Noble Berean

There is a lot of that going around. There ought to be a vaccine for it.

Do you have any concrete evidence for that?

It's a trap, @Noble Berean!! Don't fall for it!

Not to start any controversy, but I would agree. I came on this site mostly because it seemed like a place where I could discuss some items of interest (and some of controversy) where it was not flooded with ex-JWs, and at least some of my opinions could be challenged. I have found Allen, so far, to provide appropriate challenges to my opinions. By the way, it is not just recently that Allen has begun cloning himself. A careful look at the posts from over a dozen other names will reveal this, and also reveal that it's been going on for a few years. But that doesn't really matter, it's not about the personalities and avatars and accounts, but the ideas themselves. He has sometimes behaved like a cyber bully, in going after specific people. But I for one am not concerned about that. I think he is often responding to what he honestly perceives as cyber bullying against himself. Most of what people are referring to is just annoying behavior, which many of us have engaged in. Annoying behavior is not cyber bullying unless it always targets specific individuals. I've never made multiple accounts for myself, but I'm sure I have engaged in annoying behavior. But then, so has Vic Vomidog and some of his ilk.

It started officially when "offset" printing in color was being tried in 1978. (My Book of Bible Stories) But the Photoplate Dept with E.Robinson, B.Gehring, (and Randy and Maureen mentioned earlier) was already able to do this, with a very large expensive camera, bought in 1975, where half of the camera was in a darkroom. It didn't take the pictures of people, and was rarely used for still objects, but it could take an existing photo or piece of art, and add the screen filters so that the final negative or positive could be used to create a metal plate from which to produce photos on paper. This practice has been used for over 100 years, especially in newspapers. But both special effects and simple versions of artwork based on a photo could now be used, especially since 1975 with the new camera, stat cameras, and darkroom procedures that all of the artists were able to take advantage of. (Most didn't take advantage and just sent their line drawings in two or three colors to Photoplate, and then Ed and Randy would use a color filter to produce a black plate and a color plate.) Except for the Bible Stories book, all magazines and books up until then still used only two ink colors plus black on each magazine, and any one picture was always in just black and one of the two ink colors. That changed in the 80's but not overnight. Models had been used by the artists for their work since the 1960's. But different artists preferred different methods, often just copying from photographs and magazines.

That is actually hilarious

If you are going on publicly published material, it's based on two or three principles put together. You can start with this one.
*** w74 8/1 p. 467 par. 6 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones ***
But consider a less extreme situation. What if a woman who had been disfellowshiped were to attend a congregational meeting and upon leaving the hall found that her car, parked nearby, had developed a flat tire? Should the male members of the congregation, seeing her plight, refuse to aid her, perhaps leaving it up to some worldly person to come along and do so? This too would be needlessly unkind and inhumane. Yet situations just like this have developed, perhaps in all good conscience, yet due to a lack of balance in viewpoint. In it's entirety, this was a very good and balanced article I thought.
Edite to add, whoops, @Noble Berean and @Srecko Sostar, the above was not the paragraph I meant to include:
*** w74 8/1 pp. 469-470 par. 15 Maintaining a Balanced Viewpoint Toward Disfellowshiped Ones ***
In some cases the one who was disfellowshiped may have a real handicap in getting to such Christian meetings, though having the desire to do so. The meeting place may be a considerable distance away and may not be served by public transportation. Or other personal or perhaps physical circumstances may prove a severe obstacle to attending meetings. In one case, a woman who had been disfellowshiped spent eight dollars in taxi fare to get to one meeting. She informed the elders that she wanted to attend but was financially unable to continue coming at such expense. She even demonstrated the genuineness of her desire one Sunday by walking the entire distance. If members of the congregation were to see such a one walking such a long distance to the meeting place and had space in their automobile to accommodate her, would it not be the humane thing to assist her?  

Really good point. Do our extreme shunning policies give exJWs a justification for leaving the religion and staying away?
I think of 1 Corinthians 10:31-33: "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."
Our org always focuses on stumbling fellow JWs, but the scripture indicates we are not supposed to stumble anyone...Jew, Greek, or Christian. When I reflect on the disfellowshipping video at the convention, doesn't our extreme stance cause great stumbling? JW parents aren't even supposed to pick up the phone when their daughter calls? Imagine if that daughter was terminally ill or had suffered a personal tragedy. Or maybe she just needed some support at a dark time? That would make most bitter. It seems our love extends only to some.
And when the prodigal son returned to his father, he didn't wait around for some committee to approve fellowship. He embraced him immediately.

For some reason the images are lying on top of one another and are covering up the "Edit" button. But here are a few more, in case the idea wasn't clear.
 

 
 
 
 

 

Really good point. Do our extreme shunning policies give exJWs a justification for leaving the religion and staying away?
I think of 1 Corinthians 10:31-33: "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."
Our org always focuses on stumbling fellow JWs, but the scripture indicates we are not supposed to stumble anyone...Jew, Greek, or Christian. When I reflect on the disfellowshipping video at the convention, doesn't our extreme stance cause great stumbling? JW parents aren't even supposed to pick up the phone when their daughter calls? Imagine if that daughter was terminally ill or had suffered a personal tragedy. Or maybe she just needed some support at a dark time? That would make most bitter. It seems our love extends only to some.
And when the prodigal son returned to his father, he didn't wait around for some committee to approve fellowship. He embraced him immediately.

I highly doubt would've approved of Noah if he was a drunk. I think it's a lot more likely that his drunken incident was isolated and not indicative of his regular behavior. Noah was only human, and I can't imagine the PTSD of being the sole family to survive a worldwide cataclysm. I would drink.

If our goal is to get people back, why would we treat them like they don't exist at our meetings? Outside of the meetings I can understand why our association should be limited, but our meetings seem like the one place where we should be supporting a spiritually weak individual.
Sorry how do I go about that?

I believe it's already been calculated, and refers to a time that the Bible has already clarified. And if I'm wrong, which is both possible and likely -- me being human and all -- then it can refer to a time period that will be recognized when it happens. Nothing to calculate from it, and no chronology necessary.
Nowhere does the Bible say we have to calculate any of this. There was no mistake. In fact, if we read both Daniel and Revelation carefully we can see why there is nothing for us to calculate. But this, at this point, is just an interpretation which is not necessary to defend here. What I'm stating is just an opinion. I can try to defend it elsewhere under a topic about Daniel and Revelation.
I doubt that any JWs really wholeheartedly believe what is currently taught about these time periods, otherwise we would be interested in what exactly was said in those books and assemblies. As it is, we are typically ashamed of the actual contents of those books and assembly speeches, and are forced to only pick and choose sentences out of context. If we really believed that Jesus Christ saw something in the content of those particular assemblies, we would be clamoring to look at whatever Jesus looked at to see if we could better understand the "mind of Christ." Instead, we are satisfied with the idea that, even if most of what was said in the key speeches of those assemblies was false doctrine, or even false prophecies, Jesus still saw their heart condition and was able to ignore the specific things they were saying and focus on the fact that we had been promoting a fairly unique set of core doctrines that were important and true. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the core doctrines that had been true both before and after these assemblies and publications of the time. But our core doctrines were not relevant to the reasons we identify these specific periods in history.
Sorry to skip much of your own presentation about the need to calculate other points of reference. I don't see the need to calculate any of these time periods in advance, or be overly concerned over what they might have meant in the past. I keep commenting on my own view of these periods and then erasing it. I'll be happy to do this under another topic, however.

.... this makes me SO TIRED ....
I have heard it said many times from the platform at the Kingdom Hall, and at least once at an Assembly, that getting Baptized is the most important decision a person could ever make .... and I agree with that whole heartedly.
It takes insight, dedication, a love for Jehovah, experience, maturity and since 1985, total alignment and obedience to the  .ORG  to make that decision that will govern one's whole life.
So the young Brothers, having exhibited maturity and responsibility and commitment FAR GREATER than what is required as a practical matter in marriage, have shown by actual recognized and approved example that they are ready for that really cute Sister whose head almost comes to the top of the seat, in front of him at the Kingdom Hall.
To the best of my knowledge, the only place in the world that it is legal to get married at that age  ( a much LESSER important decision ... ) is in Saudi Arabia.
The fact that he is eight years old and she is only six years old should not be a problem, what with the age difference and all ... as in 2009 the Saudi  courts ruled to NOT nullify the marriage of an eight year old girl to a man 50 years her senior.
They have several expressions there (translated from from the Arabic) ; "Sharing is caring", which refers to their practice of polygamy under Islamic Law, and; " You know what is so great about twenty eight year old girls?  (wait for it...)
"There are TWENTY of them!"
However, both  bride and grooms parents will need to escort them in the Saudi Kingdom, until they get married, presumably as they cannot see over the car's dashboard.
Besides ... now that the Governing Body has begun blessing the baptism of small children ... perhaps some GB helpers (assuming the parents have as much money as Prince...) could set up a temporary Saudi Kinder Hall, and have a GB member perform the wedding !!
OR ... now that each of the three small brothers are now legally Ordained Ministers ... one could register with the Saudi government and get a license, as it is done in every State in the United States, to perform Weddings !
THAT way, since the three of them would be about the same height ...  the photographer could get better photo compositions, than if the bride and groom were about 1/2 the height of the GB Member officiating.
( ...pause for reflection ....)
I wonder why Jesus waited until he was about 30  years old to get baptized as a dedication to Jehovah. (?)
I suppose he was just not blessed by the Governing Body in Jerusalem at that time, and didn't know what was a proper thing to do.
 
 

I don't know about you, but I have not noticed any discussions about the overlapping generation among the friends. And in my very close circle of friends, most have admitted they have not payed much attention to it, and some even say they do not believe it. Have you found anything similar?

Guess the horse ain't dead yet.

I have not made it a secret that I think we are currently hurtling toward the same problem we created for ourselves in the 1970's. Therefore, I think it's very important that we don't forget this part of our history, as we can learn from it. I think we learn just as much from the defensive attempts, like the one on "Defending Jehovah's Witnesses" linked above. In fact, I think the mistakes made back in the 1960's and early 1970's with respect to 1975 were very trivial compared to the lessons we can learn about our own egos, our pride and our honesty. Honesty is a form of faithfulness, and that's the only reason that this discussion might still be important to some of us today.
 

"Stay Alive 'til 75!" speech
 

I believe many will perceive the story exactly as it's presented in the video. It was an end-date that was promoted by "some" rank & file JWs--publishers in congregations like yours and mine. The good JW in the video doesn't become tempted by this hysteria and sees that the Scriptures indicate no man knows the day or hour of Christ's coming. Those that left the org over the frenzy are easily written off as weak in faith.
It's an inaccurate depiction of events, because it leaves out one crucial thing. JWs didn't get the 1975 theory out of thin air. A frenzy generated by local brothers just doesn't make sense knowing what we do about the org. The enthusiasm was generated by the organization which promoted "Stay alive still '75!" and endorsed an Armageddon-prepping mentality in its literature. These JWs--now painted as negative examples--were doing exactly what we're admonished to do today: "Be loyal to the slave!" While our organization doesn't promote an end-date, it still expects unquestioned loyalty in other areas. Has the organization really changed its attitude that much from 1975? Have JWs really learned from it? Or are we destined to repeat it as a new generation rises up?
It's very weird to see a WT produced video that actually shows a JW questioning the direction of the organization against Scripture. It's clearly not framed that way in the video, but anyone with actual knowledge of the event knows that this person wasn't questioning "some" JWs in local congregations but the organization--those taking the lead! So, it's definitely an odd choice to show at a convention--especially when a lot of JWs lived through that era. I almost wonder if there was a version of the script that involved the organization, but during the production references to the org were specifically removed.

I believe many will perceive the story exactly as it's presented in the video. It was an end-date that was promoted by "some" rank & file JWs--publishers in congregations like yours and mine. The good JW in the video doesn't become tempted by this hysteria and sees that the Scriptures indicate no man knows the day or hour of Christ's coming. Those that left the org over the frenzy are easily written off as weak in faith.
It's an inaccurate depiction of events, because it leaves out one crucial thing. JWs didn't get the 1975 theory out of thin air. A frenzy generated by local brothers just doesn't make sense knowing what we do about the org. The enthusiasm was generated by the organization which promoted "Stay alive still '75!" and endorsed an Armageddon-prepping mentality in its literature. These JWs--now painted as negative examples--were doing exactly what we're admonished to do today: "Be loyal to the slave!" While our organization doesn't promote an end-date, it still expects unquestioned loyalty in other areas. Has the organization really changed its attitude that much from 1975? Have JWs really learned from it? Or are we destined to repeat it as a new generation rises up?
It's very weird to see a WT produced video that actually shows a JW questioning the direction of the organization against Scripture. It's clearly not framed that way in the video, but anyone with actual knowledge of the event knows that this person wasn't questioning "some" JWs in local congregations but the organization--those taking the lead! So, it's definitely an odd choice to show at a convention--especially when a lot of JWs lived through that era. I almost wonder if there was a version of the script that involved the organization, but during the production references to the org were specifically removed.

I have to imagine that 1975 video was created with the intent to minimize the GB's role in promoting a failed end date. Which is definitely the worst blunder our organization has ever made. In the video, it is never the GB that promote the date but the average-Joe JWs. So, the blame is on them, not those taking the lead. That's just not honest history--more like revisionist history. And since many adult JWs did not experience 1975, they take the organization at their word. Now, they'll put the blame on those few "loonies" who went too far rather than the org which promoted the date in its literature heavily.

In the Internet age, nothing can be buried. The whole convention was combating disillusionment. I think the org knows that, and they're worried about people viewing anti-JW websites and blogs. They come up on the first page of Google. By addressing controversial matters directly, they have full control over how the story is framed, and the story presented will satisfy most JWs. Then, they're less likely to consider other sources on the matter, or they may discredit other accounts as apostate exaggerations. I have family that lived through 1975, and the convention video bothered them a bit. Not faith-shaking, but an annoyance. They knew people who sold off property and made major life adjustments. They did so earnestly and in good faith that the organization was telling the the truth. They were essentially painted in a negative way in the video--as overly extreme. But that kind of faith in the organization persists till today. What's changed since then? Are people freer to question what they hear from the org?
On the WOL? Are you referencing the exact quotes supporting 1975 preppers or the admission of guilt?
The message of trusting the Bible over men is a good one, but why not go all in? Why not admit the source of the 1975 frenzy? It wasn't just some loony JWs...it was the organization that promoted the idea in their literature. It didn't come from nowhere. It cheapens the message to show only a half-truth.

I believe many will perceive the story exactly as it's presented in the video. It was an end-date that was promoted by "some" rank & file JWs--publishers in congregations like yours and mine. The good JW in the video doesn't become tempted by this hysteria and sees that the Scriptures indicate no man knows the day or hour of Christ's coming. Those that left the org over the frenzy are easily written off as weak in faith.
It's an inaccurate depiction of events, because it leaves out one crucial thing. JWs didn't get the 1975 theory out of thin air. A frenzy generated by local brothers just doesn't make sense knowing what we do about the org. The enthusiasm was generated by the organization which promoted "Stay alive still '75!" and endorsed an Armageddon-prepping mentality in its literature. These JWs--now painted as negative examples--were doing exactly what we're admonished to do today: "Be loyal to the slave!" While our organization doesn't promote an end-date, it still expects unquestioned loyalty in other areas. Has the organization really changed its attitude that much from 1975? Have JWs really learned from it? Or are we destined to repeat it as a new generation rises up?
It's very weird to see a WT produced video that actually shows a JW questioning the direction of the organization against Scripture. It's clearly not framed that way in the video, but anyone with actual knowledge of the event knows that this person wasn't questioning "some" JWs in local congregations but the organization--those taking the lead! So, it's definitely an odd choice to show at a convention--especially when a lot of JWs lived through that era. I almost wonder if there was a version of the script that involved the organization, but during the production references to the org were specifically removed.

I don't think it's quite fair to say it this way. I feel if the GB were trying to minimize their role in a failed date they would have not brought it up again, especially not when you say "many adult JWs did not experience 1975". Why not just bury the old dog. Most of those who are bothered by 1975, are already familiar with the quotes where WT admits blame. These quotes are not hidden. It would make no sense to bring it up again just to minimize the GB's role in promoting it. It would be very silly to do this considering, as you say, "the org promoted the date in its literature heavily". Anyone can go back and check this if they want.
In view of all that, it seems to me the intent was to make individuals aware that in the end they have to rely on what they know from the scriptures. This was confirmed by what Br. Jackson said. Also, on another thread, it was established that not only is "truth the truth no matter who says it", but rubbish (garbage) is rubbish no matter who says it also.

The Bible needs to be studied at a personal level.
If in the study of the Bible I come to understand that some teachings are wrong, I must act according to conscience.
I have dedicated myself to Jehovah and not to GB.
The Bible is not "imperfect spiritual food", it does not lend itself to rewards, corrections or "new light".
The Bible is the truth.
Obviously, I can go wrong in good faith during my Bible study. However, the Bible encourages you to study personally and ask Jehovah for help.
If the GB says something that according to my Biblical knowledge is not in harmony with the Scriptures, I will listen to my conscience. If we believe that the "truth" is the Word of God (John 17:17) then we realize that sometimes this organization has adhered more to the truth while "at other times" has less adhered to the truth. This is the organization that has taught me many beautiful, true and just things.
This organization, in its time, was surely blessed by God.
It does not mean, however, that "this organization" can not become a "chopper machine" since brothers (in the majority) are not able to do a personal study, to challenge, to question any "truth" not to be labeled as apostates.
For this reason, it will be necessary to create a distinction between those who really love the Word of God (study and seek to understand it) and those who love tranquility (who does the research in our place and tells us what to believe and do not believe).
Israel was also God's people, but to understand the will of God, "read the law book day and night."
Not simply ask the priests or the High Priest.
The priests could deflect (and are often misguided) but the Word of God remains unchanged.
We have many Biblical teachings and examples.
Many of us have become "unconscious worshipers".
Worshipers of people, "circular", the personality, the overseer; Watch Tower, Videos, and Cartoons.
Jehovah considers us personally responsible.
Pay close attention to the prophecies.