Reading it now. Just got through reading WTBS definition of "brazen", the thing is they spun the negative aspects of this word to fit their "agenda", and
that's a big part of how they operate...............rock220
DMCA Complaint from The WatchTower for links to KS-10 'Shepherding' book
by Simon 217 Replies latest forum announcements
-
-
Lady Lee
ugottabejoking
copy and paste at will. don't plagiarize for chrissake. Just reference where you go it. What's the big deal. As long as your not making money from it. How is the WT being damaged??? Tough to prove damages if they wrote that crap.
it's obviously in the public domain. e.g. http://easybib.com
It is NOT public domain. It bears a 2010 Copyright notice and there are specific instruction regarding who gets the book. It clearly is not for the public.
And no you cannot copy and paste at will. There are ways to legally use portions of the book. Yesterday I wrote some suggestions about how to do this - legally under the "fair use" clause. Copyright, piracy, plagiarism, "Fair use": What are they? Randy has put a copy on Freeminds as well http://www.freeminds.org/jehovah-s-witness-faq/jehovah-s-witness-faq/copyright-piracy-plagarism-fair-use-what-are-they.html
And it doesn't matter if you are making money or they are losing money. It is theirs. And it doesn't even matter if it is crap. It is their crap.
When you don't know what you are talking about the wisest thing to do it be quiet.
Rabbit
My heart goes out to you on the loss of your mother by this deceitful organization that masquerades as a religion.. But whatever dgeggnog's beliefs are about the WTS he has provided some excellent legal information about copyright laws.
The problem is that many of the laws can be interpreted differently by a judge. We are dealing with books and words and words that people can use to make the WTS look bad - not that they really need any help there - or to expose them and that is what we try to do. By having the legal methods to expose them we can avoid worries about threatened lawsuits. Personally I want to expose them until the cows come home. But I don't want them breathing down my neck so I do it legally, without breaking copyright laws. It can be done and is being done every day.
Your attack on djeggnogg, although understood is unwarranted. He is here to provide us with information that, in the end, will actually help us expose them legally
-
JW GoneBad
OUTLAW, you are H-I-L-A-R-I-O-U-S with that monitor slapping scene! I literally have tears running down.
Lady Lee, you are another one I have been wanting to thank and express my appreciation to for all that you do. THANK YOU!
-
Lady Lee
You are welcome JW gone bad
-
Lady Lee
I'm sending this bttt because people don't seem to get it and I'm getting very tired of deleting them. I have better things to do
do not post links to the book on this website
-
TJ - iAmCleared2Land
Sorry Lady Lee, I was the bad egg this time; haven't been on the site in a couple months, and the very first thread I read was about the new book (but not THIS thread), and somebody asking if it had been posted yet... I found it online, posted the link. I've edited my posts, and apologize.
-
Lady Lee
Thank you
You aren't the only one I deleted in the last 5 minutes. I found 3 others as well
-
djeggnog
@AllTimeJeff:
djeggnog, if I might be allowed to weigh in, I think you have made your point.
What was my point exactly, if you don't mind sharing with me what your thoughts are?
You of all people (I hope) can understand the emotion that comes from former JW's.
Yes, I do. I'm not without emotion myself, which is why I'm here.
Now that you have made your point, and the moderators agree with your statements, I fail to see the utility in morphing this thread into, what appears to be an attempt at defending your personal belief system.
Please tell me what you mean by this. I don't feel like guessing [wrong].
I mean, I bet you have personal beliefs, and for that, congrats! Carry on.
If you don't have personal beliefs, you're dead, so I assume you have a set of them [beliefs, I mean]. For example, do you believe (as I do) that billions of people now living are going to be adversely affected at the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven? If so, are you -- like me -- warning folks about the coming revelation or what? I wouldn't mind "morphing" this thread into one about your personal beliefs @AllTimeJeff; otherwise, what would be the point?
@TastingFreedom:
EggNogg, I don't know your track record on this site, but based on your posts in this thread, you give the impression of being a loyal Watchtower soldier, trying to infuse fear around here!
I'm a soldier, but not for the WTS. As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I'm a soldier for the Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Timothy 2:3) You, like many of the posters on this board, have the cracked idea that those of us that take what things the Bible says seriously do what things we do in our own name, or that we are motivated by a desire to be men-pleasers, such as to make everyone in the local congregation or everyone in the circuit or everyone in the district speak well of us as servants, or to maybe please the brothers at the Brooklyn, New York, branch office, as if we live for the adoration of men. (Colossians 3:22-24)
I suppose some among Jehovah's Witnesses might live for the adoration of others, but not all do; for example, I don't. I'm motivated by my love for Jehovah, my gratitude for Jesus' sacrifice, and my love for people to share with folks the good news that someone shared with me about the kingdom of God and the hope I now have of living forever on this planet. But you may not have ever been motivated selflessly to do anything. Have you ever been so motivated to do anything for anybody without their being some tangible, selfish reason or motive, something that you were getting out of your doing it? Anything at all? I'm going to tell you a story, @TastingFreedom, about what it means to loyal and motivated. Of course, you can skip it if you wish, but maybe some of the lurkers here will benefit from hearing this story.
My F-I-L sustained a stroke that took out one side of his body, so that in addition to his having no control whatsoever on the paralyzed side of his body, there was a loss of urinary continence, and this development, which included a loss of bowel control, was something to which he could never adjust since too many times his daughter was the only person available to clean him up after such a bowel movement occurred. He wanted so much to be able to use the toilet, and thought that with a bit of assistance from one of us to get to the bathroom (which adjourned his bedroom) that he could adjust to his post-stroke state.
But not long after my F-I-L's stroke, he developed sensory and motor deficits so that he didn't always sense when he needed to urinate, and I believe the fact that he never regained control over his bowels became the straw the broke the proverbial camel's back, for if I wasn't there, his daughter would be there cleaning him up. One of us would rush to his house to relieve the home health care person (HHCP) after work giving the other of us opportunity to check on things at our own home.
Like me, my wife would imagine herself in her father's position, and since neither of us would want to be wet and lying in our own feces for any period of time, we would immediately attend to my F-I-L's needs, even shooing visiting relatives away when necessary, and this is one of the reasons why he was especially grateful when I could be "home" (his home had temporarily become our home for several months following his release from the convalescent home) since he would cringe when his daughter had to clean him up when I wasn't there. I was motivated every day to make sure he was fed (or that the HHCP was doing what was expected of him or her while he was in his or her care), and that he was in good spirits, especially after it became apparent that he was never going to recover from his paralysis, which news doused what little hope he had possessed until this news arrived, so when the news from the rehab people that he would never walk on his own again, even with a walker, was yet another adjustment he had to make.
His quality of life had deteriorated to a point where I believe he no longer had an interest in taking in nourishment, and as the weeks progressed, his refusal to eat or open his mouth to accept food from us or the HHCP (when neither of us could be there) is what eventually led to his final hospitalization and death. (In the end, he hardly had the strength to speak.) I tell you this story, @TastingFreedom, because I was as loyal to my F-I-L as I am to the Lord Jesus Christ as a soldier, for if I am loyal, I know that I will gain his approval. (2 Timothy 2:4)
I'm motivated to do the work that he has entrusted to me to do as an envoy of the kingdom of God, declaring and warning people that his revelation is near, so that the time left for them to repent and put faith in the good news is reduced. I don't know what it means to "infuse fear" -- maybe you thought with these words you would be communicating a certain sentiment as a knock against me, I don't know -- but, in addition to all of the other things I'm motivated to do as a Christian soldier, I come to this forum to discuss the Bible with those in fade, with those that have been disfellowshipped and with those who have for whatever reason disassociated themselves from Jehovah's organization.
Many folks have no experience doing anything whole-souled to anyone, but what I have here been describing what it means to be engaged in whole-souled service to another human being, but Christians are required to be do all things whole-souled as to Jehovah when serving others, whether it be one's own relatives or one's employer not related to them. (Colossians 3:23) Now some have experience in being "men pleasers," such as when an athlete, like a gymnast, works at his or her discipline for seven hours a day, or 35 hours a week, over five days, or maybe even longer than this, all for the adoration of men as represented by the trophy one receives for whole-souled efforts for men, but such "whole-souled " service is for self , is for one's own glory, and not for God's glory. (Ephesians 6:6)
Loving one's neighbor as oneself is not limited to kingdom preaching, but includes what things we do for other people, checking up on a neighbor, who is momentarily under the weather, or running an errand for someone across town whose car has suddenly let him or her down. But sharing a scripture will usually lead to a discussion of some aspect of God's kingdom, and such a discussion could eventually lead to your neighbor's salvation, so why not do it? Encouraging others to have the same godly fear that you have ultimately save someone's life, so why not do it?
There are laws in this country protecting copyrights and property but we also have rights and a constitution that protects our civil rights. Those rights don't go away just because some publisher corporation wants to intimidate us. I think Sheperd has refuted your fear mongering very cleverly!
You should not use either words or concepts that you do not understand. I've not engaged in any "fear mongering" here. Also, one refutes an argument, but I've made no argument. It would appear that you are making reference to your civil rights as an American citizen and to the US Constitution, but copyrights on intellectual property are international in scope, and your First Amendment freedom of religion as an American citizen means that Congress can "make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise" of anyone's religion, including any law that might interfere with the free exercise of religion by Jehovah's Witnesses. There is absolutely no need on your part to pretend to be smarter than me, brighter than me, more intelligent than me. If you just use the words and concepts that you yourself understand, I will understand you just fine.
Now in this thread, the right to keep a textbook published by the WTS confidential has not been under discussion here. The possibility that Jehovahs-Witness.net might be slapped with an injunction for contributory infringement of the copyright held by the WTS to this textbook by @Simon's permitting posters to include hyperlinks in their posts to the file being hosted on someone else's website is what has been driving this discussion.
The WTS has not threatened anyone's constitutional rights. It has merely taken steps to retard, that is to day, to slow down the efforts of unscrupulous individuals to make unauthorized copies of the new textbook available to the public. If you were to hold a copyright on your own work, your work would be protected by that copyright, and you have the right to defend against anyone at all that sought to make available to the public via US mail or electronically copies of your copyrighted work without authorization from you to do so. This thread, however, is not about whether the WTS intended to keep the content of its textbook a secret since it only sought to keep it confidential by limiting distribution of it to congregation elders. There really nothing in this new textbook that has not previously been published in other WTS publications.
IMO, if you don't really understand this thread, you should read it before posting to it. Start by reading @Simon's post on Page 1; he's the OP. Then, if you want, read both @Lady Lee's and my post on Pages 5 and 6, respectively. These posts should give you a true sense of what this thread is about, despite the silly comments of some that believe Jehovah's Witnesses are distressed or disturbed in some way (like @ziddina, @Soldier77, @brotherdan, @sabatious, @OUTLAW, @Ultimate Reality, @elderelite and @ldrnomo) as if the behavior of "people being people" would actually shock or surprise Jehovah's Witnesses who regularly visit the homes where such people live. Jehovah's Witnesses are no part of the world, but they live in this world, and contrary to what you (and others here) might believe, not many of us are ignorant.
@djeggnog
-
AllTimeJeff
Hi there djeggnog
What was my point exactly, if you don't mind sharing with me what your thoughts are?
If you don't know your own point, I will kindly bow out and let you figure it out.
Please tell me what you mean by this. I don't feel like guessing [wrong].
In that, after you and the mods have sufficiently chastised the (well meaning) posters here who put copyrighted material on this website (and may I say, I am glad you are here to police the copyrights of the WTBTS) you have used the opportunity to preach about JW's.... to former JW's... who are the MOST aware of what JW's teach.
I do hope, my dear eggnog, that you are not laboring under the false impression that we forgot, or that we have are having some kind of current short term memory lapse.
If you don't have personal beliefs, you're dead, so I assume you have a set of them [beliefs, I mean]. For example, do you believe (as I do) that billions of people now living are going to be adversely affected at the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven? If so, are you -- like me -- warning folks about the coming revelation or what? I wouldn't mind "morphing" this thread into one about your personal beliefs @AllTimeJeff; otherwise, what would be the point?
Ah yes! I forgot how much I used this line of reasoning myself. Eggnog, I have learned something very important about personal beliefs. They are not public beliefs.
JW's are very much into trampling personal beliefs. This thread isn't really about anyone's personal beliefs , so I will digress. If I choose to share my personal beliefs here, they will no longer be personal. Although I am sure you will be relieved to know that I do indeed have personal beliefs, and thus, will live!
When you asked me your question about if I agree with you that billions will be adversely affected at the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven, my answer is simply, I don't agree. Why? Well, that is personal.
But as you say, what is the point? To simply share, then compare, then rate our personal beliefs in a public way? Suffice to say, you believe differently then I. And please know, I am well aware of what you believe. I used to teach it. A lot. But I have changed, and have discarded the belief system that the Governing Body teaches publically to something... more personal. And I am much happier for it.
-
djeggnog
@Rabbit:
Eggnog, you are so terribly verbose.
This is write. (I'm a writer.)
And, despite having some apparent education you are still blinded by the academic.
Ok.
Which is why... you choose to ignore the human equation, like all the actual JW deaths from blood, vaccine, organ transplants, bans etc. over the history of Jehovah's Witnesses. You simply cannot understand my grief over losing my mom and family. Nor, can you empathize with the thousands and thousands of other similar true human events relating to 'all things Watchtower'.
Hold on now. I don't know you personally and I didn't know your mother. It is a known fact that people die, and, as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I teach others that people die because of a spiritual defect that all of Adam's offspring came to inherit after Adam decided to disobey God to make his own decisions independent of God, which decision led to all human being born in sin. While you are here saying all of these things about what it is I cannot understand, I know you already know all of these things if you ever studied the Bible with one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Unfortunately, many of the folks that were raised in Christian families and were baptized never studied the Bible with one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but went along with the program as it were, so that they became spiritually illiterates as far as what things the Bible teaches.
If death took your mom, then you would have to explain to me how it is you could be here indicting Jehovah's Witnesses as being responsible for her death. If you are presently estranged from any member of your family, then you would have to also explain to me how it is you could be here blaming Jehovah's Witnesses for her death. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I believe in community responsibility, but I don't see how you can blame me or think me culpable for your mother's death or for your estrangement from your family. I think you are hijacking @Simon's thread by bringing all of this up in this thread, but if you want to discuss your complaints, your gripes, your disappointments with me, I will join that thread once you have started it and discuss these things with you.
But since you started this, I will respond to your gripes now in this thread, but, not wanting to hijack it, please start a new thread so that we can take this matter up there if you should choose to do so.
As I told you, and you ignored, my mother believed in the WT's GB SO much -- she died over the blood issue. Not long after -- the WT's FlickeringLight -- the GB heard new voices in their heads and with a 2/3 majority vote (they don't all hear the same voices down that conduit) -- decided Hemoglobin was now a "Conscience Matter." It could have saved her life. Wow. The GB delivered "Food at the Proper Time," -- so LATE they missed my loyal JW moms deadline.
I'm sorry, but I must ask you. How do you know that had your mother accepted a blood transfusion that she would be alive today? How do you know that had she accepted blood, that she would not have died from complications as a result of her accepting one or more blood transfusions? You say here that your mother "believed in the WT's GB...." Is that right? I don't believe you. Or, rather, I should say that I don't believe that your mother put her faith in those men in Brooklyn, NY, as if they had given their lives as a ransom sacrifice for the sins of the world. Do you see where I'm going with this? This is not a Kingdom Hall, but a website where I will typically take my gloves off and say things like they need to be said.
I don't much care if you think I'm coming off here as insensitive to your pain, but you need to understand that what's happening at this moment to you (in this response) is reflexively in defense of your blaming me and all Jehovah's Witnesses for your mother's not being alive today and for your estrangement from your family. When you accuse me of anything, you deserve whatever comes back in return, and I usually ignore political correctness since I do the best I can to not come off as a hypocrite and call a spade a spade, especially now that you are telling me here that had your mother not refused to accept a blood transfusion as a "Conscience Matter," she would be alive today. I'm not going to try to convince you that your mother didn't die "over the blood issue," but I will tell you that if Armageddon doesn't arrive today -- and I said "today" -- that you and I might be dead as early as tomorrow, because (1) man dies; this is a fact, and (2) time and unforeseen occurrence befall all of us.
The truth of the matter is that your mother could have died from injuries sustained the day after her hospital stay after having consented to a blood transfusion from a car accident in which you and she died with you at the wheel, but her death would then, under such circumstances, have been eternal death since blood is sacred, and her acceptance of a blood transfusion, in total disregard for God's command to "abstain ... from blood" (Acts 15:20) would mean that she did not fear the One that could "destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." (Matthew 10:28) But she died having faith in the resurrection and she will return in the resurrection of the righteous ones, but due to your bitterness over her death in separating yourself from God's organization will result in you not being around to receive your mother during Judgment Day. (Luke 14:14)
I gotta tell ya: You have to be retarded to have taken such an unwise course in leaving Jehovah's organization for any reason because of your anger against Jehovah's Witnesses or, more specifically, the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses as if the governing body that represents the faithful and discreet slave is the faithful and discreet slave. That are many people today that profess to be Jehovah's Witnesses that truly believe Charles Russell alone to have been the faithful and discreet slave back in the 1800s, and, like them, you were not taught by anyone, nor did you read such a thing in any of the WTS publications to suggest such nonsense, but just as Russell alone wasn't the faithful and discreet slave, neither is the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses the faithful and discreet slave to whom Jesus referred at Matthew 24:45.
One more thing: You say that the blood transfusions she refused "could have saved her life," but you don't know that they would have saved her life, do you? This is really just speculation on your part, for there are many people that have received transfused blood, who did not survive the medical procedure in which such blood was being administered. You want to be hold someone responsible for your mother's death. Fine. You want to hold Jehovah's Witnesses as responsible for your mother's death. Fine. You want to hold the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses as responsible for your mother's death. Fine.
Since I, too, am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, you may as well hold me as being responsible for your mother's death, too, but your accusations mean nothing to me, because I'm not responsible. I'm responsible for my own decisions, not someone else's decisions, just as you are responsible for your own decisions and not your mother's decisions. Your mother was responsible for her own decision to not accept a blood transfusion, and you only have yourself to blame for your refusal to support your mother's decision. Like I said, I call a spade a spade.
One day, an Organ Transplant was "Cannibalism," the next day, when the new WT publication came out -- with The Brand NewLight...Organ Transplants were OK. No more Disfellowshipping. One day, Vaccines were "...filthy disease causing pus..." part of an AMA "conspiracy" to cause sickness, so they can profit off of it. Then, after vaccination laws were passed, keeping JW kids out of school -- NewLights go on and vaccines are A.O.K. Do you think an Almighty, All-Knowing God would have made those blunders that killed His own people ???
I've discussed this matter in another thread, so I'll just "plagiarize" myself in repeating what I said in that thread, to the effect that in a "Questions from Readers" article, w67 11/15, pp. 702-704, a few wrongheaded ideas did find their way into the Watchtower regarding organ transplants, one of them being the following:
"Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others." (Id. at 702.)
Assuming that you have read this 1967 QFR article, what you may have missed is the fact that the decision to accept an organ transplant was the personal decision of the conscientious Christian:
"Christians who have been enlightened by God’s Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him." (Id. at 704.)
Thirteen years later, in a subsequent "Questions from Readers" article, w80 3/15, p. 31, because many had wrongly concluded that their acceptance of an organ transplant as part of a medical procedure to have been a disfellowshipping offense, this more balanced article was published regarding organ transplants, which stated, in pertinent part, as follows:
"Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. They might hold that the transplanted human material is intended to become part of the recipient’s body to keep him alive and functioning. They might not see it as fundamentally different from consuming flesh through the mouth...."
And later, in the same article, it stated:
"Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs. They may reason that in some cases the human material is not expected to become a permanent part of the recipient’s body. Body cells are said to be replaced about every seven years, and this would be true of any human body parts that would be transplanted. It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the 'donor' is not killed to supply food.... [E]ach individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant."
I'm really interested in hearing your response after you have read this post, because I don't think you have anything of substance to say in response.
But, you go on and on and on...about the sacred WT words and beliefs and defend all the Academic they espouse. And, you eagerly forget the UGLY, the Hypocritical, the Blood Guilt they have committed for years. You have gotten so calloused, you cannot see why any of us could have big problems caused by joining this cult or feel so frustrated that we may think civil disobedience could be productive.
As Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses have no interest in civil disobedience, recognizing it as being my duty "to be in subjection to the superior authorities," for anyone that "opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God." (Romans 13:1, 2) Only should the superior authorities seeks to force us to do anything in violation of God's commands, only then will be refuse and accept the penalty, whatever that penalty might be, for such "civil disobedience." I don't belong to a cult, but you are entitled to hold the opinion you have of us. It occurs to me that you are also saying that you believe your mother was a member of a cult, and maybe you will eventually come to admit that what this also means is that you were a former 'cult member' yourself.
If you don't think it to be a good idea to join our "cult," then don't, but doesn't it even bother you that you could well be fighting against God in trying to persuade others from joining our "cult"? (Acts 5:39) You are not stronger than God, are you? You do know that you won't be able to overthrow us, don't you? As the Bible says, "a weak thing of God is stronger than men," so what kind of success do you expect to have doing what you're doing, @Rabbit? (1 Corinthians 1:25)
I realize it would be painful for you to think about all these needless deaths being ordered/expected by the WTB&TS Corporation Bylaws. So...don't ! It's way too Human and Real. Being verbose is where you excel -- carry on and on and on...
I don't really think a thing about the deaths of people I don't know; I accept that such are a reality of this life (Romans 5:12), but I also know that "there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous." (Acts 24:15) I feel no pain about anyone's death and I'm hoping to be among those "millions now living that will never die," but, if not, I put my faith in the resurrection. At any rate, I'm sure that I will both meet and greet your mother, even if I won't necessarily be able to connect her to you without knowing her name and yours. That would permit me to one day (maybe) show her a copy of your post (which I have here on my PC) so that she might learn why her son wasn't able to attend the "meet and greet."
@djeggnog