of not judging too quickly because a hasty judgment is just as bad as not judging at all. 

Somehow you missed how the elders judged the victim, a 14 year old girl, as the one to be blamed.  

On 11/21/2019 at 12:39 AM, Arauna said:

I see these cases seem to be retro-active.  When did they take place?  The date it happened depends on the laws in place at the time.

Depends on the laws at the time?  What about God's laws fulfilled in Christ?  

For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”  Gal 5:14

Did the elders enact that law when speaking with the victim?

On 11/21/2019 at 12:39 AM, Arauna said:

... so it seems the secular system is not without its flaws..... 

The first to respond to the issue were the elders, whose response only added to the trauma the victim was suffering.  The biggest flaw here, is the system that the girl depended on to give her spiritual support.  The elders' "hasty decision" aided the woman to consider suicide.  

[Anna]

 

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

 Do you have a position of authority? If so, ask yourself: ‘What kind of environment do I create at work or at home? Do I promote peace? Do I encourage others to ask questions? And am I willing to hear their opinions?’ Never would we want to be like the Pharisees, who resented those who questioned them and persecuted those who expressed an opinion contrary to their own.—Mark 3:1-6; John 9:29-34. - WT study article September 2019, page 23 par 11

"What kind of environment" do GB create inside JW Organization aka congregations ?

Good point Srecko. I don't think it's entirely fair to blame the GB for creating a "certain" environment inside congregations though.

In fact, (we know everything passes through the GB's hands for approval, if they haven't written it themselves) the above expressions must be what the GB agree with. Time and again I see that it is not the questions that are asked, or even expressing an opinion contrary to their own, but it's the way this is done and what is the the purpose for doing it. Most elders are willing to hear an opinion, and do not resent those who express an opinion contrary to their own. I know that from personal experience. However, if the motive is to exult your own ideas, to force people to listen to them over and over again, and to try and make people see it your way, then that is stirring up contentions and is eroding peace in the congregation. And those who erode peace, will eventually find themselves kicked out sooner or later. Just to illustrate; I told a few elders, in no uncertain terms, that I cannot agree with the "overlapping generation" idea, and I left it at that. No one has ever come after me, or tried to convince me otherwise, and we all remain good friends. Now you know what would happen if I started to aggressively push my opinion on every single person I came into contact with.

In another instance; I rattled one sister's cage (it means irritated her) during a discussion in the car during field service (in the US a car load of friends go out). We were all talking about animals being friends in the paradise. I voiced my opinion that I believe there will still be the same food chain as there is now, with carnivores consuming the herbivores. I explained why I think that, but this one sister was adamant that lions will eat grass and will be buddies with the sheep. But we didn't argue who is right and who is wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as long as you are not trying to beat the other person over the head with it. 

So I think it is assumed that 'questioning and expressing an opinion' will be done in a civil way, to which those in a position of authority should have no trouble listening.