ComfortMyPeople

And will be anxiously looking forward to it.
The comment you are responding to included the idea of a "soft start to the liquidation of the WT organization." That reminded me of a rumor, surely started by ex-JWs, that the idea behind JW Broadcasting was to ultimately turn the meetings into a video broadcast from HQ. All meetings at the Hall would become more and more made up of videos until finally they were 100% videos. This would supposedly result in HQ turning into little more than a place where the videos were made. Of course, conspiratorialists would say that this could result in "association through connectivity" and the result would be selling off of most HQ buildings, maybe even the Halls, too.
Instead, we have a ready-made solution to these kinds of medical emergencies.

Ummmm.......no.
The congregations are only following the recommendations or orders from secular authorities who have good reasons for giving these orders for the health and safety of its citizens. I can't understand why anyone would think that JWs are somehow going to think it does not apply to them??
As soon as the authorities say it's ok to gather again, we will resume the meetings. It's not rocket science....
 

Very simple ... hold the Memorial in people's homes, limited in size to whatever is determined to be safe ..
I see no problem with 20 Memorials of 15 people, per Congregation.
It does not have to be one hour.
It can be one paragraph of commentary read, with a prayer at both ends.
15 minutes.
Tops!
My guess is that the original Memorial (reading from Luke), was SHORTER than 10 minutes.
...and only had 12 people present !

Outside of that one sentence from the 1999 article, there is absolutely no indication that a Witness can cast a vote in a political election. But even the above sentence does not actually say that a Witness can conscientiously vote in a political election. It could be saying no more than the 1950 article was saying when it used similar words.
The above quoted sentence might only be explaining why Jehovah's Witnesses will consistently make the same conscientious decision as to why they will not personally vote even if their conscience allowed them to go into the voting booth. And that explanation includes the idea that their decision is based on a Bible-trained conscience. [Note that all the Scriptures in the article showed why a Witness would NOT vote]. The rest of the explanation is that the Witness has an understanding of his responsibility to God and to the State. [Curiously, Romans 13:1 was used in the original 1950 article to include a reason why Witnesses would not vote, based on the idea that Romans 13:1 cannot refer to the State.] Of course, this older view of the "superior authorities" could provide an argument that the 1999 article needed an update that therefore could change the position on the conscience and political voting:
Here's the relevant portion of the original 1950 article:
*** w50 11/15 pp. 444-447 pars. 18-28 Subjection to the Higher Powers ***
18 It cannot be said of the other political powers and authorities of this world that they were types of Christ as God’s Chief Servant and that therefore God gave such political powers their authority. ...
19 The political powers of this world are, therefore, not the “superior authorities” to whom Christian souls are to be subject in every demand they make. ...
20 ...” (Gal. 6:16) So the Jewish Sánhedrin was no longer a governing body among God’s true people, but was an alien governmental body now. ...
21 In view of not recognizing worldly political powers as the “superior authorities” ordained by God, but recognizing only God and Jesus Christ to be such now, the Christian witnesses conscientiously refrain from taking part in the politics of this world, yes, even from voting. ...
22 In some countries today the legislature wants to make all the adult citizens responsible for the government. To enforce the democratic way upon them they are required by law to vote in the national elections. Under such circumstances what are Christians to do, since they are under divine command to keep themselves unspotted from this world? By dedicating themselves wholly to God through Christ they have vowed their unswerving allegiance to the kingdom of God, and they cannot divide their allegiance. So how are they now to proceed? Can they register as qualified voters? Yes. The apostle Paul held onto his Roman citizenship and fought for its rights, even appealing to Caesar in defending his right to preach the gospel. In lands where military conscription is in force Jehovah’s witnesses register the same as all others within the age limits, and they write down their relationship to the matter. They remember how Joseph and Mary complied with Caesar’s decree and traveled to Bethlehem-Judah in order to be registered at their home town. (Luke 2:1-5, NW) But it is when these ministers of Jehovah’s Word are called up for induction into the army that then they present themselves and take their stand according to God’s Word and pay to him what belongs to him. Likewise where Caesar makes it compulsory for citizens to vote. After they have registered and when election day comes, they can go to the polls and enter the voting booths. It is here that they are called upon to mark the ballot or write in what they stand for. The voters do what they will with their ballots. So here in the presence of God is where his witnesses must act in harmony with his commandments and in accordance with their faith.
23 It is not our responsibility to instruct them what to do with the ballot. They must act in accord with their conscience as enlightened by the study of God’s Word. In lands where voting is not compulsory, the ministers of Jehovah’s Word remember that his people are theocratically organized. According to the divine law under which they are organized the popular vote of the majority does not put servants in office, but all appointments in the theocratic organization are from God and through those whom he puts in authority in his organization. Even in his visible organization the individual members of the congregation do not vote democratically and put qualified men into positions of overseers and ministerial servants by majority vote. No, but the appointments to all official positions of service are made by the spirit of God and through the governing body according to the Scriptural requirements. Even the governing body which make the appointments are under instructions from the “superior authorities”, God and his Christ. To them it is written: “Never lay your hands hastily upon any man; neither be a sharer in the sins of others; preserve yourself pure.” (1 Tim. 3:1-13 and 5:22, NW) So the ministers of Jehovah’s Word do not possess the vote within his organization. As for the governing body, it does not lay its hands hastily upon a consecrated person, lest it should become responsible for his sins in office due to a hasty appointment of an undependable, unqualified person.
24 Since they do not exercise the popular vote to put even consecrated servants into office even within the theocratic organization, they consider it improper to exercise the democratic vote by which unconsecrated persons are put into worldly political offices. They do not choose to share in the responsibility for the sins of such worldlings in governmental offices. They want to preserve themselves pure from this world. They abide by God’s appointments through his theocratic organization, and they accept his appointment of Jesus Christ to the kingship of the righteous new world.
THE AUTHORITIES ORDAINED BY GOD
25 Paul was a member of the governing body of the congregation of the first century. He gives the reason for being in subjection to the superior authorities, saying: “The existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God.” (Rom. 13:1, NW) How could this be true of worldly political governments? There those in official positions are put in by popular vote, by machine party-politics, by dictatorial seizure of power, by executive appointment, by hereditary law of a dynasty, by legislative action or parliamentary appointment. God is not manipulating worldly politics like a political boss. It is only within his theocratic organization that the existing authorities stand placed in various positions with relationship to one another by God....
27 Rightfully Jehovah God has reserved for himself the position of Supreme One of the “superior authorities”. He shares that position with no one else, trinitarians to the contrary. Whom, then, has he placed next highest with relation to himself? Jesus Christ, who proved his loyalty to his heavenly Father to a violent death in the midst of Satan’s hostile world. ..
 

JWs have heard that you can not be anointed if you are not sure of your anointing. But is that statement Scriptural? Or is it just something the GB tells to discourage JWs to accept the anointing from God?
Just recently Antony Morris, GB member, spoke about that in the following video from the 3:00 minute mark.
https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/LatestVideos/pub-jwb_202003_10_VIDEO
I think many have had doubts about their anointing in the beginning. And that has surely been aggravated by all the discouragement the WT organization spreads about becoming anointed in these last days.
It is like they are shutting up the kingdom of heaven before men. That is very similar to what Jesus said in Matthew 23:13  “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut up the Kingdom of the heavens before men; for you yourselves do not go in, neither do you permit those on their way in to go in.
But this hypochrisy has been exposed. Maybe it happened accidentally in the life story of Ted Jarazc's wife, Melita Jaracz. There she tells that her husband Ted Jaracz, a former GB member,  had prayed intensely about his anointment to be sure. So Ted Jaracz, the former GB member was not fully sure about his anointment in the beginning. So evidently it is very hypocritical by the WT organization, and now for GB member Antony Morris to tell if you have doubts about your anointing you are not anointed. It is just not that easy. According to Romans 8 :16 the realization of being anointed comes in the following way: "The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s children."
The words bears witness indicates that it is a continual process. And for many it must be difficult to believe at once. But the spirit will continue to bear witness and by the time the anointed ones become more and more sure.
This is what Melita Jaracz said in the WT about Ted Jaracz:
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2015686
"Something I particularly respected about Ted was that he never took his relationship with Jehovah for granted. He cherished his sacred service to the greatest Person in the universe. We loved to read and study the Bible together. At night before retiring, we knelt next to the bed, and he prayed for us. Then we separately said our own prayers. I always knew when a serious matter was weighing on Ted’s mind. He would get out of bed, kneel down again, and silently pray at length. I deeply appreciated that he wanted to pray to Jehovah about matters great and small.
Some years after we got married, Ted explained to me that he was going to start partaking of the emblems at the Memorial. “I have prayed about this intensely to be absolutely sure that I am doing what Jehovah wants me to do,” he said. I was not entirely surprised that he had been anointed with God’s spirit to serve in heaven eventually. I viewed it as a privilege to support one of Christ’s brothers.—Matt. 25:35-40." (End of quote)
 
 

Actually, he did state the connection. You don't even have to read between the lines. But you do have to understand "Allen-ese."
Allen Smith, under almost all of his guises, would post book covers that gave the impression he had done more research into a topic than anyone else. And he even would claim that only his own understanding was "real research."  And in about 95% of those cases where the posts highlighted book covers, he was attempting to "attack" one of my posts. He has done this for other persons, too, but far less often.
Over the years, Allen almost stopped referring to me as "JW Insider," but started referring to me as a person who had been at Bethel in the early 1980's (when, the "great purge" happened, and apostasy-related witch hunts were rampant). Or he simply refers to me as a JW who might not be in "good standing," or who might be a "disgruntled" or "fake Witness," or who "slanders" the GB by criticism, or who "blames" the Watchtower, etc. 
Unfortunately, "Allen-ese" is spoken by someone who often posted covers of books that, if he had read them, he would have discovered that they showed his arguments to be wrong, instead of proving that only he has the ability to do real research. It's not so different in his last post here, as he evidently didn't realize that this entire topic only gives the highest praise to Witnesses in Rwanda, just as I have made posts elsewhere giving the highest praise to Witnesses who suffered under Hitler's Nazi regime.
Lately, I prefer not to defend myself, but (believe it or not) there are people who have read Allen's unwarranted criticisms and who have immediately believed him. So I just wanted to make it very clear that I will still probably criticize things that I believe ought to be criticized, and this includes Allen's more egregious claims under any of his many names. (He still has a couple dozen names that haven't been used much recently.)
But this is a post that only offers praise, and absolutely no criticism, about Jehovah's Witnesses in Rwanda.

https://religionnews.com/2020/02/26/genocide-survivor-tells-of-risk-rescue-and-religion-in-rwanda/
Rwanda’s descent into terror in April 1994 took an estimated one million lives in a mere 100 days. The Genocide against the Tutsi in this overwhelmingly Christian country was horrifying for its intimacy: Killers and victims were neighbors, friends, fellow churchgoers, workmates, even spouses. Murderers carried crude implements—machetes, hoes, nail-studded clubs—and lists of those doomed to die.
Gatineau, Quebec—Tharcisse Seminega was marked for slaughter. With all escape routes seemingly cut off, he, his wife, and their five young children sat helplessly awaiting death.
Seminega, a Tutsi and former Catholic seminarian, taught at the National University in Butare. Extremist Hutu faculty orchestrated the murder of Tutsi professors and students. But just minutes before a Hutu professor arrived with soldiers at Seminega’s house, Hutu friends helped the family flee.
The new memoir No Greater Love—How My Family Survived the Genocide in Rwanda relates how, during the next 75 days, Seminega and his family evaded the machetes with the help of about 20 Hutu rescuers who took unthinkable risks to hide and sustain them. These rescuers knew that if the génocidaires caught them, they faced an agonizing death as traitors to the Hutu cause.
Most of the rescuers belonged to the Jehovah’s Witness community, of which Seminega was a part. His wife, a former nun, feared to join him, knowing that the Witnesses had long been oppressed for refusing to take up weapons or participate in politics.
Because of this apolitical teaching, writes genocide scholar Rhoda Howard-Hassmann, “Hutu Witnesses were impervious to calls for patriotic Hutu to take part in mass killings”; and yet “to do nothing was also against their Christian principles.”
Professor Seminega says that his family’s rescuers and other Witnesses followed Jesus’ “new commandment”—To love one another just as he loved them, even to the death. They sheltered not only fellow believers but others who knew that Witnesses would not harm or betray them.
Of 2,500 Witnesses in Rwanda in 1994, about 400 were murdered, Tutsi as well as Hutu who tried to rescue Tutsi or who refused to kill.
After the genocide, researchers documented widespread complicity among church leaders and members. States one study: “All the churches active in Rwanda, with the exception of the Jehovah’s Witnesses” were involved in the genocide.
Now, Professor Seminega speaks with classes via Skype about his family’s story. In paying tribute to his rescuers, Seminega says: “Their selfless acts move me every day to ask, how far will my love reach?”

The only item in Paul's list of fruits of the spirit that comes anywhere near "doctrine" is faith. True religion is about love, joy, peace, and other good qualities that make us the sort of persons we ought to be at all times. Our motivation should be the spirit of Christ, which is basically love of God and love of neighbor, motivated by our faith. And therefore these good fruits come out of a clean heart, not motivated by the fleshly qualities of the world (or spirit of this world).
This is why I think that James 1:27 is saying exactly the same thing when it says that true religion could be defined as looking after orphans and widows in their tribulation - but doing this out of a proper heart motivation (faith and love) and therefore keeping ourselves without spot from worldly motivations. The following verses in James discuss the worldly motivations that interfere with true religion (true Christianity) and then falls back upon Jesus' "golden rule" and love to clinch the definition of true religion.
In fact, James summarizes much of what was said in Matthew 7 and Luke 6 and Galatians 5:
(James 3:10-18) . . .Out of the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, it is not right for things to happen this way. 11 A spring does not cause the fresh water and the bitter water to bubble out of the same opening, does it? 12 My brothers, a fig tree cannot produce olives, or a grapevine figs, can it? Neither can salt water produce fresh water. 13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him by his fine conduct demonstrate works performed with a mildness that comes from wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter jealousy and contentiousness in your hearts, do not be bragging and lying against the truth. 15 This is not the wisdom that comes down from above; it is earthly, animalistic, demonic. 16 For wherever there are jealousy and contentiousness, there will also be disorder and every vile thing. 17 But the wisdom from above is first of all pure, then peaceable, reasonable, ready to obey, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial, not hypocritical. 18 Moreover, the fruit of righteousness is sown in peaceful conditions for those who are making peace.
Notice that there is very little talk of doctrine, except for how good conduct relates to doctrine. (Also note that James' list of "fruits of the spirit" includes "ready to obey" which L.H.McNelly already included previously.)

When it comes to identifying writings that belong in the inspired canon, we can look to whether the writing reflects the fruitages of the spirit. We can start with what we know, and then build from there using common sense and spiritual principles.
First of all, let's say we were to accept the restrictive criteria of modern scholars who don't really care for the spiritual value of the content of scripture. Even these scholars will generally all agree that Paul was the writer of several of the letters, and since Paul wrote them, it must have been between his conversion and his death. Therefore Google would return this on a query about Paul's actual letters:
Seven letters (with consensus dates) considered genuine by most scholars: First Thessalonians (c. 50 AD) Galatians (c. 53) First Corinthians (c. 53–54) Philippians (c. 55) Philemon (c. 55) Second Corinthians (c. 55–56) Romans (c. 57) Some would add another book or two, but these are considered to be a core set of Paul's writings that few would argue with. So now we could read these carefully and extrapolate that there is really nothing in Ephesians, Colossians, or 2 Thessalonians that teaches anything different from these books. And we could continue on from there. Any doctrine in those other letters conforms perfectly with the accepted letters. In fact, they could have easily grown out of combinations of writings that congregations from many places had collected from multiple real letters, real speeches, and real sayings. Just as John said of Jesus that many more scrolls could be written of things he did and said, the same could have been true of Paul, whose ministry was probably nearly 10 times longer than that of Jesus.
Of course, we also have Luke who said that there were many other Gospels about Jesus. And we have Paul already mentioning that letters might show up "as though from us [Paul and his companions]." The reason to be careful of any of these additional gospels or letters would be if they taught a different doctrine. Paul said that different doctrine should not be accepted, even if it came from an angel out of heaven. This is another way of saying that Paul knew the gospel he preached was authorized by Christ Jesus himself. His "word" or his "gospel" embodied the spirit of Christ.
So Paul's core writings can become the touchstone by which we could evaluate the rest of the Christian Greek Scriptures. (And by extension, quotes from Paul referencing the Hebrew Scriptures give us a core set of Hebrew Scritpures to do the same with if anyone were to doubt a core canon of Hebrew Scriptures.)
We know that already in the first century there were additional writings that were already beginning to represent Jesus within a different doctrinal structure. Jesus was not being accepted everywhere as a real physical person born in the line of David, who had preached, and been killed under Pontius Pilate, and had been resurrected to heaven. Some were beginning to teach an atheistic version of Jesus who had not really existed or died in a physical sense, but who merely embodied secret knowledge that only a few special teachers could explain.
But this actually helps us define the inspired canon. During Paul's life he made clear the full, necessary "gospel" and also made it clear that there were things that others might be saying that were not necessary, or even harmful to that message.
(1 Thessalonians 3:12-5:1) . . .  4 Finally, brothers, just as you received instruction from us on how you should walk in order to please God, just as you are in fact walking, we request you and appeal to you by the Lord Jesus to keep doing it more fully. 2 For you know the instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. . . .  just as we told you previously and also strongly warned you. . . .9 However, concerning brotherly love, you do not need us to write to you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another. . . . 11 Make it your aim to live quietly and to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we instructed you, 12 so that you may walk decently in the eyes of people outside and not need anything. . . . 18 So keep comforting one another with these words. 5 Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you.
They needed no more doctrinal instruction. The spirit itself taught them by God how to love one another, and live decently. They needed nothing more to be written about the "times and seasons," either. There was a lot of "falsely called knowledge" being spoken about, but Paul focused on the important part of the Gospel.
(1 Corinthians 1:30-2:2) 30 But it is due to him that you are in union with Christ Jesus, who has become to us wisdom from God, also righteousness and sanctification and release by ransom, 31 so that it may be just as it is written: “The one who boasts, let him boast in Jehovah.” 2 So when I came to you, brothers, I did not come with extravagant speech or wisdom declaring the sacred secret of God to you. 2 For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and him executed on the stake.
After Paul, teachers would try to gain a following by creating new "knowledge" and "sacred secrets" and use human wisdom to create a Christian "philosophy" or "gnosis" even to the point of denying an actual human Christ who was impaled. It was based on Greek philosophies and human wisdom rather than wisdom from God.
But because of this development, we end up with statements about how to identify any writing from the first century that was acceptable and which ones were unacceptable. We can get to the canonicity of 1 John later, but it provides a perfectly good touchstone for identifying additional writings from the first century that were to be considered acceptable.
(1 John 4:1-6) 4 Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you know that the inspired statement is from God: Every inspired statement that acknowledges Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God. 3 But every inspired statement that does not acknowledge Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the antichrist’s inspired statement that you have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world. 4 You originate with God, little children, and you have conquered them, because the one who is in union with you is greater than the one who is in union with the world. 5 They originate with the world; that is why they speak what originates with the world and the world listens to them. 6 We originate with God. Whoever comes to know God listens to us; whoever does not originate with God does not listen to us. By this we distinguish the inspired statement of truth from the inspired statement of error.
So, based on the well-attested idea that this was written by the end of the first century, it is saying that all known Christian writings up to that time were known to be "inspired" as long as they were not of the type that denied the physical, fleshly existence of Jesus Christ. This is a fairly simple criterion for first century Christian documents. No other significant doctrinal issue was competing with true Christian documents by the end of the first century. This was timely, too, because we know a lot about these gnostic beliefs from about 120 to 300 CE. Paul was in line with this same idea when he said:
(1 Corinthians 12:1-3) . . .Now concerning the spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed. 2 You know that when you were people of the nations, you were influenced and led astray to those voiceless idols, following wherever they might lead you. 3 Now I would have you know that nobody when speaking by God’s spirit says: “Jesus is accursed!” and nobody can say: “Jesus is Lord!” except by holy spirit.
Much more to say of course, but this is a long and complex topic.

It would seem that the personal goal of persons like Paul, Peter, and John was to get congregations to a point where they would reach that level of maturity. But we see Paul continuing to "shepherd" the congregation, as a kind of "long distance" elder. He is to those congregations what the "governing body" seems to be to current Witness congregations.
John, in Revelation, writes to congregations with an idea that Jesus handles each congregation directly, and that they have been "on their own" under the direction of Jesus. They have a need to recognize this direct authority of Jesus, as they make decisions locally about who/what to listen to, and who/what to avoid. (Revelation 2&3).
It seems as though the apostles and older men of the first century did indeed act like a kind of governing body (not just in Jerusalem, but in Antioch, and anywhere that Paul, Titus, Timothy, etc. might have served from). But by the time John wrote, it was important to have more reliance on the holy spirit, and the FOUNDATION of the apostles and prophets, who had already been inspired to write the Biblical guidance which came to be seen as the primary content of the scriptural canon. So you can't really get mad at people who wish to imitate these shepherds from the first century to shepherd the congregations today. But you can also see a need for a balanced view since the goal should also continue to be guiding all to rely directly on the words of the Bible already written. Teaching the congregations to be guided by the holy spirit is a more difficult concept because, to most of us, it just means following the Bible, which is our only sure and consistent source of guidance by holy spirit.

I was only quoting you. It's something that J.B. had said about three times, and I wasn't surprised when 4J said the same thing.
Yes, you have to be very careful whom you trust on such matters. Some of these ideas are based on a belief that Paul would not have changed his instructions as the congregations matured. Paul's stance against legalism for example doesn't seem to fit his "rules" about how to identify a deserving widow. Or specific sets of rules about who can be an elder or a ministerial servant. This does not mean that the letters were not "Pauline" however, but it does mean that we should look carefully at why certain statements appear to contradict earlier letters.
The case of 2 Peter is a little more serious. It could have been taken from Peter's own writings and turned into a useful letter for the congregations based on earlier letters, but this particular letter was not accepted as Peter's own writings by several early Christian writers. Even Eusebius (300) didn't think it belonged in the canon, although it was always generally admitted that its doctrinal content was exactly what Peter would have written. There is even a good chance that it was Peter's own content, but that many Christians of the time didn't believe it because they didn't like the idea that it implied that it might be another thousand years or so from then when the parousia would actually arrive. At any rate, there is nothing significant in 2 Peter that cannot be found in other Bible books, and the part about the parousia being delayed by another thousand years has been proved true.
This is not the topic with which to discuss the canon, or authenticity, but you will see a lot of this when looking to match historical information with early Christian writings, so it can't be totally avoided.

The questions in blue were as follows:
 
There is no proof or reason to believe that the apostles themselves survived as a group until 66. The book of Acts discontinues the use of the phrase "The Twelve" very early in the narrative, and it's probably no coincidence that Acts stops referring to the apostles in Jerusalem at about the time it brings up that Herod killed one of them, James, and then immediately went after Peter. After the apostle James is killed (the brother of John) we never hear about any of the original "Twelve" again except for Peter and John. Tradition has Peter and Paul killed in the 60's, and only John surviving past the 70's. Early Christian writers like Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp and Papias, all give credence to the idea that John survived until about 96 to 100 CE. None of them mention any others as apostles except Paul and Peter who are considered to have died decades earlier.
You mentioned James, Jesus' brother, who is mentioned by Josephus, providing a context that would put his death about 62, although Epiphanius apparently thought he died at age 96, and Hegesippus is used to point to a date around 69 CE.
Jesus had only asked the apostles to stay in Jerusalem until the outpouring of the holy spirit, which would have been Pentecost, just a couple months after Jesus died. Acts speaks of them staying on a bit longer to take care of some problems of prejudice by Jews against non-Jewish Christians, and therefore making some assignments to make sure the non-Jewish Christians were treated fairly. But after mentioning the assignment of Stephen and the missionary work of Philip and his daughters, there is no more mention of the apostles. But the Jerusalem congregation was still considered to be led by "pillars" who had a lot of respect, just as Paul mentions in Galatians. Paul does not consider them to be a "governing body" however. But he did respect their decisions, even if he considered some of them as wrong. Paul directly contradicts their decision about eating meats that had been sacrificed to idols, which might even throw some question about Paul's stance on eating meats that had not been bled correctly. But Paul definitely supports the stance of the elders in Jerusalem on fornication and idolatry, of course.

Naturally, if it's something that might be historical but isn't found in the Bible itself, the first place you'd look is in the writings of contemporaries of first century Christians like
Josephus, Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger You might also try persons who referenced famous persons from the first century in works that referenced say Philo or Gamaliel, etc., even though they died before the Temple was destroyed. The same would go for biographies of the Romans or their military exploits that might reference:
Herod Agrippa Cestius Gallus Gessius Florus Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian. (the 5 Roman Emperors between 66 and 70) Then you might try to find references in or about the writings of any of the following historians who might have mentioned something by chance up to within a 100 years of the Jerusalem event:
Marcus Cluvius Rufus, (fl. 41–69), Roman history Quintus Curtius Rufus (c. 60–70), Greek history Flavius Josephus (37–100), Jewish history Dio Chrysostom (c. 40 – c. 115 AD), history of the Getae Thallus (early 2nd century AD), Roman history Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (c. 56–120), early Roman Empire Plutarch (c. 46–120), Parallel Lives of important Greeks and Romans Criton of Heraclea (fl. 100), history of the Getae and the Dacian Wars Suetonius (c. 69 – after 122), Roman emperors up to the Flavian dynasty Appian (c. 95 – c. 165), Roman history Arrian (c. 92–175), Greek history Granius Licinianus (2nd century), Roman history Criton of Pieria (2nd century), Greek history Lucius Ampelius (c. 2nd century AD), Roman history Dio Cassius (c. 160 – after 229), Roman history Marius Maximus (c. 160 – c. 230), biographer of Roman emperors Diogenes Laërtius (fl. c. 230), history of Greek philosophers Sextus Julius Africanus (c. 160 – c. 240), early Christian The many Jewish and Jewish Christian writings to check during this period could include those with dates on them that fit the period, as seen on earlyjewishwritings.com and earlychristianwritings.com. Note that the dates are usually considered to be "scholarly" dates, not the dates that Christians assign to them when it comes to the actual NT writings. That requires a whole new discussion, but for now, those writings to check would include the following:
(Excuse the formatting issues below. I just copied them from a portion of the list at earlychristianwritings.com. It's a couple years worth of reading. I haven't completed more than a few of them, but have found nothing yet about the flight to Pella/Perea/Decapolis in any of them. The list of writings becomes much longer if you include Christian-related writings all the way up through the 300's when Eusebius and Epiphanius wrote.)
50-95 Signs Gospel 50-95 Book of Hebrews 50-120 Didache 50-140 Gospel of Thomas 50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel 50-150 Apocalypse of Adam 50-150 Eugnostos the Blessed 50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ 65-80 Gospel of Mark 70-100 Epistle of James 70-120 Egerton Gospel 70-160 Gospel of Peter 70-160 Secret Mark 70-200 Fayyum Fragment 70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 73-200 Mara Bar Serapion 80-100 2 Thessalonians 80-100 Ephesians 80-100 Gospel of Matthew 80-110 1 Peter 80-120 Epistle of Barnabas 80-130 Gospel of Luke 80-130 Acts of the Apostles 80-140 1 Clement 80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians 80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews 80-250 Christian Sibyllines 90-95 Revelation 90-120 Gospel of John 90-120 1 John 90-120 2 John 90-120 3 John 90-120 Epistle of Jude 93 Flavius Josephus 100-150 1 Timothy 100-150 2 Timothy 100-150 Titus 100-150 Apocalypse of Peter 100-150 Secret Book of James 100-150 Preaching of Peter 100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites 100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans 100-160 Shepherd of Hermas 100-160 2 Peter 100-200 Odes of Solomon 100-200 Gospel of Eve 100-230 Thunder, Perfect Mind 101-220 Book of Elchasai 105-115 Ignatius of Antioch 110-140 Polycarp to the Philippians 110-140 Papias 110-160 Oxyrhynchus 840 Gospel 110-160 Traditions of Matthias 111-112 Pliny the Younger 115 Suetonius 115 Tacitus 120-130 Quadratus of Athens 120-130 Apology of Aristides 120-140 Basilides 120-140 Naassene Fragment 120-160 Valentinus 120-180 Apocryphon of John 120-180 Gospel of Mary 120-180 Dialogue of the Savior 120-180 Gospel of the Savior 120-180 2nd Apocalypse of James 120-180 Trimorphic Protennoia 120-180 Gospel of Perfection 120-200 Genna Marias 130-140 Marcion 130-150 Aristo of Pella 130-160 Epiphanes On Righteousness 130-160 Ophite Diagrams 130-160 2 Clement 130-170 Gospel of Judas 130-200 Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus 140-150 Epistula Apostolorum   140-160 Ptolemy 140-160 Isidore 140-170 Fronto 140-170 Infancy Gospel of James 140-170 Infancy Gospel of Thomas 140-180 Gospel of Truth 150-160 Martyrdom of Polycarp 150-160 Justin Martyr 150-180 Excerpts of Theodotus 150-180 Heracleon 150-200 Ascension of Isaiah 150-200 Interpretation of Knowledge 150-200 Testimony of Truth 150-200 Acts of Peter 150-200 Acts of John 150-200 Acts of Paul 150-200 Acts of Andrew 150-225 Acts of Peter and the Twelve 150-225 Book of Thomas the Contender 150-250 Paraphrase of Shem 150-250 Fifth and Sixth Books of Esra 150-300 Authoritative Teaching 150-300 Coptic Apocalypse of Paul 150-300 Prayer of the Apostle Paul 150-300 Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth 150-300 Melchizedek 150-350 Preaching of Paul 150-350 Epistle to the Laodiceans 150-350 Questions of Mary 150-350 Allogenes, the Stranger 150-350 Hypsiphrone 150-350 Valentinian Exposition 150-350 Act of Peter 150-360 Concept of Our Great Power 150-400 Acts of Pilate 150-400 Anti-Marcionite Prologues 150-400 Dialogue Between John and Jesus 160-170 Tatian's Address to the Greeks 160-180 Claudius Apollinaris 160-180 Apelles 160-180 Julius Cassianus 160-250 Octavius of Minucius Felix 161-180 Acts of Carpus 165-175 Melito of Sardis 165-175 Hegesippus 165-175 Dionysius of Corinth 165-175 Lucian of Samosata 167 Marcus Aurelius 170-175 Diatessaron 170-200 Dura-Europos Gospel Harmony 170-200 Muratorian Canon 170-200 Treatise on the Resurrection 170-220 Letter of Peter to Philip 170-230 Thought of Norea 175-180 Athenagoras of Athens 175-185 Irenaeus of Lyons 175-185 Rhodon 175-185 Theophilus of Caesarea 175-190 Galen 178 Celsus 178 Letter from Vienna and Lyons 180 Passion of the Scillitan Martyrs 180-185 Theophilus of Antioch 180-185 Acts of Apollonius

(Matthew 24:15, 16) 15 “Therefore, when you catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken about by Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place (let the reader use discernment), 16 then let those in Ju·deʹa begin fleeing to the mountains.
(Mark 13:14) 14 “However, when you catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation standing where it should not be (let the reader use discernment), then let those in Ju·deʹa begin fleeing to the mountains.
(Luke 21:20-28) 20 “However, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. 21 Then let those in Ju·deʹa begin fleeing to the mountains, let those in the midst of her leave, and let those in the countryside not enter into her, 22 because these are days for meting out justice in order that all the things written may be fulfilled. 23 Woe to the pregnant women and those nursing a baby in those days! For there will be great distress on the land and wrath against this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled. 25 “Also, there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and on the earth anguish of nations not knowing the way out because of the roaring of the sea and its agitation. 26 People will become faint out of fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 And then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 But as these things start to occur, stand up straight and lift up your heads, because your deliverance is getting near.”
The words of Mark and Matthew implied that the Romans would have come right up to the Temple to defile it, and that this was the time to leave as quickly as possible. We know from Josephus that Jews read Daniel's "abomination of desolation" to be based on Antiochus IV, who: according to common knowledge had done as follows, 200 years earlier:
In 168 BC, the Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes invaded Jerusalem and captured the city. He marched into the Jewish temple, erected a statue of the Greek god Zeus, and sacrificed a pig on the altar of incense. This provoked a revolt in Judea as the Jews fought to remove Antiochus’ sacrilege from the temple. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/abomination-temple/
But Titus did not do anything akin to this in 66. Although in 70, he did. You can see almost direct evidence of this today by looking at the Arch of Titus.
In that year, the Roman general Titus invaded Jerusalem to crush a Jewish revolt, entered the temple, had the building destroyed, and carried off the lampstand and other temple artifacts to Rome.
So, it seems likely that it was not specifically anything in 66 (in Jesus' prophecy) that would have triggered a fleeing to Pella, nor does anyone who believed in a Pella flight actually time it to 66. Cestius Gallus did plunder the Temple [funds] and it resulted in a counter-attack by the Jews that was mostly successful. So this was an excellent time to leave, and both Jews and Romans got out of the city at that time. Wikipedia says:
The Roman governor, Gessius Florus, responded by plundering the Second Temple, claiming the money was for the Emperor, and the next day launching a raid on the city, arresting numerous senior Jewish figures. This prompted a wider, large-scale rebellion and the Roman military garrison of Judaea was quickly overrun by the rebels, while the pro-Roman king Herod Agrippa II, together with Roman officials, fled Jerusalem. As it became clear the rebellion was getting out of control, Cestius Gallus, the legate of Syria, brought in the Syrian army, based on Legion XII Fulminata and reinforced by auxiliary troops, to restore order and quell the revolt. Despite initial advances and the conquest of Jaffa, the Syrian Legion was ambushed and defeated by Jewish rebels at the Battle of Beth Horon with 6,000 Romans massacred and the Legion's aquila lost.
But at that point, Christians would have many months of opportunities to leave the city between 66 and the actual surrounding of Jerusalem in 70. 66 fits some of what Jesus said, but it was not a case so desperate that one would be unable to even grab a coat from inside your house. That was more like the situation just before Passover in 70. This is probably why Eusebius, who had read both Josephus and knew the Bible very well, believed the fleeing to Pella to be based on an angelic revelation.

Using the quotes extracted from Eusebius and Epaphanius in a Wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_to_Pella
It might be interesting to note that the impetus to leave Jerusalem and go to Pella was not specifically credited to Jesus' prophecy in Matthew/Mark/Luke, but to an angel, or a specific oracle/revelation/prophecy given just before the war. This would put it on par with the prophecy of Agabus (Acts 11:27, 28) . . .In those days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 One of them named Agʹa·bus stood up and foretold through the spirit that a great famine was about to come on the entire inhabited earth, which, in fact, did take place in the time of Claudius.
This is a curious report then by Eusebius, that he doesn't tie it to Matthew 24, or Luke 21, for example. (Epiphanius may have "corrected" this nearly 100 years after Eusebius, when he credited the flight to Jesus warning about the city being surrounded.)
The idea that the command only went to those in the city who were worthy, might also imply that there were reports that some [less worthy] Christians had died in Jerusalem's destruction.   Epaphanius had referenced Jesus' prophecy in his book Panarion, but in "Weights and Measures" he pretty much agreed with Eusebius:  

Unfortunately, this has been going on even from the time that the scriptures were written, or at least from very shortly after the NT was completed. This means that even the very idea that there had been an escape to Pella might just be from persons with their own agenda.
The best evidence that comes down to us is from Eusebius of Caesarea and Epiphanius of Salamis. Eusebius wrote his "Ecclesiastical History" (Church History) between about 300 and 325. Epiphanius would have written "Panarion" around 375. We don't know what, if anything, was written on this topic between 70 CE and 300 CE.
So this might be a little like someone just now trying to make a story about what direction we believe small bands of native Americans (Indians) ran to in 1775 in upstate NY when Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold were capturing the guns at the British Fort Ticonderoga (which would just precede a siege of Boston and the building of a fortification of stakes around parts of that city).
The "American Indians" were not a big part of that story, so there is very little written down about what they did. If someone came up with a new story about it 200 to 250 years later, we might not put much trust in it. But, then again, we might assume that there were some verbal or even written records that could be gathered up from various families in the area, and that there was some truth to such a story.
We have some evidence that the apostles generally stayed in Jerusalem, per Jesus' instructions just after he was resurrected. In Galatians (and corroborated in Corinthians) Paul mentions a period of 14 years after his conversion when he finally goes to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles. If Paul converted before 36, then this refers to a time prior to 50 CE., when at least some apostles were still there. Peter and John are mentioned specifically, and James who was also mentioned had not been considered an apostle. Acts also does not mention any additional apostles (except Peter and James) still alive or around at this time. If there had been an instruction to all the apostles to stay in Jerusalem, for the purpose of forming an apostolic group to study the scriptures and devote themselves to prayer, then it may have already accomplished its purpose and broken up before 50 CE.
We hear of the "The Twelve" in Acts 6, still in Jerusalem, when they send out Stephen and Philip, for example. (Still prior to Paul's conversion.) By chapter 8 of Acts we hear about the group of "apostles in Jerusalem," and how both Peter and John had been sent to Samaria (and we know from Galatians that Peter had gone as far as Antioch). But by chapter 11 of Acts we only hear of some older men in Jerusalem and only one apostle there, Peter. By the time we reach 11:29 we only hear about the effect of the famine on "the brothers living in Judea." This matches about the same timing as Paul spoke of in Galatians and elsewhere when Paul brought collections back to the brothers in Jerusalem "keeping the poor in mind." Then in the next verses of Acts (Acts 12:1-3) we see that Herod has just put the Apostle James (brother of John) to death (not the same James of "James, Peter, and John" in Galatians) and goes after Peter.
After the destruction, we see John the apostle up around the isle of Patmos, but this could have been an exile from anywhere, not necessarily Jerusalem.
So, we really don't know how long the apostles stayed together in Jerusalem, or whether Herod broke that up even prior to the work of Paul and Barnabas, that brought them to Jerusalem (Acts 15). No Bible writer mentions Pella. I don't think there is anyone we know about who mentioned anything about a flight to Pella until 200 years later. There are plenty of letters and stories and other Christian writings between 70 and 300, but no evidence about Pella.
Still, we have the history (through Josephus) of the attack on Jerusalem, and the fact that the Romans started to attack in 66 and then decided to withdraw and not come back until they were ready to wage the war from start to finish in 70. Perhaps no Christians left in 66, although this seems like the time that would fit best. It's possible that most Christians had already left during Herod's persecution. It's possible that most Christians left just as the final approach was being made in 70 around the time of the Passover.
The most "ideal" story says that Christians recognized Jesus warning when Jerusalem was approached in 66, and that they then left and stayed away for about a 3-and-a-half year period until Jerusalem was destroyed with its Temple in 70. But we have no evidence from Josephus or anyone else about that.
It might also be wishful thinking to believe that no Christians were killed during the destruction of Jerusalem, as Epiphanius claimed 300 years later.
As to the idea that John was the only apostle alive after 70, there is an interesting passage in John that seems to refer to his age and the timing of the parousia.
(John 21:20-24) . . .Peter turned around and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, . . . 21 So when he caught sight of him, Peter said to Jesus: “Lord, what about this man?” 22 Jesus said to him: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you? You continue following me.” 23 So the saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but he said: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?” 24 This is the disciple who gives this witness about these things and who wrote these things, and we know that his witness is true.
I like your questions and there is much more to say about them, but I'll stop for now.

@James Thomas Rook Jr.
Perhaps we would discuss the percentage:

Accuracy regarding the prophecies of our day: zero. But hey, I believe that Jesus did not appoint any steward to interpret prophecies,
rather, as stewards, everyone, and especially those who have more authority (the governing body) should feed and care for others. Although I prefer that there is a central doctrinal authority, better than each congregation to believe its own.
But, as others and I have commented previously, I feel very grateful for:
Dismantle the demonic teaching in hell of fire (official doctrine even today of orthodox Judaism, nominal Christianity and Islam, another thing is that ordinary believers do not believe it). Having learned the biblical truth about death, the hereafter, the soul and related subjects. Instead of thinking that God will destroy the Earth, believe rather that Jehovah will create a wonderful paradise, and see how that fits in with the original Purpose. VERY especially, not only knowing the divine name, but having learned the importance of using it, as well as the characteristics of the person and personality of God (as it is not a Trinity, for example) Something that has helped us all, I am sure, is to understand the question of Universal Sovereignty (I have read works of scholars on Job who do not at all convey such precious teaching) This core of teachings, among others, I would say are 90 percent wonderful. Maybe we have 10 percent of "nonsense" in between.
And then there is everything related to the "organization": Bethel houses, branches, the way of dressing of "mature" men and women, the way of exercising authority in the congregation and many similar things ... instead of putting a Percentage (because I am somewhat ashamed to write it) I will only say that I think it happens to us like the apostles when they were impressed by the temple stones. Jesus corrects them by explaining their relative value, in fact, predicting their early destruction.
(let the reader use discernment) Mt 24:15
 

I would say most of the JWs who comment on here are unconventional! 😀
Lol!

Unlike most here, and possibly everyone here, my online activity is known in my home congregation. This is not due to this forum, which probably Is unknown to them, but to my blog. I have blogged for years. I don’t advertise the fact, but word gets around, and within the year elders have approached me to say that they would like to use me more in the congregation, but is there anything to what they have heard that I engage with apostates?
I at first told them that I did not; however what I did do came close enough to it that it could easily be taken that way and for that reason they probably should not use me in any visible capacity. As long as counsel is what it is, this seems the reasonable course to me. If there is a blatant example of not following counsel on a point repeatedly made—well, ‘he doesn’t enjoy privileges in the congregation,’ does he? This is not quite fair to me, but it is not about me. I consider it a win-win.
Many times in my writing I have made the point that I am not trying to set an example for others to follow, that I am pure-and-simply a bad boy in this one respect and I don’t try to present myself otherwise—though I will say that it is the only area in which I am a bad boy—I am a good boy in all other respects. I am on excellent terms with all of my elders— all upstanding men whom I respect—and with the congregation as a whole. If a list was ever made as to who is trying or discouraging or toxic or headstrong or aloof or a downer in any respect, I would be the last person to be on it. I am a fine example in every way—except one, and this troubles them.
Anyone visiting my blog can see the book cover for TrueTom vs the Apostates! so its a little hard to say: ‘Don’t know nothing about no apostates here!” One brother on FB, who writes himself, when he saw that cover, said, “You’re brave.” I have never made any attempt to hide what I do. I have even written HQ about it, more than once, as to what I am doing and why. They have not responded. I’ve said I don’t expect or require them to, but I will take to heart anything that they do say. Nothing. As for me, the show is not interesting unless there are villains and apostates for me make the perfect villains!—they have tasted the good food and spit it out.
Only about 10-20% of my blog could be described as taking on controversial topics. But blogging itself is not the pathway to popularity within the JW community—some will always give you the fish-eye over it. A visitor I know from HQ spoke at the Kingdom Hall, we engaged in some chit-chat afterward, and I asked him for thoughts about blogging. “Oh, blogging,” he said, as though I had told him that I enjoy farting in the auditorium, and then he migrated into generalities about there being no rules but one must always take into consideration the sensibilities of others, avoid hanging out with the baddies, and so forth. In the introduction to my 3rd book, I wrote: “Books about Jehovah’s Witnesses authored by Jehovah’s Witnesses are not plentiful. This is a shame, for no outsider, even with the best of intentions, can do justice to the faith as can an insider - they miss the nuances, and in some cases, even the facts. Jehovah’s Witnesses are primarily drawn from the ranks of working people who are not inclined to write books. Pathways of publicizing their faith are already well established. Why write a book when you can and do look people in the eye and tell them what you have to say?” For the most part, the same is true of blogs. 
Two elders wanted to speak with me following Sunday’s Watchtower. How did I still feel regarding interaction with apostates after that lesson and similar items in the past? There have been two other discussions—probably spurred on to priority by consideration of Paul’s counsel that certain pernicious sayings “spread like gangrene” so you want to get right on top of it—the counsel to not engage with apostates is pretty clear.
These are good men and I do not doubt for one moment their concern for me. There is no way I am going to get into any sort of confrontation with them. This is a little challenging because if one has engaged with the malcontents—in some cases the scoundrels—then one knows things in detail that they know only vaguely, and in some cases, not at all.
I asked if I could speak candidly. Obviously, this is just a verbal opening to present that I would speak from the heart and not just regurgitate platitudes or ‘what I am supposed to say’—it’s not to suggest that I would be normally lying through my teeth. Of course, they agreed.
The article was of a catch-all nature of several things to watch out for, several unrelated things that could pierce your shield if you didn’t maintain it—materialism, undue anxiety, lies, and discouragement were in the mix. Now, the only one of these that you can actually sink your teeth into as a direct measurement is ‘lies and distortions.‘ Do you engage with those who originate them or not? Easy black and white answer. What can one possibly say about materialism? It is much more subjective. “Did you move into that house that has far more space than you need or didn’t you?”—it’s ridiculous! No one is ever going to say that. The best you can do is what the Watchtower did do—point out that while you might easily be able to afford something with money, which you have far more of than your neighbor, that does not mean that you can afford it with time (for use and maintenance of), which you have no more of than your neighbor. 
As a byproduct of these other areas being hard to pin down, the only one that might possibly incur restriction of privileges is dealing with apostates. ‘There are brothers here and in other Halls that show significant weakness as regards to the other three—materialism, discouragement, and anxiety, and it can be plainly seen in their demeanor in some cases,‘ I said, ‘yet no way would their privileges ever be affected by it—only for that involving dealings with opposers.’
I spoke of the paragraph about discouragement—one of the four sharp arrows. “What discourages me most,” I said, “is that apostates are taking public shots at the God and the community that I hold dear, and they are catching the ear of many who take to heart what is said and sometimes ignore us in our ministry because of it, and I want to provide an answer and defend the truth, but I can’t because I don’t know what they are saying.” It is not true for me—I do know what they are saying—but for most publishers it is true.
I spoke of the hypothetical youngster who cannot resist, whose curiosity or desire to defend the truth leads him to go to where the bad boys hang out, where he hears distortions that he has never heard before and is totally unprepared for and he is stumbled, at which point no one is able to help him because no one here knows in any detail what he has come across. It’s a lose-lose. I did not say (you always think of your best lines too late) that if you leaned on youngsters not to have illicit sex, and yet one did anyway and acquired an STD, you would not stand by and watch him die. You would educate yourself any way that you had to so as to provide backup rescue.
There is only so far you can go with this reasoning because they only understand what they are counseling you about from just one angle—the spiritual angle, to be sure, which is the most important one, but still only one angle, and not the angle from which there is a huge non-spiritual vulnerability. They hear and acquiesce to all the points made—they may all be facts—but they are like people anywhere, and certainly displayed daily on this forum—just because they are facts does not mean they are the overriding facts. They keep coming back to counsel not to engage with apostates. Do they mean engage like a military general confronting the enemy or engage like a man putting a ring on the finger of his future bride? You almost can’t go there, because they themselves maintain such distance from the topic that they can’t readily distinguish between the two and consider it inappropriate to get close enough to try.
The brother taking the lead is very smart, very loving, very much a balm to everyone. I’ve known him for the longest time and there is no one whom I value more. I have no question that he is primarily and genuinely concerned about my spiritual welfare. I feel bad that I should be the cause of he and some brothers before him feeling obliged to buy out time to speak with me over this—they have other things that they could be doing. I know this because for many years I was an elder and I had many things that I could be doing at any given moment—yet he and others have bought out significant time for me. I’m a bit embarrassed over it.
“How has my spirituality been affected?” they ask. Possibly they are anticipating an answer such as might be on a video: “Well, I have to admit, my spirituality is suffering. I’m not finding the joy I used to....etc.” I tell them that my spirituality, as near as I can tell, gets better all the time because I am able to fire when I see the whites of their eyes—and even that my healthy spirituality is plainly reflected in how I conduct myself and how others view me. 
“Well, pray on it,” one advises. Gingerly I suggest that what if I have prayed on it and then afterward have decided that it is okay, in fact, just the ticket, to do as I am doing?” Nevertheless, how can one turn down the invitation to pray? Sure, I will pray—and in fact, presently I think of the degree to which they may be right and how I might modify my conduct. As is my M.O, I think best when I am writing. As is my M.O, I write best when I realize I am writing before a varied audience ranging from supportive to apathetic to dismissive to opposed, and imposing the discipline upon myself to choose words that will be as effective as possible to all four.
They say things like how Jehovah has all bases covered. He sees that we have the proper direction when we need it, and so forth. While the things I say may be so, and certainly my action is well-meaning, what about just being obedient to counsel? There they have me. Because I do believe that Jehovah has all bases covered and I do believe in following the lead of the older men—it is part of the package that I signed on for. I can give them a hard time: “Don’t worry about my spirituality—I’ll be just fine—it’s enough to worry about your own spirituality!” but why would I do that? Is that not almost inviting disaster? a al ‘Let he who is standing beware that he does not fall.’ I can tell them to buzz off and mind their own business, but why would I do that? These are the men—all of them friends of mine—who will lay down their life for me should the occasion arise, as in John 15:13, for example. Not only will they die for me, but they will live for me, and they prove it continually. The right-in-their-own-eyes opposers on this forum will not die for me. Even were they inclined to, they live on perches of self-isolation and say “Who needs organization?” so that if i get into hot water they will not know of it until they read my obituary. I should give my elders a hard time or interfere with that dynamic of living and dying for me? No.
All they want is for me not to cross swords with apostates. They probably are not crazy about my going there in the first place, but that is not the topic of discussion. If I go there to scope out what the enemy is up to, I set no bad example—nobody knows of it. If I go there to refute, I publicly do what the ones I respect for taking the lead have asked me not to do. How do I know that they are not right? How do I know that I am not like the fellow signing out on the city wall after Hezekiah has told the troops to zip it? If I am ineffective, others come to help me out, against Hezekiah’s counsel. If I am effective, others are inspired to do likewise, against Hezekiah’s counsel. How do I know that they will not end up with an arrow through the head on my account? 
What am I doing when I am answering back the malcontents here? I am having a ball is what I am doing! But is it affecting my spirituality as the brothers asked? Well, no—for the most part—that has grown stronger. On the other hand—@arauna speaks of OCD and she ought to be speaking of it to me—sometimes I come here with a certain eagerness looking for “apostates” to beat up on. When one or another flames out, like Matthew4 5784 did a few weeks ago and reveals himself pure hate on two legs as respects Jehovah’s people, dropping all pretense of being here to help us, I paint an A on my fuselage and pump my fist! But is it good for me? I do get to hone my writing skills, but is that enough to override other matters? I am not exactly doing a “May Jehovah rebuke you!” am I? I am not exactly imitating Jesus in saying “leave them be—blind guides is what they are,” am I? Moreover, others come along for the first time, not knowing the history, read my retorts, and say, “Man, that brother is brutal! Can he really be a brother?”
I’m going to turn over a new leaf with regard to interacting with these guys. It doesn’t mean I won’t still be here and it doesn’t mean I won’t still interact with those who strike me as on our team—even if I question their judgment sometimes. I’ll probably renege from time to time, and if I do I will forgive myself, but the effort will be to follow through on my resolve. If need be, I will write a reply to this or that fathead and then not send it—I’ll incorporate it elsewhere or just stick it in the file. “How’s that for praying about it and to see what comes out of it?” I’ll tell someone someday.
Then, too—and I’m almost ashamed to put this last, since it should be first—though not necessarily from the reader’s point of view, which is why I place it where I do—my wife is far more conventional than me and has long been troubled by my online activity. She doesn’t for one second worry about my loyalty, but she does in some undefined way worry that maybe I will yet come to harm somehow. I’ll modify my approach for her sake as well.
Are the brothers “brainwashed”—the ones who counseled me about a matter that they do not understand themselves from a fleshly point of view—the only point of view that is of concern to the greater world? I would say that they are in this regard—with the important caveat that there is barely anyone anywhere who is not. Follow the flag and get your head blown off in consequence, and only some of your countrymen will think your death noble—everyone else in the world will consider your death in vain. It doesn’t take some brainwashing to fall for that? Follow unquestioningly the overall goals of this system to ‘get a good education so that you may get a good job’—not a tad of brainwashing there that that is the path to happiness? When my wife worked as a nurse with the geriatric community, she said the most common thing in the world was for bewildered elderly persons to look around them in their waning years and say, “is this all there is?” These were not ‘losers’ in life, for the most part. These were persons who had had careers and loving family. But there was an aching emptiness at the end, a certain vague but overpowering sense of betrayal. It’s the result of being brainwashed by mainstream thinking, as far as I can see.
Steve Hassen is not wrong when he says that humans are easily influenced by others. Humans are just that way. That is why some god-awful style comes upon the scene and within ten years we’re all wearing it, wondering how we ever could have imagined that those dorky styles of yesterday did anything for us. Where Steve is wrong in my view is that he gives a free pass to his side—the mainstream. I have said before that it is not brainwashing that he objects to—it is brainwashing that is not his. Just because he was naive enough to be sucked into the Moonies, what is it to him if people want to explore non-traditional paths? Of course there may be pitfalls along the way, but there are pitfalls anywhere. Among the most harmful examples of manipulation is advertising, whereby people ruin themselves buying expensive things they do not need with money they do not have to keep up with people they do not like. Why doesn’t he go there? If the mainstream he embraces successfully answered all the burning questions of life, he wouldn’t have to worry at all about ‘cults’ People would reflect upon how the present life and traditional goal rewards fully in happiness and life satisfaction, and reject those ‘cults’ out of hand.

I don't think anyone will bother replying to your assumption as it is rather silly. Of course we know what the definition of an apostate is.

I enjoyed the honesty and laughed out loud many times.  So I will also be honest.  I think the above sentence refers to me.... and I agree.  I have often thought my judgment is not very good regarding interaction with the nasty characters on the forum. It gives jehovah no credit.
Sometimes, while showing the  impatient side of my personality - I chided myself,  but still went ahead.  
The watchtower was a wakeup call for me - thank you Jehovah. None of us is so strong we cannot fall. Deceit comes in many forms.  While I do write some crazy things, I am glad I have an outlet for a very creative imagination.
But i am always grateful to know the truth, be in the field regularly, and be at the meetings.  I am in an absolutely lovely congregation and I love all the young ones. I think I may be the eldest.  I should cherish it much more and rather spend more time on building even better relationships in the congregation.
I am not a dignified elderly person. I hate coming across as dignified and pious. I do not take myself too seriously.... so there!  You know me a little better!  However, I have learnt that there is no compromise on Jehovahs principles..... but one should always try to see the other side to act in a compassionate, merciful, just and wise way.  I am unconventional in every way and therefore had to learn to curb /pummel a colourful personality to be fit for Jehovah's purpose. ...... and still learning to improve all the way!  
It is hard to navigate this world as a JW and that is why I take my hat off for the young ones who remain so obedient and exemplary! 

I would agree, but I also should have included the idea of distortion of facts as TTH did. (And with an excellent illustration, I might add, which I read while picking my nose.)
But then again, I consider any purposeful distortion of facts to be a lie. It serves the same purpose, but even more nefariously. The "lie" is there, but it's in a hidden agenda.
Of course, it's a sword that can cut both ways. For example, our publications "dredge up" bits of historical information in every few issues of the Watchtower or every couple of years that will usually have the purpose of showing that prophecies from Ezekiel, Daniel, Isaiah, Revelation, etc were fulfilled among the leadership of this very organization. Sometimes the publications or broadcasts will include ideas about just how much better the leaders of our organization were at predicting 1914 decades in advance, or how much better we were than the Federal Council of Churches, or how we predicted the going off into the abyss of the League and its rise as the United Nations.
Sometimes it will then add the point that we should therefore 'trust the leaders of this organization, if we want to survive the great tribulation and Armageddon.' The point will sometimes be made that these predictions are 'proof of guidance by Jehovah's unerring spirit.'
So the problem for persons who have done their due-diligence and looked up these "controversial" items for themselves --to see if these things were so-- is that some of those persons will come back with the idea that these are actually only 10 percent lies, but that still doesn't equate to 90 percent "true."  (See TTH's post.)
We know that the counsel by the GB is actually intended like a father to his children to help us stay out of danger. It might even be based on an exaggeration: "Don't go near those people because they always lie!" It doesn't mean every word is a lie, but the overall message probably is a lie. Their overall apostate message is probably "Don't trust the leaders of this organization, if you want to survive the great tribulation and Armageddon." Or, "These mistakes are proof of NO guidance by Jehovah's unerring spirit."
Obviously there are some here who are anxious to immediately twist anything said as quickly as possible into those apostate messages. And then there are those who might assume that anyone who continues to dredge up mistakes from the past is subtly trying to create those overall apostate messages which can be a by-product of dredging up past error -- without ever even making those apostate statements overtly. 
It's pretty clear that this is what Allen Smith's henchaccounts think I am doing on purpose. This is why I don't blame him for calling out what he thinks I am doing. It's also why I welcome his input, because it reminds those who have not done their due-diligence that this is NOT something to just accept because someone is stating it. It's just an opinion. Just because I will offer the reasons for my own opinion, and just because I personally accept my own opinion, doesn't mean that it couldn't be mistaken. I've been fooled before and I'll likely be fooled again. 
Sooner or later, though, people who do their Beroean due-diligence will end up facing some uncomfortable ideas that they may not be prepared for in the least. It's bad to have the rug pulled out from under you with nothing to fall back on. I personally believe we need a faith that doesn't rely so much on human leaders for validation. We can still appreciate the reasons for respecting human leadership, and for following direction from those taking the lead in the most important work, announcing Jehovah's Kingdom through Christ. But we don't need 2 out of 100 past predictions to come true. We don't even need prophecies that predicted events among the Watchtower's leadership in 1919, for example.
 

You may have noticed that the last time this came up on the forum, I stayed away from these details of the JFR/Hitler discussion, but I thought I remembered that you had already made a similar point in a previous discussion:
I wanted to show the reasons that this particular case should not be compared (in my opinion) with a practice of dissing just anything that doesn't come from the organization. These details were in response to the idea that Rutherford might have been referring just to the feel-good principles and promises of a typical politician. I took the above quote to that effect as your "defense" of Rutherford's specific actions in this regard, even if it wasn't particularly what you were trying to do.
I'm not at all trying to condemn Rutherford generally. Listening closely to his speeches and known writings, you can tell he has a love for Jehovah, and a strong faith that Jehovah will act on behalf of righteous people. Most everything I read from his writing and speeches is perfectly fine. But I am trying to condemn this conduct shown "here" on this matter. Absolutely!
By his own words he condemns his own actions here, on this particular matter.
We should never use two different scales, even when judging matters of this life about a distinguished and respected member of the Governing Body.
Isn't this the very reason that Galatians 1 and 2 is part of Scripture, and therefore beneficial for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness? In Galatians, Paul showed how Peter stood "condemned" in this matter of showing favoritism for one race or national group above another. Earlier Paul had just shown how we might go wrong for showing favoritism for a leader just because that person might be distinguished and respected.
There is nothing particularly wrong with bringing an accusation against an older man as long as we are conscientiously following the principle of not just making accusations wildly because of what we have heard from only one source, or unreliable sources. I think, or hope at least, that I am following the advice of Paul here:
(1 Timothy 5:19-21) 19 Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 Reprove before all onlookers those who practice sin, as a warning to the rest. 21 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to observe these instructions without any prejudice or partiality.  

Extreme socialism does become communism. But extreme capitalism does not look like communism, it's the definition of fascism. Capitalism defended by a militaristic state is fascism.
You have likely been listening to a lot of the same propaganda that now has most of the world in its thrall. I listened to it, too, for most of my life. The problem with your theory is that the United States, through dozens of once-secret sources, which are now in the open, prove definitively that the United States was deathly afraid of communism because it brings poor people out of poverty much quicker than capitalism ever has. This is the reason that communism is a "threat" and has to be interfered with and sabotaged constantly. It's the reason that the United States has chosen to destroy nations like North Korea and Vietnam and Libya and Syria and Venezuela and Nicaragua and even much smaller nations, more defenseless than those.
The United States has been running scared for decades, because of the theory that people might notice that communism, at least Marxist communism, is a scientific approach to the economy such that more poor in the population rise above the poverty level.
Russian communism, in spite of two world wars, and a couple of very paranoid leaders, managed to build itself up from a very poor economy with most of the population in poverty, to the second biggest economy in the world in just the 40 years from about 1917 to 1957. US Capitalism, for example, though a much richer country, barely moved the bar on the percentage of people it could bring out of poverty in any 40 year period.
China's communism is creating an economy that has now very likely become the number one economy in the world. And it was and still is a poor, overpopulated country.  In the years since its revolution in the late 1940's it has managed to bring more persons out of poverty than all other nations put together. There is a rumor that they might have completely raised virtually everyone above the poverty line by late 2020 or 2021. And this is what's reported by Western journalists, not just Chinese sources. And China has done this without bombing countries for their resources or using the US/IMF/WorldBank tactics of creating loans to be defaulted on so that the leverage on those loans allows rampant stealing of resources, trade for military bases, pipelines, etc. In fact, John Bolton was angry at China for using tactics in Africa that made local populations "prefer" China over America when it came to doing business for their valuable resources (rare earth metals, etc). Those "tactics" include NOT using loans for leverage, NOT using military proxies to murder uncooperative local populations, NOT promoting civil war to weaken the country, NOT attempting regime changes, NOT building infrastructure that is clearly for the purpose of American military bases, NOT using a majority of Chinese persons as workers in these lands to hurt the local economies, etc.
These "tactics" have worked so well, that almost everything the United States has done to make themselves unpopular in the world is projected onto China to try to make China look worse. Even the surveillance initiatives that you have often brought up are only in the testing stages and are still chaotic and experimental. They have been tried in only a few test areas and cities in China and they are not nearly as pervasive as such surveillance systems are in the United States.
Don't get the idea that I think Communism is a proper solution for the world, or that I think that these countries can do no wrong. They are led by humans, influenced by Satan, and will make dangerous mistakes just like every other nation. The only true solution to human governments is a government by God, God's Kingdom under Christ.

That's a very bad question if you are trying to exonerate JFR here.
I'm sure you already know this, but Hitler didn't come out of the blue. The goals of the Hitler's Nazi party had already been made clear in the 1920's. Hitler was actually becoming important in internal political and military circles in 1918/9, when the first swastika flags were seen even at the tail end of WWI. He had been an intelligence officer in WWI. Also as a political operative he was not speaking just for himself, but amassed more political power by standing for popular ideas about remilitarizing to prove the true superiority of the Teutonic race, and that they would have won WWI, except for the UK and of course Jewish Bolshevism. Even before 1920, the foundations of the Nazi party were already "coming into their own."
Because the Nazi party was very anti-Socialist (in spite of its name), it also grew in parallel with Italian fascism under Mussolini, whose party also gained power from the end of WWI. Mussolini was a "social Darwinian" racist (white supremacist), but not nearly as anti-Jewish as Hitler's party. Still it was a clear that Italy fascist party and Germany's fascist party (the Nazis) were trending in the same direction. Mussolini was breaking unions, was pro-capitalist, for privatizing businesses,etc. Both Nazism and Italian Fascism were seen as the "Anti-Revolution Revolution" or "Revolution of the Right" opposing the leftist Leninist style revolution of the left. The Russian revolution was spreading its ideology in some ways across Europe, as already seen in Finland and Romania and Ukraine, and Nazism was the cure. 
When Hitler staged his premature coup to get power in 1925, of course, he was caught and sent to jail, where he wrote Mein Kampf. By the mid-to-late-20s, Mein Kampf had made very clear all the basic components of his ideology. His goals were to bring Germany back into WWI to win it this time. He also made clear that lying and backstabbing and false propaganda were going to be necessary "tools." The book along with his speeches promoted rabid anti-Semitism in the 1920's which he toned down only by the early 1930's to be more electable and respectable. He was visited by many Americans before he took power, being seen as a celebrity. Many others in the party did not control their anti-Semitic rhetoric in their political speeches. Not that it mattered, because it started to come back with a vengeance through Hitler himself within months of his election.  
So his goals were clear from the 1920's. His party would be built on German imperialism, racial supremacy, fascism/nazism, and in his rise to prominence, he had used this rhetoric of revenge (over WWI, Treaty of Versailles) to push German even the socialist workers to the right. (Through inflitration and lying propaganda whenever necessary.)  He wanted to erase the shame of WWI, blaming the loss on Britain and Jews. German society saw the rhetoric rising but still assumed he could never become electable. But with rising industrialization, Hitler made fascism seem feasible. The premonitions in his rhetoric of the early and mid 20's made it seem realistic that that Germany should re-arm and conquer the world. The rationale for making war on the west was Jewish Bolshevism and the fact that they were blockaded by Britain, and obviously it was Russian-Jewish Bolshevism in the east since 1917.
If I haven't repeated myself enough already above, he was already a scary, militaristic, fascist, anti-socialist, anti-British, anti-Jewish, white supremacist. So I don't know what goals Rutherford thought were identical, but he already would have known much of the above history because I'm sure he had been reading the writing of a Jewish person who had already reported this by early 1933. But this same Jewish man had also written in April 1933 that Hitler's party, even though ostensibly pro-Catholic, didn't care anymore and had been breaking up not just socialist and communist meetings, but Catholic meetings, too.
Perhaps this is why Rutherford thought it was safe to include the following in his letter:
The Brooklyn headquarter of the Watchtower Society is pro German in an exemplary way and has been so for many years. . . . These two magazines, "The Watchtower" and "Bible Student" were the only magazines in America which refused to engage in anti-German propaganda . . . . In the very same manner, in course of the recent months the board of directors of our Society not only refused to engage in propaganda against Germany, but has even taken a position against it. The enclosed declaration underlines this fact and emphasizes that the people leading in such propaganda (Jewish businessmen and Catholics) also are the most rigorous persecutors of the work of our Society and its board of directors. This and other statements of the declaration are meant to repudiate the slanderous accusation, that Bible Researchers are supported by the Jews.
And the "Declaration" letter at the the same time included the following statements. The WTS was apparently not ashamed of them because they even printed them in English in the 1934 Yearbook, p. 134-138. The support for Hitler's Nazi principles are aligned with Hitler's propaganda against Jews and the British nation, and Rutherford admits his anti-Catholicism, too (which might NOT have aligned with Hitler's principles).
It is falsely charged by our enemies that we have received financial support for our work from the Jews. Nothing is farther from the truth. Up to this hour there never has been the slightest bit of money contributed to our work by Jews. We are the faithful followers of Christ Jesus and believe upon Him as the Savior of the world, whereas the Jews entirely reject Jesus Christ and emphatically deny that he is the Savior of the world sent of God for man's good. This of itself should be sufficient proof to show that we receive no support from Jews and that therefore the charges against us are maliciously false and could proceed only from Satan, our great enemy. The greatest and the most oppressive empire on earth is the Anglo-American empire. By that is meant the British Empire, of which the United States of America forms a part. It has been the commercial Jews of the British-American empire that have built up and carried on Big Business as a means of exploiting and oppressing the peoples of many nations. This fact particularly applies to the cities of London and New York, the stronghold of Big Business. This fact is so manifest in America that there is a proverb concerning the city of New York which says: The Jews own it, the Irish Catholics rule it, and the Americans pay the bills.

The present government of Germany has declared emphatically against Big Business oppressors and in opposition to the wrongful religious influence in the political affairs of the nations. Such is exactly our position.

Instead of being against the principles advocated by the government of Germany, we stand squarely for such principles, and point out that Jehovah God through Christ Jesus will bring about the full realization of these principles and will give to the people peace and prosperity and the greatest desire of every honest heart.

A careful examination of our books and literature will disclose the fact that the very high ideals held and promulgated by the present national government are set forth in and endorsed and strongly emphasized in our publications and show that Jehovah God will see to it that these high ideals in due time will be attained by all persons who love righteousness.