Blog Jehovah’s witnesses

This Blog is entirely managed by Jehovah’s witnesses belonging to the “Italian Theocratic Spiritual Resistance”. This is an appropriate word for those brothers in the congregations who remain faithful to Jehovah and to biblical principles in spite of various trials. In Psalms 13:2 , David said : “How long shall I set resistance in my soul?… ”

This is not a blog on doctrines.

The official site is JW.ORG.

The defaulting is the one who while claiming to be a
Jehovah’s Witness and a Christian does not behave, deliberately and intentionally according to the statement made!

As we note a widespread hardship among loyal and honest brothers, we try to give theocratic support by means of encouraging posts and suggesting
procedures changes aiming to favor honest behaviors in the congregation.

We must with respect but also with courage speak out and expose those things which do not work at all.
The blog will close as the Reforms aiming to bringTheocracy back into a sane state , are made.
Our first priority is to spread the Reforms in order to make honesty come back into fashion within God’s people.
Malachi 3:16

Jehovah witnesses, I have a dream…


I want to see a day when I will not find a check box with “hours” on the service report and when there will not be “hourly quotas” to pioneer.

I would like to see the brothers free to greet those that are no longer Jehovah’s Witnesses, if simply out of common courtesy; the freedom of each person’s conscience dictating whether to say “bless you” to a sneeze or “cheers” to the clink of a glass.

Oh to see the removal from our list of doctrines, that Jesus died on a pole and not a cross. (I could care less what the “Stauros” looked like). At the very least, I would like to limit the “estetics or folklore” to distinguish ourselves from other religions, but that in reality have no spiritual content….. and the elimination of the habit of forcing language to suit our needs. (for example “when we die we return to the same condition of inexistence before our birth”, what absurdity! –to support the teaching of the immortality of the soul, they go and perpetrate an opposite falsehood, that the dead “exist” only in God’s eyes, simply that the dead are not conscious ?????????

To summarize, I dream of greater freedom concerning secondary issues; the true freedom of conscience that will not “sanction” me once I exercise it. In other words I would like a serious application of Romans 14:3,4 without worrying about someone else’s “strict” conscience.
I yearn to see mature brothers treated as such and not to be treated as children that need to be kept in “daycare” so they can play “safely”.
I want less stress and “prevention”. I want to trust that Holy Spirit will guide me. (If someone has to watch my every step, of what use is the Holy Spirit to me? (And then skinning knee, metaphorically speaking is not a tragedy—-thank goodness)

I want the concept of “being exemplary” different than a diving suit that disnatures and renders one artificial. We need only to think of Peter’s talk at Pentecost, how full of spirit and only 50 days prior he had denied publicly Jesus; why the Lord looked on, and yet Peter remained an apostle and elder even when he behaved badly denouncing Paul publically. If Peter was an elder today would he would remain an elder and would he safeguard his “exemplary being”?
Then there is Paul that came to an almost fist fight with Barnabas, yet Paul was totally wrong (It appears that Paul had anger issues).
Today an appointed elder that commits a serious sin, even once, will be removed even if he is remorseful and he cannot be reappointed for three years. If he is disfellowshipped and then reinstated than he wait 5 years—-a far cry from 50 days.
This is why some are pushed to keep their diving suit on instead of making confession. (….but wait a minute other instructions say that if one commits a sin and the sin comes to light 2 years later but Jehovah’s blessing seems to be on him…then he is not removed at all…..)
In short, there are some human wrinkles in the present administration of sin but when these become “known”, these should be dealt to reflect the ways of the Christ and judge the way he would judge.
James says to confess to one another until we are whole…..many would confess willingly if only they were sured they would not remain crippled for years and have their “white robe” tainted by others (from constant gossip)

I will wait for this dawn if ever it will come.”……..

Quiet now it was only a dream .



Appointments of Christian overseers or elders and ministerial servants. Acts 14:23

Another proposal on : Appointments of Christian overseers or elders and ministerial servants. Acts 14:23


The Key Bible

In the pages of this blog, a radical reform of elders ‘ appointing procedures , has been several times proposed , suggesting that elders be recommended by the whole congregation, not only by the body of elders + CO . Anyway, I don’t think the Governing Body will ever accept considering it, for such a reform is too far from the present system and for at the present time, any correction is being made by a chisel not by a sledgehammer. Besides , I think that if such a reform would resolve a problem , it also could cause many other ones. I also doubt whether it is fully scriptural. I believe that the root cause of the problems we are talking about, is not so much the appointment procedure but the poor and low spiritual quality of those who make such appointments. If these had the spiritual depth they should, it would be just fine as it is now. Since they do not have the spiritual means to recommend elders better than themselves ( and there really are a lot of better ones), they just go on to perpetuate themselves or even worse than themselves, with their consequences . But it is also true that a change in the procedures can activate the new mentality needed to a leap in quality and a higher focus on the privilege of serving as elders.

First of all , I’m going to expose what I understand from the Scriptures on this issue

What the Scriptures teach:

In dealing with Christian Congregation leadership and appointments , I see these solid points

1 ) In relation to appointments of elders and ministerial servants, in the Bible we can’t find any detailed procedure to follow.

2) However we are told that the oveseers are” appointed by the holy spirit” , in Acts 20: 28

3) The requirements for being appointed as elders-overseers and ministerial servants are listed in the inspired letters of Paul to the two elders, Titus and Timothy

4) The organization of the first Christian congregations was inspired by the pattern of the synagogue and Jewish communities.

About the Judaic substrate upon which stands the new congregation , let’s take into consideration the following information

I’ll copy and paste these points taken from The Insight as a biblical encyclopedia :

” In keeping with divine direction, Moses selected 70 of the older men of Israel who were officers to help him carry “the load of the people” that he was unable to bear alone. (Nu 11:16, 17, 24, 25) Leviticus 4:15mentions “the older men of the assembly,” and it appears that the representatives of the people were the nation’s older men, its heads, its judges, and its officers.—Nu 1:4, 16; Jos 23:2; 24:1.”….”In Israel responsible representatives often acted in behalf of the people. Ezr10:14 ” (it-1 pp. 496-500 -congregation)

“When Moses, as God’s representative, presented the Law covenant to the nation, it was the official “older men” who represented the people in entering that covenant relationship with Jehovah. (Ex 19:3-8)………In time, the nomadic Israelites conquered the Promised Land and went back to fixed dwellings in towns and cities, as had been their way of life in Egypt. The older men now became responsible for the people on a community level. They acted as a body of overseers for their respective communities, providing judges and officers for the administration of justice and the maintenance of peace, good order, and spiritual health.—De 16:18-20; 25:7-9; Jos 20:4; Ru 4:1-12.” ( it-2 pp. 548-551 – Older man)

Please read also :

it-2 p.1051 Synagogue> Christian similarities

it -1 p. 787 Expelling> The Sanhedrin and synagogues/ the Christian Congregation

The information above need to be considered in order to understand the meaning of “elders” in the New Testament language , for most of the first Christians were Jews already accustomed to a way of living their belonging to a religious community. I’m not going to repeat what has been already written about in the articles already published in italian: and

Anyway , I’m wondering whether it is reasonable, according to the Jewish context described above , to think that it was the whole congregation with all its members to be asked to reccommend someone.

The first time I find such a consultation, refers to the choice of the apostle who should have replaced Judas Iscariot, Acts 1:15-23, (the Christian congregation had not been formed yet): Acts 1:15-23

“15 During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (the number of people was altogether about 120) and said: 16 “Men, brothers, it was necessary for the scripture to be fulfilled that the holy spirit spoke prophetically through David about Judas,…… 21 It is therefore necessary that ……one of these men should become a witness with us of his resurrection.” 23 So they proposed two, Joseph called Bar′sab·bas, who was also called Justus, and Mat·thi′as”.

Who proposed the two ones ? Was it a sort of general votation among the whole congregation ? The group of 120 was formed by both men and women but the verse 16 says that Peter asked to men only [ ἄνδρες (males) ἀδελφοί]. That’s why perhaps an old “Question from readers” specified :” Evidently present Christian males”. w 72 15/11 p.70. After all , considering that Jesus himself spent a whole night in prayer before choosing the apostles and considering the jewish custom to be organized, what is it supposed to be logically happened?

One of the requirements for the overseers exposed in 1 Timothy chapter 3 , is :” not a newly converted man”. Is it reasonable to think that newly converted men could participate to assess the requirements of the new overseers? On the basis of what maturity and experience could they make such a test ?

The way Timothy was appointed is described in 1Timothy 4:14 : “Do not neglect the gift in you that was given you through a prophecy when the body of elders (presbyterìou) laid their hands on you”

Afer having exposed elders’ requirements to Timothy , he told him :

“Never lay your hands hastily on any man;…..”

By this warning, it’s clear that it was up to Timothy to do an assessment on the man, so as not to lay his hands hastily

In his second letter, Paul gave to Timothy the authority of assessing faithful men and to entrust to them everything he had been taught by Paul.

“and the things you heard from me that were supported by many witnesses, these things entrust to faithful

men, who, in turn, will be adequately qualified to teach others.”

2 Timothy2:2

On the basis of what is written above, it seems clear to me that the evaluation of a new elder should be made by spiritually mature persons and not by disciples just baptized or too young even if already baptized.


By this , I don’t mean that the opinion from the Base doesn’t matter. Far from it!

The Scriptures themselves reveal how well-reported-on some elders were. For example:

Acts 16:1,2

“So he arrived at Der′be and also at Lys′tra. And a disciple named Timothy was there, the son of a believing Jewish woman but of a Greek father, 2 and he was well-reported-on by the brothers in Lys′tra and I·co′ni·um.”

2 Corinthians 8:17, 18

“because he has indeed responded to the encouragement, but being very eager, he is coming to you on his own initiative. 18 But we are sending along with him the brother whose praise in connection with the good news has spread through all the congregations.”

James 3:13

13 “Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him by his fine conduct demonstrate works performed with a mildness that comes from wisdom.”

We can find such a thought concerning elders’ appointment even in the publications by the Slave:

w84 2/15 p.23 pr5 “Remember those who are taking the lead among you”

W79 6/ 1 p.18 pr 7

Considering what is already written above and not to dwell too much on the post, I think that the present appointment procedure should be corrected in order to prevent aspirant CATTLEMEN from becoming elders or from going on being elders . I see it feasible first of all to make a check every 3/5 years of each appointed , consulting the most mature of the congregation , brothers and sisters over a certain age and having at least 5 years of faithful service behind. This group representing the Base could also be consulted to recommend a new MS or elder. They could express their opinion by filling an anonymous application form with a YES or a NO , specifyng what biblical requirement is not sufficiently satisfied in the case of a NO. I would see this consultation very incisive for the three/four-yearly check on appointed ones. Even if the vote will not have automatic effects on the appointment , it will be very much worth considering for the Co in his deliberation of appointing or confirming an elder. Of course, before such a change , brothers need to be prepared by a series of specific articles focusing on the principles and reasons that lead to this change. I don’t see it appropriate to consult the whole congregation not only for the reasons already exposed , but also because CATTLEMEN know very well how to secure the consensus of the simple ones, even of those they have beaten some months before. I do know the HYPOCRITES. In the months before the “check”, they would behave exactly as the well- known italian politician before elections, who, having control over many medias , each time succeeds in gaining some millions votes that were not there two months before.

The procedure I propose may be revised and corrected in many ways but I think I gave an idea of it.


Maybe you do not beleive it , but we are confident …..although it may not sound so to you.

We wonder why there is so much hypocrisy among the appointed .

It seems obvious that if they didn’t behave in such a way , they wouldn’t advance on their career.

This means that in order to understand this problem , we need to get to the bottom and find out the root cause for it.

We don’t want to beleive that they are making fun of us on purpose. We think that behind such a behavior there is a complicated system of fharisaic formalities which bottle up a real progress.

Maybe someone is already saying: Jehovah will see to that. He will , and we do trust in it , too.

Yet this reminds us of Isaiah 59:16, and we wonder if this waiting for Jehovah to get indignant , is what He really wants. Jehovah is instead surprised that nobody intervenes when the appointed do not do their duty.

Does waiting for Jehovah’ s justice really mean let them substitute God’s justice for their own profits? Do they do it even on purpose?

We don’t know but considering Jehovah’s disapproval of hypocrisy , it doesn’t come out in favor of them.

Yet we do remain optimistic, anyway, for, first of all, in the last analysis, nobody is superior to God.


The Latent Resistance


“Yet, it’ s a mistake generally made, to try to make all members reach exactly the same conclusion over the meaning of God’s Word and nobody should insist on making everyone view each detail as he does or not even as the majority do.” “Unity over the essential things ; charity over those which are not”

This is the rule we should follow.

C.T. Russell WT first president
series 6

C.T. Russell WT first presidentThe apostle Paul exhorted first-century Christians in Corinth to “speak in agreement” and to “be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.” (1Corinthians 1:10)Some today criticize Paul’s admonition. ‘People are different,’ they argue, ‘and it is wrong to insist that all Christians think or act in the same way.’ But was Paul really recommending robotic conformity? Does the Bible allow for personal freedom?

In another of his letters, Paul urged Christians to serve God with their “power of reason.” (Romans 12:1) Certainly, then, he would not have been trying to turn members of the Corinthian congregation into unthinking automatons. But why did he tell them to be “fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought”? Paul gave this counsel because the congregation in Corinth was experiencing a serious problem. Factions had developed, so that some viewed Apollos as their leader while others favored Paul or Peter or held only to Christ.

Those Christians in Corinth were spiritually immature and easily influenced by the prominent men in the congregation rather than letting the Bible guide them.

Such disunity was no trivial matter, for it threatened the peace of the congregation.

Those who would like to impose their own point of view on others, use 1 Corinthians 1:10 in order to claim that whoever doesn’t agree with them is dividing the congregation. But this is absolutely wrong, for what creates unity in the Christian congregation is Jehovah’s main quality, that is LOVE and this is confirmed by what the Sacred Scriptures teach in Colossians3:14, though it may not be supported by the opinion of a little goup of believers even if prominent and having responsibility in congregation.

Unity is also important in matters of doctrine. Footstep followers of Jesus realize that there is really only “one faith,” just as there is only “one God and Father.” (Ephesians 4:1-6) Hence, Christians make sure that what they believe is in harmony with the truth that God has revealed in his Word about himself and his purposes. They are united in their belief about who God is and what he requires. They also live up to the clear moral standards set out in God’s Word. (1Corinthians 6:9-11). According to Paul there is no reason to keep out a Christian, because he has another point of view. In this way Christians remain united, both doctrinally and morally.

Hence , Christians , just like the Beroeans , make personally sure of what the Scriptures teach , with
their own reasoning power. Yet, they also realize that though there must be unity in the main matters of doctrine, there can be different viewpoints in some secondary matters. This is the freedom of thought and of differences in viewpoints and it is not absolutely condemned by the Bible. So this means that christians must NOT be told precisely how to think and what to do in all of life’s situations. Most matters involve personal choice.1Corinthians 8:4-13. And in such matters involving personal decision, everyone must be RESPECTED and not condemned, criticized or blamed which would be a sign of spiritual immaturity and uncertainty .

In his talk at a convention , the fourth WT President , F.W.Franz pubblicly said about chronology that it can be accepted or rejected …(“The Chronology. You can accept it or reject it” W 10. 15 . 1966 p.631) He was referring to some dates considered pivotal by JW, in Bible chronology. If we connect these words to those of Russell quoted at the beginning, we wonder why then, when some brothers have and express some doubts over some interpretations on prophecy or chronology, incur the risk of being accused of apostasy.

Why weren’t the two cited brothers subjected to restrictions, too? Both Russell and Franz understood the Bible spirit of freedom of thought and the legitimacy of thinking otherwise than the WT leadership. Should we think that the Bible severely condemns differences of opinion? Leviticus 19:15
How is it possible to preserve Christian unity while maintaining respect for individual choice? The key is love. Love for God moves us to submit willingly to his commandments. (1John 5:3) Love for fellowman moves us to respect the rights of others to make conscientious decisions in personal matters. (Romans 14:3,4;Galatians 5:13) At the same time, he encouraged everyone to respect the conscience of fellow Christians in matters that have been left to personal decision.—1Corinthians 10:25-33

So it should be a must to help the brothers who have doubts , to reason with them from the Scriptures in order to resolve their doubts , instead of threatening judicial committees or discipline which are out of line, not theocratic and not based on love which is God’ law, and instead of beating them just because they ask spiritual food digestible for them and instead of imposing everyone to think in the same way, Jude 22,23.

As we have just considered, this inquisitorial and inflexible attitude is opposite to the Sacred Scriptures because it is an obstacle to dialogue and it causes distrust among brothers. On the other hand, with the law of love, even the most obstinate sheep will be moved to manifest love and not to insist on secondary matters, leaving everything in the hands of the only God and Judge , Jehovah.

Contributed by a Resistance supporter

Unity over the essential things ; charity over those which are not