JW.ORG Badges

[Daniel Metz]

Because I used the word "ruling", Brother Shawnster may have thought that I was saying that the Governing Body makes "rulings" without Scriptural support. If that is what he understood, I apologize for my poor use of language. I don't believe that at all. I do however believe that the Governing Body does make "rulings" about things that are not explicitly described in the Scriptures. Is there a verse saying that a brother cannot be a professional boxer? I can't think of one. Obviously, whoever asked the Question from Readers thought that the Bible's silence on this issue might allow a brother (or sister, why not?) to become a professional boxer. This question surprised me when I first read it years ago because it was obvious to me that a true Christian could NEVER be a professional boxer and I was surprised that the faithful slave even published the question. But they did. They wanted it be clear to everyone in the world that you cannot be a Witness of Jehovah and a boxer at the same time. Here is what was written in the answer:

*** w81 7/1 pp. 30-31 Questions From Readers ***
Questions From Readers
● Can a dedicated and baptized Christian take up professional boxing and still remain in good standing with his congregation?
If a Christian were to become a professional boxer, this would put him in conflict with God’s counsel. Let us consider some of that Biblical advice.
The Scriptures clearly show that dedicated Christians are to produce the fruitage of God’s holy spirit, which is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness and self-control. (Gal. 5:22, 23) Professional boxing flies in the face of all such fruitage. The Bible counsels us to be “peaceable with all men” and not to fight but to be “gentle toward all.” (Rom. 12:18; 2 Tim. 2:24) Similarly, at James 3:18 we read that “the fruit of righteousness has its seed sown under peaceful conditions for those who are making peace.” Moreover, we are told to ‘love our neighbors as ourselves’ and that love works no “evil,” and therefore no harm or hurt, to one’s neighbor.—Rom. 13:9, 10.
Professional boxing cannot be considered simply an innocent sport. It is a well-known fact that boxers go into the ring with a strong urge to hurt their opponents. For the time being, they may even have a murderous feeling toward them. This spirit may be sensed by observers, as can often be seen from the way spectators react at a boxing match. Time and again they are heard shouting, “Kill him! Kill him!”
So it is no wonder that from time to time the press reports that a boxer has been mortally injured in the boxing ring. In boxing there is always the risk that one of the fighters might become a manslayer, and, as the apostle John states, “you know that no manslayer has everlasting life.” (1 John 3:15) Bearing on this is the opinion of one veteran boxing official that boxing is “legalized murder” and should be prohibited by law. It has also been described as “assault with malicious intent.” And still another sordid aspect of professional boxing is the kind of people involved in running the sport. Often it is in the control of the underworld criminal element.
In view of these facts, what should be the attitude of the congregation elders toward a dedicated and baptized Christian who takes up professional boxing? First, they would want to counsel such a brother in keeping with the Scriptural principles enunciated above. (Gal. 6:1) They should kindly, yet firmly, present the reasons why such boxing is not compatible with being a dedicated follower of Jesus Christ, the “Prince of Peace.” (Isa. 9:6) They could show him that a Christian is to “do hard work, doing with his hands what is good work.” Earning money as a professional boxer by battering a opponent in a boxing ring can hardly be termed “good work.”—Eph. 4:28.
The individual should also be reminded that while professional boxing might provide him with a comfortable livelihood, Christians do not need to stoop to such means, for God’s Word assures us, at Hebrews 13:5, 6: “Let your manner of life be free of the love of money, while you are content with the present things. For he has said: ‘I will by no means leave you nor by any means forsake you.’ So that we may be of good courage and say: ‘Jehovah is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?’”
Therefore, such a person should be given a reasonable period of time to discontinue his unchristian profession or occupation. His failure to do so would mean that the elders would have no alternative but to exclude him from the congregation.—1 Cor. 5:11-13.


So in 1981, being a professional boxer was added to the faithful slave's list of sins that must lead to disfellowshipping if the sinner does not repent. This had not been true before. Had the Bible explicitly said that a boxer cannot inherit God's Kingdom, it would have been on that list before.

 

Anyway, brothers, my wife is not to happy that I am on this site again. I think I will leave. Bye.

[Hope]

Brother Losch wore a purple JW.org pin during his talks at the 2014 conventions.  The GB knows of these pins, absolutely.  From what I've gathered, it's up to the individual to wear one or not.  

 

I don't personally like them but I have nothing against those who want to.  To be honest, it's always nifty to me to see someone wearing one.  It's just not my bag... unless we were instructed to.

[Hope]

29 minutes ago, Daniel Metz said:

 

 

Anyway, brothers, my wife is not to happy that I am on this site again. I think I will leave. Bye.

What an odd statement...   Sorry you didn't enjoy your stay, brother Daniel...

[Qapla]

3 hours ago, Stormswift said:

Dear brother Daniel,

 

A well thought out post, but my opinion is that silence is not always a sign of approval  ...   and in MY opinion it crosses the line when copyrighted material is used to generate an income/profit for individuals which circumvents the whole purpose of the copyright. 

 

..........................

 

We as an organization and as individual because and all the more so that we are on the public stage, have to adhere to legalities ie: Copyright law. I can see if F&D openly APPROVE jw.org badges we are opening up others who are against Jehovah do create badges with a negative influence using jw.org.

 

 

It is true that Copyright laws are to be respected. The initial offerings of the JW.org pins may have encroached on those laws - however, that issue WAS addressed by the FDS - that is why you no longer see "square blue pins with JW.org"   in their font and their color blue being offered by companies that sell pins. The ONLY design covered by the Copyright is the "square blue pin with JW.org" - a "round" pin is not in violation of the law, neither is a red pin or a purple pin or one that just has the text "JW.org" in a a straight line without the blue square.

 

Even if the color of the blue is different or the font of the text is different, the Copyright law does not cover the use - it MUST be the exact logo to be covered by the law.

 

[Stormswift]

1 hour ago, Qapla said:

 

It is true that Copyright laws are to be respected. The initial offerings of the JW.org pins may have encroached on those laws - however, that issue WAS addressed by the FDS - that is why you no longer see "square blue pins with JW.org"   in their font and their color blue being offered by companies that sell pins. The ONLY design covered by the Copyright is the "square blue pin with JW.org" - a "round" pin is not in violation of the law, neither is a red pin or a purple pin or one that just has the text "JW.org" in a a straight line without the blue square.

 

Even if the color of the blue is different or the font of the text is different, the Copyright law does not cover the use - it MUST be the exact logo to be covered by the law.

 

Yes agreed we have had this discussion in another  thread. No-one has breached copyright ... I don't think anyone said that. Just that breaching copyright WOULD be the exception if it occurred.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Stormswift

[Daniel Metz]

5 hours ago, Hope said:

What an odd statement...   Sorry you didn't enjoy your stay, brother Daniel...

Yes Sister Hope. My wife found me this morning writing on this site. I was embxttrrased because I had deactivated my account because my wife had told me that I was spending too much time here. She is angry that I betrayed her trust in me.

 

I joined again because I wanted others' opinions on what I think may be a big change in a judicial policy which may be announced

at the Annual Meeting this October. Anyway goodbye again everyone.

 

 

[Hope]

Best wishes, brother- reassurances are in order, I suppose... sorry for your conflicts.  Cheers

[juliansan]

I saw a picture of a GB member wearing a jw.org badge. 

[Qapla]

13 hours ago, Stormswift said:

No-one has breached copyright ... I don't think anyone said that.

Then why was copyright even mentioned if it was not an issue? 

[Hope]

I think Daniel just wanted an official ruling as to if wearing the JW.org pins were okay or not.

 

I'm hoping the view that it's up to the individual is sufficient - I don't think the GB is gonna get involved...

[Shawnster]

Yes, that's all he wanted.  

 

Bottom line, though, is that we're not going to get an "official" ruling on whether we can wear the pins or not.  The Slave has never given an official ruling on anything that ultimately is a conscience matter.  Even the matter of Spanx a few years ago was not an "official ruling" preventing Jehovah's people from wearing Spanx or spandex.  Brother Morris talk simply highlighted and reiterated the néed for Christians to make sure they are modestly dressed at all times.

 

We've never had an official ruling on what to wear, what to eat, what to drink, what to watch or what to listen to.  We have guidelines and principles that help us make an informed decision based upon our conscience.

 

Now, the copyright holder may have some comment or not regarding the use of the Jw. org logo.  That is different than the Slave giving all Christians a ruling.  On top of that, a decision about the use of the logo would not fall under the wearing of the pin, it would only affect the making and distribution of such pins.  Such a ruling would affect if someone put the Jw. org logo on their website or used it in any printed media.  

 

In short, wearing the pin would not fall under copyright protection.

 

I can see how the wearing of such a pin might remind someone of the old days when the Bible Students wore the cross and crown pins.  I can see where some with limited to no scriptural foundation might think that our wearing these Jw. org or Caleb and Sophia pins is the same as Christendom wearing cross jewelry .  I can see where they would think that, but we all understand, don't we, that this is not the same thing?  The cross was viewed as an object of worship.  It was given reverence.  The cross image is and was more than simply decoration or a piece of jewelry .  In contrast, the Jw. org logo is not worshiped by us.  We are not praying to it.  We are not wearing it in hopes of divine protection or to show our piety or reverence to our Lord and Savior.  We are wearing such pins purely as decoration and a matter of pride in our organization.

 

The wearing of the Jw. org pins is similar to the wearing of the US Flag pin or a pin representing one's country or government.  These are worn out of pride and to show support.  Again, the difference between the Jw. org pin and a nationalistic emblem is that we are not supporters of those nations.  We are neutral.  In a sesne, we are wearing the emblem of our nation, God's Kingdom.

 

Kinda funny that we're the only nation whose logo us a URL.  LOL

[booboo]

Thank you Brother Shawn for your well thought out comment

[TRUTH04]

Or are you saying that a prohibition against boxing is not clearly outlined in the scriptures?

Is Society's logo outlined in the scriptures?

Sent from my TECNO H5 using Tapatalk

[Shawnster]

14 minutes ago, TRUTH04 said:

Is Society's logo outlined in the scriptures?

Sent from my TECNO H5 using Tapatalk

 

Nope.  Neither is turn in field service time, having a television studio with monthly broadcasts, or raising your hand when you want to make a comment.

 

Jehovah does not micro-manage.  He has given the Slave a certain amount of freedom and discretion in how they run the Earthly portion of the Organization.  Some of our customs or methods are purely for logistical purposes, others are for propriety and good etiquite, and still others are for ease and simplicity.  

 

The logo isn't outlined in the scriptures, neither is it prohibited.

[TRUTH04]

 

Nope.  Neither is turn in field service time, having a television studio with monthly broadcasts, or raising your hand when you want to make a comment.

 

Jehovah does not micro-manage.  He has given the Slave a certain amount of freedom and discretion in how they run the Earthly portion of the Organization.  Some of our customs or methods are purely for logistical purposes, others are for propriety and good etiquite, and still others are for ease and simplicity.  

 

The logo isn't outlined in the scriptures, neither is it prohibited.

that's d point. the GB can handle a situation not outlined in the scriptures.

Sent from my TECNO H5 using Tapatalk

[More4me2do]

We worship in spirit and truth and our worship is based on principles not laws since principles are eternal and laws are not. When it comes to the wearing of JW.ORG badges here are a few principles to consider.

 

1. All things are lawful, but not all things are advantageous. All things are lawful, but not all things build up. Let each one keep seeking, not his own advantage, but that of the other person. 1. Cor 10:23, 24

If someone finds the wearing of the JW.ORG badge objectionable, the principle tells us what to do.

 

2. Therefore, whether you are eating or drinking or doing anything else, do all things for God’s glory. Keep from becoming causes for stumbling to Jews as well as Greeks and to the congregation of God, just as I am trying to please all people in all things, not seeking my own advantage, but that of the many, so that they may be saved. 1 Cor. 10:31-34

Lets face it, we are the ones interested in the JW.ORG badges, therefore, will the wearing of them enhance God's glory? Is it not that the conduct and inner person that does this? Since the vast majority of us do not make them ourselves, would it be proper for a Christian to use his theocratic contacts for business purposes? At the 2014 Convention, part of the stage was a purple JW.ORG sign it was an integral part of those conventions, thus it was worn by GB members, much like the lapel badges. How many of us are wearing the 2014 lapel badge today and they are much more informative then the JW.ORG badge.

 

Furthermore, do we perhaps draw the conclusion because someone wears a JW.ORG badge he must be a witness? Believe me during SMPW shifts I have seen it on persons that from the outward appearance I know could not have been a JW. 

 

JW.ORG badges are jewelry and as such it is a personal choice to wear it or not, but is all jewelry appropriate? A brother having a convention part was asked by the chairman to tell the sister in the demonstration to take off the ankle bracelet she was wearing. The brother said I don't have a problem with her wearing it, but It was the chairman's decision wearing it would be inappropriate and if she wanted to be in the demonstration it had to be taken off. You will never find that in written form, some instructions are passed on orally.

 

Finally, in the audio / video convention program available for Elders to give to those that can't attend the convention, of all the participants and speakers for the 3 days, only 1 was wearing a JW.ORG badge. If it is perhaps a risk for those with weak conscious then why would anyone even go down the route of something that will not enhance God's glory?

[Hope]

Slightly off-topic... but I'm always curious as to how much I'd have to object to something before I got people to do things my way... ?

 

Or should I try to live quietly and mind my own business regarding what other people wear and how they groom themselves.... ?

 

[Stormswift]

5 hours ago, Qapla said:

Then why was copyright even mentioned if it was not an issue? 

I was talking about the FDS remaining quiet not necessarily meaning they approve and in my opinion the only time the FDS would speak out is when and if copyright is breached. 

 

Even then it would be done through the legal department not the FDS necessarily.  

Edited June 28, 2016 by Stormswift

[Shawnster]

3 hours ago, More4me2do said:

 

 

Finally, in the audio / video convention program available for Elders to give to those that can't attend the convention, of all the participants and speakers for the 3 days, only 1 was wearing a JW.ORG badge. If it is perhaps a risk for those with weak conscious then why would anyone even go down the route of something that will not enhance God's glory?

 

The fact that there is someone in one of our videos directly from the Slave that is wearing a pin is proof enough that it's acceptable.  Everything about those videos were scrutinized prior to release.  

 

 

56 minutes ago, Hope said:

Slightly off-topic... but I'm always curious as to how much I'd have to object to something before I got people to do things my way... ?

 

Or should I try to live quietly and mind my own business regarding what other people wear and how they groom themselves.... ?

 

 

Which scriptural principles do you think apply to either response?

[Old]

3 hours ago, More4me2do said:

We worship in spirit and truth and our worship is based on principles not laws since principles are eternal and laws are not. When it comes to the wearing of JW.ORG badges here are a few principles to consider.

 

1. All things are lawful, but not all things are advantageous. All things are lawful, but not all things build up. Let each one keep seeking, not his own advantage, but that of the other person. 1. Cor 10:23, 24

If someone finds the wearing of the JW.ORG badge objectionable, the principle tells us what to do.

 

2. Therefore, whether you are eating or drinking or doing anything else, do all things for God’s glory. Keep from becoming causes for stumbling to Jews as well as Greeks and to the congregation of God, just as I am trying to please all people in all things, not seeking my own advantage, but that of the many, so that they may be saved. 1 Cor. 10:31-34

Lets face it, we are the ones interested in the JW.ORG badges, therefore, will the wearing of them enhance God's glory? Is it not that the conduct and inner person that does this? Since the vast majority of us do not make them ourselves, would it be proper for a Christian to use his theocratic contacts for business purposes? At the 2014 Convention, part of the stage was a purple JW.ORG sign it was an integral part of those conventions, thus it was worn by GB members, much like the lapel badges. How many of us are wearing the 2014 lapel badge today and they are much more informative then the JW.ORG badge.

 

Furthermore, do we perhaps draw the conclusion because someone wears a JW.ORG badge he must be a witness? Believe me during SMPW shifts I have seen it on persons that from the outward appearance I know could not have been a JW. 

 

JW.ORG badges are jewelry and as such it is a personal choice to wear it or not, but is all jewelry appropriate? A brother having a convention part was asked by the chairman to tell the sister in the demonstration to take off the ankle bracelet she was wearing. The brother said I don't have a problem with her wearing it, but It was the chairman's decision wearing it would be inappropriate and if she wanted to be in the demonstration it had to be taken off. You will never find that in written form, some instructions are passed on orally.

 

Finally, in the audio / video convention program available for Elders to give to those that can't attend the convention, of all the participants and speakers for the 3 days, only 1 was wearing a JW.ORG badge. If it is perhaps a risk for those with weak conscious then why would anyone even go down the route of something that will not enhance God's glory?

So what is your point? The glass is half full or it is half empty, or is it both?

Everything you have said has already been said previously.

I am trying to figure out are you saying, Wearing a badge is OK?

Or are you saying that wearing a badge is not OK?

Maybe that since the  GB member wearing a badge on the program was in a minority and therefore we would be taking a minority position if we wear a badge?

Is it because of a weak conscious that some of us wear badges? or visa versa?

 

Shakespeare even titled a play after this topic. No, I guess it is the other way around.

 

[Old]

IMHO the copyright only applied to Kingdom Hall signage. Color, type and shape are copyrighted. The square cannot be copy righted, the type might be, the color can't be copyrighted, but the combination is copyrighted. Use for other than the intended purpose would be a violation of the copyright. The words JW.org  are not copyrighted, that is an address. Blue/purple are not copyrighted, the rectangle is not copyrighted, only the combined features and I believe this included the size. This allowed commercial companies to print up the signs for our halls. 

 

Anyhow that is what I got from the letter. 

Maybe someone should go back to the actual wording of the letter.

[rocket]

Something else that seems to be overlooked is that the companies that make the jw.org buttons would get a "cease and desist" order form the Branch's legal department if what they were selling violated a copyright.  The company I buy from got one for the square blue jw.org buttons.  (Per telephone conversation with Company) They now conform to what is not objectionable with the legal department of the Branch, round, rectangle or cutout. The Branch is not going to give a yes or no answer as to whether you wear a button or not. If it bothers your conscience then don't but don't force your conscience one way or the other on anyone. 

[Hope]

53 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

 

The fact that there is someone in one of our videos directly from the Slave that is wearing a pin is proof enough that it's acceptable.  Everything about those videos were scrutinized prior to release.  

 

 

 

Which scriptural principles do you think apply to either response?

Oh, I know -- I'm being more facetious than anything.  

 

I just sometimes marvel at how people are counseled for giving offense rather than taking offense at every turn.  The principle of considering the other as superior to ourselves goes both ways.... and reasonable accommodation and compromise is needed by everyone.  For those who love Jehovah, there is no stumbling block.

 

That's all.

[Stormswift]

1 hour ago, rocket said:

Something else that seems to be overlooked is that the companies that make the jw.org buttons would get a "cease and desist" order form the Branch's legal department if what they were selling violated a copyright.  The company I buy from got one for the square blue jw.org buttons.  (Per telephone conversation with Company) They now conform to what is not objectionable with the legal department of the Branch, round, rectangle or cutout. The Branch is not going to give a yes or no answer as to whether you wear a button or not. If it bothers your conscience then don't but don't force your conscience one way or the other on anyone. 

This is just it - if there was a copyright issue we would know by now. 

[Shawnster]

1 hour ago, Hope said:

Oh, I know -- I'm being more facetious than anything.  

 

I just sometimes marvel at how people are counseled for giving offense rather than taking offense at every turn.  The principle of considering the other as superior to ourselves goes both ways.... and reasonable accommodation and compromise is needed by everyone.  For those who love Jehovah, there is no stumbling block.

 

That's all.

That would make for an interesting topic.