@yknot, I just don't get you.
A few days ago, I had decided to post the following message to a different thread (a thread that I suppose@Lady Lee thought it necessary to delete) due to my concern for the impact that the links contained in that now-deleted thread to the new textbook issued by the WTS to Jehovah's Witness elders, which links folks like @yknot had included in their posts, might have on the future of this website:
The new Kingdom Ministry School Textbook, "Shepherd the Flock of God--1 Peter 5:2," that is the subject of this thread, is a copyrighted work, and the "fair use" doctrine to which reference has been made here doesn't permit the [unauthorized] use or transmission of any of the material contained in this textbook in any forum since to quote from a book that isn't available to the public is to copy another author's work to which no balancing test can be applied, and which action would constitute a violation of the copyright. This textbook is not a secret manual, for while only elders have received copies of it, ministerial servants are permitted to read it, although copies of it have been provided to just the elders. BTW, a copyright on a writing need only be declared by its author; the formal publishing of a work either in print or electronically, and distribution of it whether or not for compensation doesn't change the character of the copyright held by the copyright holder. (In the digital age, this means that it isn't always the case that a copy of a copyrighted work may be listed in a Library of Congress catalog).
I wanted to say a couple of things, one of them related to something that was raised here by both Simon and Lady Lee regarding the conduct of some of the folks here that have posted comments to this thread: If you care about the future of Jehovahs-Witness.net, you will not allow your angst for Jehovah's Witnesses to drive you to engage in the criminal course that you have undertaken on this website (and off!) against the copyright held by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania, the copyright holder of the new textbook that some here have been making electronic copies via PM and file sharing sites by continuing to do what you've been doing.
For those who do not know, the publishers are the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., [...] in Brooklyn, NY, USA, also known as Jehovah's Witnesses, [which group] provides financial support for the work done by this printing corporation, which both publishes and distributes the publications distributed by Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide. While all such copyright infringement can interfere and adversely impact the work of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide, including the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, the point I'm making here is that the inclusion of links to copyrighted material that one is not authorized to disseminate in writing or electronically [may violate] the copyright held by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania.
If you have obtained a copy, enjoy it, but you should know that you are complicit in a crime by providing a link to it in any written or electronic communication you make, and that if a federal injunction should lead to this site being temporarily unavailable to everyone here as a result of any ongoing investigation into such criminal activity on this site pursuant to a federal subpoena, it would behoove [@Simon] to remove all PMs sent to anyone containing a link to this publication, whether that link should now be living or dead, for these PMs can and will be used against [@Simon] in a court of law. If you are not now under federal subpoena, then I see no reason why you shouldn't reset all PMs as a part of normal maintenance anyway (since we cannot rid ourselves of them ourselves!), and then back up this site so that you will be in a position to confidently move this site elsewhere with the content intact (sans the suspect PMs, of course).
I have found many of the comments made in this thread to be irresponsible. Back in 2007, the Recording Industry Association of America won a jury verdict of $220,000 against Jammie Thomas for making some 1,700 MP3s available over Kazaa, and she wasn't charging anyone any money and didn't know who it was that had downloaded any of the MP3s through Kazaa. To win damages, all RIAA had to do was match Thomas' username with her IP address. If you have any sense at all and care about Simon and this website, you will stop blatantly emailing links or electronic copies of the textbook to others, for each such email communication constitutes a criminal count, and pasting links to your posts themselves may further subject Simon to criminal liability for permitting you guys to do this without his or Lady Lee's removal of such messages as is done here when, for example, someone recently thought it would be funny to include an image of a penis to his post (as if no children at all have access to this web site).
If anyone here should think engaging in criminal conduct like this is just harmless fun, it's not harmless, and such a lawsuit could potentially impact your family economically, exposing you to having to pay legal fees to the attorney you are forced to hire to represent you in court, and to your having to pay a sizeable jury award for copyright infringement. If anyone here has a hatred for Jehovah's Witnesses, I think one should sever their relationship with Jehovah's Witnesses and leave its ranks, and maybe join some other church group (or not!), and throw away those NWTs and other WTS publications from which you keep quoting here so that you will not be reminded of your former association whenever you should see one of them, since these Bible translations and publications were produced by Jehovah's Witnesses primarily for use by Jehovah's Witnesses anyway in connection with their beliefs and their evangelization work, although they are currently still being made available to the public by Jehovah's Witnesses (but probably not for too many more years).
Following my post came the following message from @just n from bethel in which he responded by asking me the following questions, but I'm not sure he did so having concern for this website in mind:
Care to elaborate: How exactly does this harm anyone (I'm not talking about those that you imply the Watchtower will sue and try to hurt financially with all the court costs, etc.)? Seriously - how does this harm anyone? Do you mean to say that it [embarrasses] the Watchtower? If so, why? Is there something embarrassing about the contents or does it solely expose their claim of being God's chosen religion as ridiculous? Seriously - back up your claim that this is harmful - prove it.
In short, I tell him:
No, I don't care to do so.
Then comes the following response to my post from @Listener to express his concern for this website:
As no income can be or will ever be derived from this book, litigation would have little benefit.
This was how I replied to it:
I made the assumption upon reading your post that you were an adult, a mature one. I trust that I've not misjudged you and that you weren't thinking when you wrote this.
Then comes the following response to my post from @Eiben Scrood to express his concern for this website:
djeggnog - are you trying to say that people who have already downloaded the elders' manual for their personal use are presently in danger of legal action?!!
This was how I replied to it:
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying here.
Then came a post from @Lady Lee, which stated, in pertinent part, the following:
If the WTS chose to do it they could [subpoena] Simon's records, find out who has the book and sue them. I'm not saying they would. I'm saying they could. It is their legal right. What djeggnog said matches up with what I have researched. And don't think that just because you don't live in the US you are off the hook. International copyright laws are pretty much the same everywhere. I hate like hell defending the WTS so I am only doing it to protect this board and yes to protect YOU....
My reply:
That's my only motivation in saying the things that I said in this thread as well.
Then comes the following response to my post from @donuthole to express his concern for this website:
The laws are continually changing in this digital age but downloading and possessing a copyrighted work is not a illegal. Distribution is illegal. However the reason the RIAA is able to file such a large suit on music file sharers is because they can claim a financial loss because the works that are being downloaded are also sold. If the Watchtower decided to be litigious they would have a difficult time proving up financial losses for an internal manual that is freely distributed to elders within their religion. Further they would have to decide if bringing a lawsuit to the public is worth the attention it would bring to a document that they very much want to keep away from public (legal) scrutiny.
The following is how I replied to his post:
You sound like @just n from bethel to me, and my hope is that no one here is so foolish as to listen to the advice that you and he have given here. While it is true that "laws are continually changing," I've been talking about copyright law. You're sound totally clueless and vague. What are you saying here exactly? Are you suggesting that folks should break the law and potentially find themselves defending a lawsuit for copyright infringement or what?
Later in his post, @donuthole argues the following:
In the meantime, those that have chosen to distribute this file are taking an understood risk and are engaging in civil disobedience for the greater good. (That is if they even are in a country where these laws are applicable.)
This prompted me to ask @donuthole the following --
What "greater good" do you mean? For Christ's sake?
-- to which he responds by making reference to reasons he thinks our new textbook has public value, among them being "secret directives," "clergy confidentially" and "rights" (his reply is in bold; my response is not in bold):
There is a public value in having this book widely released. Here are just a few reasons:
1.) Their secret directives on how to handle someone who has a blood transfusion is in violation to the agreement they made with the Bulgarian government.
What "rights"? In this world, there is such a thing as "due process of law," but, in Christ, there is no due process. There is no public value in having our textbook "widely released" to the public.
What "secret directives"? Ask anyone: Jehovah's Witnesses the world over are known as a group that refuses to accept blood transfusions. This is no secret to anyone. I don't agree that there is any public value in having our textbook "widely released" to the public.
2.) Some of their secret instructions on how to handle judicial meetings betray any claims to clergy confidentially the Watchtower has used when shielding such meetings from scrutiny during child abuse lawsuits.
Come again? What "clergy confidentiality"? Jehovah's Witnesses do not have a clergy class, for we are all of us brothers. What do you mean? Again, I don't agree that there is any public value in having our textbook "widely released."
3.) When a Witness undergoes a judicial meeting they are not fully informed of their rights. The release of the manual provides information for those who are being tried in such a manner so that they are better prepared.
Then after waxing how our new textbook has public value and taking the position that the posters here on this website are really only "engaging in civil disobedience for the public good," @donuthole incredibly seems to think that he can deceive @Lady Lee (and others here) into believing that he's really for protecting @Simon and Jehovahs-Witness.net in going on in the very same message to state the following:
That being said this website is exercising their due diligence by removing links to the material ensuring that this forum resource can remain available for those who would benefit from it. Even then removing links right now won't matter too much in the long run. The cat is already out of the bag. WikiLeaks currently has their hands full with the release of the Iraq war documents but eventually the book will end up on their servers for any who have a continued interest in it. Even though they have nothing to do with this religion they fully understand that there is an important public interest in having the material available.
The following was my reply:
I'm sorry, @donuthole, but in reading this last statement of yours, you may be smart about some things, but when it comes to the law, I'm quite sure that you are stupid. You are talking to @Lady Lee and @Simon about removal of the links when you were singing -- in the same message -- about civil disobedience being the "greater good." Don't try to take two positions. Just take one position and argue for that position. IMO no one here should take anything you have to say seriously (until you at least have something to say).
At some point, @just n from bethel goes on to further express his concern for this website by a bit of sarcasm that I will not quote here, but I quote here my response to it:
I think there are too many people here that care nothing about the future of Jehovahs-Witness.net. The angst they have against Jehovah's Witnesses is what drives them to engage in the criminal conduct which is the subject of this thread, but the problem is that their selfishness in posting links on this site to copyrighted material can adversely impact this site. I think Jehovahs-Witness.net provides a place where folks can vent, and because I can come here and read what people that are in fade or have been disfellowshipped or have disassociated themselves feel, this helps me to become better informed as to what people are thinking and feeling all of the world as Jehovahs-Witness.net is an internet forum.
Am I being selfish here? Yes, I am, and so what? I don't much care what folks think of what I'm saying here. I don't run this site; I have no interest in this site whatsoever. But some of you people here are also selfish, but in a way that could potentially hurt @Simon (and I don't know the man personally). I don't want [...] Jehovahs-Witness.net to be hit with a federal injunction. I don't want the stupid ones here to become the target of an investigation launched by law firms hired by the WTS to do one thing, but, as an adjunct to their investigation, launch a witch hunt of their own in order to separate these stupid angry folks from the money in their bank accounts (those not judgment-proof) to settle grievances of federal law that they were not hired by the WTS to conduct.
As Delaware GOP Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell recently learned (or not!) <g> there is a Bill of Rights here in the US, a First Amendment to the US Constitution, that contains provisions protecting American citizens from government intrusion into religious matters, since "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If a religious group should decide to create a set of rules or principles that embody the "laws" of the group, it can decide to submit those rules to writing, and if it should decide to submit those rules to writing, to make one publication for its members or one publication for its leaders or one publication each for both its members and its leaders. It may also decide to declare such publications to be confidential so that its membership is prohibited from divulging its contents to non-members.
In a courtroom, a judge may prohibit female lawyers from appearing in his or her courtroom weaning a pantsuit, and that same judge may prohibit lawyers from appearing in his or her courtroom without a tie and suit coat. That judge may put these rules of his or hers, including these two rules I mention here, in writing, and may restrict the manual containing these rules to just those lawyers that appear in his or her courtroom, and may even sanction any lawyer in whose possession this confidential (and otherwise "secret") manual is found for having it since the manual itself indicates that only lawyers that make appearances in his or her courtroom may have a copy of it.
If anyone in the public (like a reporter) should find himself or herself with a copy of the judge's confidential manual in his or her possession, the judge may even issue a gag order making the reporter subject to a contempt citation for revealing its contents to anyone else. This does not violate the reporter's First Amendment rights against "Congress ... abridging [his or her] ... freedom ... of the press" since Congress isn't making a law. Neither is the WTS' prohibiting any unauthorized person from obtaining a copy of the new textbook violating anyone's First Amendment rights where "Congress [is] ... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" since Congress isn't making a law either.
No one has a right to obtain a copy of any document controlled by a religious group unless it can be proved that that document contains content that violates the civil rights of an American citizen. This is just how things work in the US. I cannot tell anyone here what to do, but, please, get your anger against Jehovah's Witnesses under control, for I do not wish to see the business of this site foreclosed or interrupted for any length of time because of your selfishness, which affects not just @Simon, but the people that come to this site to vent.
Then comes the following response to my post from @shepherd, which isn't an expression of his concern for this website, but a direct attack against me for daring to suggest to @Simon that he take whatever steps he thought best in order to protect Jehovahs-Witness.net:
You are completely wrong, however, if you think posting a third-party link is illegal - it is not. Let me repeat that - it is not illegal to post a link to a third party site, even a file hosting site.... This is BS, it will not and can not happen simply because someone posts some links. DMCA targets the site HOSTING the files.
The following was my reply to his post:
I don't BS and I never stutter. My purpose in contributing to this thread was to give @Simon information that might protect this website and nothing more. I think Jehovahs-Witness.net to be a good place for folks to vent and receive the help they need to regain their bearings or their senses should they be in fade or disfellowshipped or have a disassociated status, for many others, feeling alone and cut off from their family and former friendships with Jehovah's Witnesses, have questions, but may be too embarrassed or angry to speak to anyone, and some have contemplated suicide, whereas here they learn that they can speak anonymously about their feelings.
I really don't want to see this site suddenly disappear because that could prove to be devastating to so many, especially to the regulars here who have developed many cyber friendships here and are still working through their issues. (Although I do not post comments to every thread, I have read many of the posts on this site.) You're giving bad advice here, and my hope is that @Simon ignores your advice, which is a choice that only he can make. If by knocking the advice I have given here you are seeking glory from posters to this site, I have no problem with that, but I have made clear in this thread what my motivation is. I can tell you -- and I do tell you -- that what I've received here from many of the posters to this thread is contempt, whose posts @Lady Lee has gratefully removed. You can have the glory.
I realize that most of you here are not lawyers, but I would like everyone here, including @shepherd, to read the following excepts (the URLs from which each were taken are provided) so that you might better understand the point I have made and am making here. Not one of you is my client and I am now advising anyone here of anything in my professional capacity, but I won't describe what you will be reading, except to point out to you that these excerpts are from a Utah case, filed in 1999 and decided in 2000, involving URLs that led to a Mormon handbook that the Mormon church had not authorized to be uploaded to the hosting website nor downloaded over the internet by anyone using a URL link or URL reference to the hosting website in an email.
In that post, I appended two (2) excerpts from the transcripts of two separate court proceedings in Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., which I will not repeat here, but will only provide here the URLs to these two court proceedings:
http://www.utlm.org/underthecoveroflight/transcripts/statusconference111899.htm
http://www.utlm.org/underthecoveroflight/transcripts/pi112399.htm
Unbelievably, the following is the exchange that occurred between @shepherd and I following the above post (his reply is in bold; my response is not in bold):
I know the WTBS can be scary....
To whom? The folks associated with the WTS are Jehovah's Witnesses, even as I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I only fear Jehovah and my fear is a godly fear, not some "scary" morbid one. There are many Jehovah's Witnesses that lack maturity. You should go find one of these immature ones that might be enamored by your wisdom. Please relate to them whatever nonsense you wish.
Again, my concern is only for this website's not being hit with a federal injunction for the inclusion of links in their posts to websites hosting the new textbook, and not because I think anyone at the WTS is or can be scary, but because I believe no one has the right to be providing to anyone online access to the new textbook, either by hosting the copyright protected work so that people might download it or by including hyperlinks in their posts on this website to the file being hosted on someone else's website, which might constitute contributory infringement of the copyrightholders work.
In the end the case was settled between both parties.... The judge did not rule as to whether posting links were illegal.
It is totally beside the point that no legal precedent has yet been set. My reading of the litigation in Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., indicates to me that this judge was about to set a precedent that would have impacted copyright law both here in the US and abroad. I provided the excerpts to the Utah case without comment just to let the reader of them understand the seriousness of the inclusion of links to copyrighted material in their posts after they have been "put on notice" that using the link to download such material could make them criminally culpable.
This case also had the complication that the group admitted earlier posting the handbook [online], which is illegal.
Irrelevant. I have here only been referring to links to the new textbook that some here have included in their posts, for @Simon has not and is not hosting this textbook on this website. Please stay on point.
The following is the exchange that occurred between @carvin and I (his reply is in bold; my response is not in bold):
Since all elders , MS, CO, DO, etc are [appointed] by Holy Spirit then the Holy Spirit should have known what was in the heart of all those leaders leaking the book to the public. So we must conclude that Jah wanted the book leaked out.
Is that like you're saying that because Jesus was privileged to be able to perform the many miracles about which we read in the gospel accounts of his ministry due to his having the backing of God's holy spirit, that he should have known that his second cousin, John, would be beheaded by Herodias, which knowledge would have made it possible for John to be raised up as a powerful spirit having immortality as Jesus' apostles came to inherit after their resurrection instead of John's still being asleep in death? With this kind of power at his command, I suppose Jesus also should have known what was in Judas' heart (actually he did!) so that he could have warned Judas against his taking the course he took beforehand, right? So it's really the holy spirit's fault that the lives of these men turned out in the way they did, right? In reading what you wrote here, you do know that the holy spirit is not a person, right?
This idea of yours reminds me of the friends of bereaved parents of a child that has died, who believe their telling the deceased child's parents that evidently "God must have needed another angel in heaven" would be comforting to them (as if there were ever an angel shortage in heaven, and human beings are in reality a research project where angels live with other angels in this earthly environment of ours having physical instead of spiritual bodies where a record of their interactions with one another are recorded in a book until they have finally served their usefulness to God [maybe when only one month old or even one week old!] and they then die as humans to join their angels in heaven). So it's really God's fault that children die, right?
So, as you see it, it was in the heart of those "elders, MS, CO, DO, etc.," to whom the new textbook was not sent (the book was provided for elders and only elders were authorized to receive it) to leak it to the public when they received it, right? It was the fault of the holy spirit that these appointed men leaked it to the public because the holy spirit had to know what they were going to do with this textbook beforehand, right? Therefore, you have concluded and believe that all must conclude that it was God's will that the textbook was leaked to the public? Correct? Do I understand you correctly or am I just being silly here? Perhaps you can clear this up by explaining what it is you intended to say here by this statement.
I heard it said that to control the future you must control the past. In the past the WT was [pretty] good at [controlling] their past, but not anymore. They cant even seem to control their present.
Well, you're close. The quote from Orwell's 1984 is "Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past." While people will often recount historical events in order to justify their future goals, politicians today use their political power to control how people view those historical events. Orwell's novel explores the dangers of living in a totalitarian society under authoritarian governments with absolute political authority as his own life experiences in life informed him, but the words you kinda quoted in your post refer to how language and history can be manipulated in such a way that such propaganda can end up exerting control over not just your life, but over what things you believe to be true or false, right or wrong.
As an example of such manipulation of the past, I have never tried to explain to anyone why it is that in 2010, there are people overtly seeking to control how our young people view Darwinism, a 19th century myth masquerading as science today, except that I do believe Satan to be responsible for the blindness that exist in people's minds. (2 Corinthians 4:4) In 1859, when Origin of the Species was first published, Charles Darwin postulated many things about the origin of life that have since had to be rejected and propped up with explanations not provided by Darwin at all, but true believers in evolution today would move heaven and earth manipulating the past in an attempt to support their belief that life arose by chance than to believe that God is the First Cause to which the Bible attests.
Today, serious origin-of-life biologists don't believe that life could have arisen by chance alone. Proponents of Darwin's theory though believe that natural selection acted on random variations among chemicals to produce the first life, but it is a fact that natural selection could not have functioned before the existence of the first living cell, since it can only act upon organisms capable of replicating themselves, that is to say, cells equipped with DNA that pass on their genetic changes to future generations.
Without DNA there is no self-replication, but without self-replication there is no natural selection, so it isn't possible to use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of the very thing one is trying to explain. IOW, natural selection does not explain how the very first self-replicating cell (equipped with DNA) came to exist. But if one can control the present, it is possible to control what people think about the nutty ideas expressed by Charles Darwin.
But the past of Jehovah's Witnesses is all out there exposed for everyone that wishes to see and recount it in detail. Like Charles Darwin, Charles Russell lived during the 19th century, too, and, like Darwin, Russell he had some zany views (like that pyramid of Russell's, for example). But Jehovah's Witnesses today do not embrace those extant viewpoints of the late 1800s and early 1900s and we have never attempted to control our past. Jehovah's Witnesses have no political power since we are no part of this world, so your mention of our ever seeking to control our present in this context is ridiculous.
The saying goes that 'he who controls the present, controls the past,' but Jehovah's Witnesses only want control over how they are conducting themselves in the present with a view to their future. When we examine historical events, we do so in the light of Bible truth, for there are people today that believe in evolution that do not believe the historical event of God's deliverance of a people from Egyptian captivity in 1513 BC as told in the Bible, or even the historical event that occurred in the year 2370 BC involving the global deluge that destroyed an ancient world as also told in the Bible. Because Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible to be God's word, they do believe these Bible accounts to have been real historical events. We inform ourselves of the details of such historical events to help us to know what Jehovah purposes for the future. The present just happens to be where we live, but Jehovah's Witnesses do not endeavor to manipulate the past.
Then comes the following response to my post from @brotherdan, which, again, isn't an expression of his concern for this website, but a direct attack against my suggestion to @Simon that he put safeguards in place to protect Jehovahs-Witness.net (his reply is in bold; my response is not in bold):
Have YOU read the new book? It's a disgusting distortion of the Bible and Christianity in general. There is no "shepherding". It is all about who to punish, how to punish them, and what to punish them for.
I'm assuming that in making these comments that you have read the new textbook yourself, so what did you find so "disgusting" in it. What circumscribed punishments does this textbook contain that you have found you so objectionable, @brotherdan? Lay them all out here, or, if this should be too much to ask, maybe you could provide just one of these punishments....
I don't believe the new textbook is any substitute for the Bible nor that it was written in order to teach folks about Christianity. I believe it was written to help congregation elders, who come from various educational and environmental backgrounds, to become better shepherds of the flock in their care so that one elder does not handle matters differently in Detroit, Michigan, USA, than that same matter might be handled in Madrid, Spain. As an international association of Christian brothers, we ought to all of us be speaking in agreement. (1 Corinthians 1:10)
If you never saw the similarities between the Pharisees and the WTS before, you would after reading this disgusting book. But of course, you love your counterfeit gospel, don't you?
You sound like a bitter man and you may believe you have genuine reasons for believing what things you do about Jehovah's Witnesses, but being familiar with some of what the Talmud says, as a matter of fact having a copy of the Soncino Talmud on my computer here and on my PDA, I don't see any similarly between the teachings of the rabbins (i.e., the Pharisees) and the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses today, and as far as this "counterfeit gospel" to which you refer, what "gospel" would that be, @brotherdan? I don't follow at all, but I'm willing to listen if you are willing to elaborate on what you mean by "counterfeit gospel," ok?
Then comes a response from @AllTimeJeff (which I do not quote here) wondering if I understood that all of these posts attacking me, attacking Jehovah's Witnesses, attacking the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, attacking the WTS for its audacity in not releasing its "secret" textbook to the public were occasioned by "the emotion that comes from former JW's" and wondering why I would be here "defending [my] personal belief system," even though this is exactly what these "former JW's" are doing. @AllTimeJeff's response was followed by @TastingFreedom's post in response to my post. I don't see any concern on @TastingFreedom's part for this website, but just him attacking me for the suggestion I made to @Simon (his reply is in bold; my response is not in bold):
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....
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 or for anyone, but what I have here been describing is what it means to be engaged in whole-souled service to another human being, while Christians are required to be do all things whole-souled as to Jehovah when serving others, whether it be one's own relatives or someone not related to them (i.e., one's employer). (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, or when one works all of the overtime that his or her employer desires he or she work, all for the adoration of men as represented by the trophy one receives for whole-souled efforts for men, or because the "Benjamins" are an object of worship for them, 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 could ultimately save someone's life, so why not do it? Winning a trophy for earning the most points as a gymnast or being the Most Valuable Earner in the company is whole-souled service, but isn't direct service to God, as is when are talking to our neighbors about God's kingdom, for by our so doing, we could possibly "save both yourself and those who listen to you." (1 Timothy 4:16)
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 to the file being hosted on someone else's website in their posts 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 say, 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.
I then had to field a post from @Rabbit (which I also do not quote here) blaming me, blaming Jehovah's Witnesses, blaming the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, blaming the WTS for his mother's death, asserting that his mother would be alive today had she not put her faith, and I'm quoting him, "in the WT's GB," and for his estrangement from your family. I don't know why @Rabbit was disfellowshipped or why he left God's organization, but I do know that Jehovah's Witnesses aren't responsible for the conscientious decision made by @Rabbit's mother to not accept a blood transfusion, since God forbids all Christians to do (Acts 15:20), and I also know that there is no way that anyone can know in advance whether or not a blood transfusion is going to save anyone's life.
I will now quote here the following excerpt from the OP's (@Lady Lee's) post:
djeggnog, admittedly an active Witness was posting copyright law information. What he was posting agreed with the research I had been doing on copyright law so I know he wasn't trying to make us all scared of what the WTS could do here.
Keep in mind that @Lady Lee is the OP in this thread. The quote that now follows is an excerpt from one of the responses to the OP's post:
Sorry Lady Lee, but I must respectfully disagree with you.
djeggnog was not providing valid legal reasoning. He was quoting from a case that did not even reach a judgment - it was settled between both parties. Even worse, rather than quoting from a Judge's summation, he was quoting directly from the prosecution lawyer. This is not precedent and a good lawyer would never do it.
So I posted some details to [refute] it. It was djeggnog who immediately attacked....
The above was taken from @shepherd's post in this thread, but as you can see from this quote, I am being accused by @shepherd of "immediately" attacking him! Whatever.
Less than 12 hours ago (before I posted this message), @Gordy decided that he would post a message --
I have a link
-- which ostensibly contained a link to the textbook, which has been the subject of the discussion here. I'm sure that many of the people that visit this site from time to time may not be aware of @Simon's and @Lady Lee's request that folks not embed links to the new textbook on here, but it seems that @Gordy has since edited his post and removed it. But what I don't understand is what it was that motivated @yknot to post the following, when she is fully aware of @Simon's and @Lady Lee's joint request in this respect:
[I]f you see a bro/sis in need of a link......share it [sic] the link like Gordy did recently!
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/201129/1/NEW-ELDERS-MANUAL-LINK
I think @yknot said it best at the beginning of her post:
This is a game.
Notice that @yknot says this --
[I]t is Simon's site and he has every right to choose what sort of content is allowed.
-- but still goes on to say in the same post --
[S]hare it [sic] the link like Gordy did recently!
-- and then she embeds a link to another thread where she knew others could go, find @Gordy's post (the first post!), and use this link to gain access to the textbook! What's rich is that @yknot ends her post with the following:
Love, Deep Respect and Huggles to LL, other Mods and of course Simon and Ang!!!
Have you lost your senses, @yknot? What on earth is wrong with you, woman? How selfish can you be? Has your hatred for Jehovah's Witnesses driven you to madness so that you really do not care about the rest of us here that frequent Jehovahs-Witness.net? Do you truly think that all of "[t]his is a game"?
I don't speak on behalf of anyone here, and I cannot tell you what to do, but I'm asking you to stop what you're doing and to please listen to the sentiments expressed by @Virgochik in her post:
I haven't been keeping up with the thread due to working late, but I think it's a shame. Just because we aren't JW's any more doesn't mean we shouldn't still be good, decent people. All rules aren't thrown out and we just run around screwing others after we quit the Kingdom Hall. All that does is make ex JW's look like the monsters they say we are. Please continue doing the right thing. We all have a conscience and a moral compass. I hope, anyway. Thanks for the reminder, Lady Lee. I'm just sorry you had to give it. And for those jeopardizing this site, don't assume that's fine with the rest of us. I for one do not appreciate it.
@djeggnog
