Foreigner

Predictions by members of mainstream churches
Adventism, Millerism
Adventism has its roots in the teachings of a Baptist preacher by the name of William Miller. He first predicted the Second Advent of Jesus Christ would occur before March 21, 1844.[1] When this date passed a new date was predicted, April 18, 1844. Again the date passed and another Millerite, Samuel S. Snow, derived the date of October 22, 1844. The un-fulfillment of these predictions has been named the Millerite Great Disappointment.
Anabaptist Church
Certain Anabaptists of the early 16th century believed that the Millennium would occur in 1533. Another source reports: "When the prophecy failed, the Anabaptists became more zealous and claimed that two witnesses (Enoch and Elijah) had come in the form of Jan Matthys and Jan Bockelson; they would set up the New Jerusalem in Münster. Münster became a frightening dictatorship under Bockelson's control. Although all Lutherans and Catholics were expelled from that city, the millennium never came."
Anglican Church
In volume II of The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, author Leroy Edwin Froom tells us about a prominent Anglican prelate, who made a relevant prediction: "Edwin Sandys (1519–1588), Archbishop of York and Primate of England was born in Lancashire... Sandys says, 'Now, as we know not the day and time, so let us be assured that this coming of the Lord is near. He is not slack, as we do count slackness. That it is at hand, it may be probably gathered out of the Scriptures in diverse places. The signs mentioned by Christ in the Gospel which should be the foreshewers of this terrible day, are almost all fulfilled.'"
Assemblies of God Church
During World War I, The Weekly Evangel, an official publication of the Assemblies of God, carried this prediction: "We are not yet in the Armageddon struggle proper, but at its commencement, and it may be, if students of prophecy read the signs aright, that Christ will come before the present war closes, and before Armageddon...The war preliminary to Armageddon, it seems, has commenced." Other editions speculated that the end would come no later than 1934 or 1935.
Calvary Chapel
The founder of the Calvary Chapel system, Chuck Smith, published the book End Times in 1979. On the jacket of his book, Smith is called a "well known Bible scholar and prophecy teacher." In this book he wrote:
As we look at the world scene today, it would appear that the coming of the Lord is very, very, close. Yet, we do not know when it will be. It could be that the Lord will wait for a time longer. If I understand Scripture correctly, Jesus taught us that the generation which sees the 'budding of the fig tree', the birth of the nation Israel, will be the generation that sees the Lord's return; I believe that the generation of 1948 is the last generation. Since a generation of judgment is forty years and the tribulation lasts seven years, I believe the Lord could come back for his church anytime before the tribulation starts, which would mean anytime before 1981. (1948 + 40 − 7 = 1981) However, it is possible that Jesus is dating the beginning of the generation from 1967, when Jerusalem was again under Israeli control for the first time since 587 BC. We don't know for sure which year actually marks the beginning of the last generation.
This same viewpoint was published by the popular pastor Hal Lindsey in his widely published book The Late Great Planet Earth.
Lutheran Church
The founder of the Lutheran Church was the reformer, Martin Luther (1483–1546 A.D.). According to one authority, Luther ventured to predict: "For my part, I am sure that the Day of Judgement is just around the corner. It doesn't matter that we don't know the precise day... perhaps someone else can figure it out. But it is certain that time is now at an end." Another author says: "In all of [Luther's] work there was a sense of urgency for the time was short... the world was heading for Armageddon in the war with the Turk."
Even after Luther's death in 1546, Lutheran leaders kept up the claim of the nearness of the end. About the year 1584, a zealous Lutheran named Adam Nachenmoser wrote the large volume '[Prognosticum Theologicum]' in which he predicted: "In 1590 the Gospel would be preached to all nations and a wonderful unity would be achieved. The last days would then be close at hand." Nachenmoser offered numerous conjectures about the date; 1635 seemed most likely.
The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod issued a study in 1989 refuting any end times claim, declaring that "repeatedly taught by Jesus and the apostles is the truth that the exact hour of Christ's coming remains hidden in the secret counsels of God (Matt. 24:36)."
Mennonites
Russian Mennonite minister Claas Epp, Jr. predicted that Christ would return on March 8, 1889, and, when that date passed uneventfully, 1891.
Presbyterian Church
Thomas Brightman, who lived from 1562 to 1607, has been called "one of the fathers of Presbyterianism in England." He predicted that "between 1650 and 1695 [we] would see the conversion of the many Jews and a revival of their nation in Palestine...the destruction of the Papacy...the marriage of the Lamb and his wife."
Christopher Love who lived from 1618–1651 was a bright graduate of Oxford and a strong Presbyterian. Love predicted that: (1) Babylon would fall in 1758 (2) God's anger against the wicked would be demonstrated in 1759 and (3) in 1763 there would occur a great earthquake all over the world.
Roman Catholic Church
When in 1525 Martin Luther, an ex-monk, married Katharina von Bora, an ex-nun, his enemies[who?] said that their offspring would fulfill an old tradition that the Antichrist would be the son of such a union. The Catholic scholar and theologian Erasmus remarked that the tradition could apply to thousands of such children.
In 1771 Bishop Charles Walmesley published, under the nom de plume of "Signor Pastorini", his "General History of the Christian Church from Her Birth to Her Final Triumphant State in Heaven Chiefly Deduced from the Apocalypse of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist". In it he attributed to what he called the fifth age of the Church a duration of 300 years, beginning with the Protestant Reformation in 1520 or 1525. This was widely interpreted as predicting the downfall of Protestantism by 1825. In fact, just four years later, the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 brought to a culmination the process of Catholic Emancipation throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Predictions by other groups
Irvingism
The well known Scottish cleric, Edward Irving, was the forerunner of the Catholic Apostolic Church.[23] In 1828 he wrote a work headed The Last Days: A Discourse on the Evil Character of These Our Times, Proving Them to be the 'Perilous Times' and the 'Last Days'. On pages 10–22 we find some telling information which includes the following:
I conclude, therefore, that the last days... will begin to run from the time of God's appearing for his ancient people, and gathering them together to the work of destroying all Antichristian nations, of evangelising the world, and of governing it during the Millennium... The times and fullness of the times, so often mentioned in the New Testament, I consider as referring to the great period numbered by times...Now if this reasoning be correct, as there can be little doubt that the one thousand two hundred and sixty days concluded in the year 1792, and the thirty additional days in the year 1823, we are already entered upon the last days, and the ordinary life of a man will carry many of us to the end of them. If this be so, it gives to the subject with which we have introduced this year's ministry a very great importance indeed.
Jehovah's Witnesses
Charles Taze Russell, the first president of the Watch Tower Society, calculated 1874 as the year of Christ's Second Coming, and taught that Christ was invisibly present and ruling from the heavens since that year. Russell proclaimed Christ's invisible return in 1874,[29] the resurrection of the saints in 1875, and predicted the end of the "harvest" and the Rapture of the saints to heaven for 1878,  and the final end of "the day of wrath" in 1914. 1874 was considered the end of 6,000 years of human history and the beginning of judgment by Christ. A 1917 Watch Tower Society publication predicted that in 1918, God would begin to destroy churches and millions of their members.
J.F. Rutherford, who succeeded Russell as president of the Watch Tower Society, predicted that the Millennium would begin in 1925, and that biblical figures such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David would be resurrected as "princes". The Watch Tower Society bought property and built a house, Beth Sarim, in California for their return.
From 1966, statements in Jehovah's Witness publications raised strong expectations that Armageddon could arrive in 1975. In 1974 Witnesses were commended for selling their homes and property to "finish out the rest of their days in this old system" in full-time preaching.[36] In 1976 The Watchtower advised those who had been "disappointed" by unfulfilled expectations for 1975 to adjust their viewpoint because that understanding was "based on wrong premises". Four years later, the Watch Tower Society admitted its responsibility in building up hope regarding 1975.
Montanists
Montanus, who founded the Montanist movement in 156 AD, predicted that Jesus would return during the lifetime of the group's founding members.
Mormonism
Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon faith, made several dozen prophecies during his lifetime, many of which are recorded in the sacred texts of the Mormon faith. The prophecies included predictions of the Civil War, the coming of Jesus, and several less significant predictions. Church apologists cite prophecies that they claim came true, and church critics cite prophecies that they claim did not come true.
 

I referenced the idea of solving a mystery because the Revelation book includes this event under the heading (Chapter 34): "AN AWESOME MYSTERY SOLVED."
I listened to Knorr's talk recorded in Cleveland, found here (https://archive.org/details/PeaceCanItLastByNathanKnorr)while following along in the "Peace -- Can it Last?" booklet which says inside the booklet that it is a transcript of the talk. It is not actually a transcript, although it's possible that it was intended as one. The booklet states:
The above is the text of the speech "Peace — Can It Last?" delivered by the president of the WATCH TOWER SOCIETY, Sunday, September 20, 1942, at the public meeting of the New World Theocratic Assembly. This unique Assembly included more than eighty simultaneous conventions in cities in America, British Isles, Sweden, Central and South America, West and South Africa, and Hawaii. The president spoke at the key convention in Cleveland, Ohio, and his speech was conducted by a network of telephone lines direct to like conventions in fifty-one other cities in the United States, besides being radio-east over WBBR. The combined attendance in the United States at the lecture was 126,000. The speech is here published in behalf of the millions of persons of good-will who did not hear. But the transcript contains many items of interest that were either skipped by Knorr, or were not part of the original transcript he read from. I'll mark in red the portions that were skipped in the speech.
 
But the war precedes a peace; and in a radio address at Philadelphia, broadcast around the world, concerning postwar leadership, the attorney general of the United States said (July 3, 1942): "It seems to me a wholesome thing that men are thinking in 1942 of ways to win a peace, and acting on their thoughts — yes, even now, while the war is yet to be won. It means that at last the realization has come to us that world war and world peace cannot be dissociated as parts of the same great upheaval. The problems of peace and of war are interdependent." (New York Times, July 4, 1942) Shortly thereafter the ex-president of the nation said in a broadcast from San Francisco: "Whatever the modifying views of our associates in war may be, Americans should have formulated the kind of peace that THEY want. They must make up their minds BEFORE the war ends; otherwise others will make the peace, and not us." (New York Times, July 13, 1942) And in his recent book, on "The Problems of Lasting Peace", it is written: "The purpose of this war, the most terrible of three centuries, is to make a lasting Peace. We must first win the war. But we will not win lasting peace unless we prepare for it. And we can prepare only by full and free public discussion, by the cold surgery of analysis." In May it was revealed that thirty-five government agencies were then engaged in postwar planning. (Stated by T. E. D., May 9, 1942) International discussions, and likewise public forums, are being held on postwar problems. Therefore the question is a timely and urgent one, "Peace — Can It Last?" The answer depends upon how the peace problems are solved. The greatest religious head in "Christendom" claims it his right to hold the world domination, and he is moving to exercise his power and influence in the peace conference, even offering the Vatican in which to hold it. By reason of his concordat with the Fascist dictator of Rome in 1929 he is now a temporal ruler as well as a religious one. The Hierarchy and the religious population which he rules as god declare that the Peace Treaty of 1919 failed because the pope was not in on it. He now appears in a peace role, pluming himself for a suitable place or voice in the coming Peace Conference. If he gains it, and if the Treaty of Vienna of 1815 is followed as to primacy of diplomatic representatives, then he or his official representative should preside as the "dean" of all the conferees. Says one of his American archbishops: "The only enduring peace that will restore the world to sanity and to a sense of the dignity of human personality is the peace of Pope Pius XII." And a monsignor in a radiocast from Washington, D.C., says: "He [that is, Pacelli] whose name is rooted in peace will be the one who will restore peace to the world; for when peace does come it will come, not in the way the world expects or plans it, but in an utterly unsuspected way." — Mgr. F. J. S., February 8, 1942. A United Press dispatch of July 15, from Vichy, France, was therefore of peculiar interest to Americans who believe only in peace by victory, and no negotiated peace with a gangster, and which dispatch reads: "Diplomatic circles said tonight that the Vatican was preparing a peace encyclical, to be published in mid-August, defining Pope Pius XII's ideas of a basis for a negotiated peace and postwar world planning." "An earlier United Press dispatch from Vichy, which apparently had some bearing on this report, was completely censored out except for the statement that 'there was a noticeable rapprochement of the Vatican and non-Catholic powers' recently." (New York Times, July 16,1942) Whom these "non-Catholic powers" include can be surmised, when this fact is remembered, that despite the break between Italy and the United States the secretary of the personal envoy of the president is meantime acting as the representative of this country to the Vatican. The political statesmen of the world are also looking ahead to the peace, anxiously. Some fear the peace worse than they do the war, fearing for a great postwar slump, unemployment, dislocation of industry, communications' breakdown, international debt tangle, anarchy and revolutions in various places, famine and pestilence, and other evils. They hope that the mistakes and blunders of 1919 and following years will not be repeated. A great struggle is foreseen to "lift the living standards from one end of this planet to the other". The Nazi dictator has led his hordes on in world aggression Math the promise of, to quote him, "a social state which must and shall be a model of perfection in every sphere of life"; and the pope has published to the world a five-point program for world peace. Those of a democratic mind hope for a United States of the world, a "family of nations", a "world association" based on the United Nations, including a "world legion". Says one spokesman: "An international constitution and government will be a postwar necessity." Others argue for a "World Bill of Rights". Others say the evidence shows that the hopes of the world are for the League of Nations again; and one college official says that the World Court for international arbitration must be made the key in a revived League. One of the president's own cabinet members says: 'A world organization, with the United Nations as its base, will determine the peace, and the postwar world will be policed by the allied powers.'  Those rulers and representatives of the people charged with the task of arranging the postwar conditions have a tremendous responsibility, not only before the people, but also before the great Universal Ruler, Jehovah God. One thing to notice, too, is that this is the part of the speech about the victor in the war. Yet, the speech itself doesn't really  come close to mentioning who will be the victor of the war. It even apparently chides the United States for thinking that a peace can only come if the Allied Powers are the victor. And he chides the harlot, Babylon the Great, whose capital is in Vatican City for being ready to ride on the back of whomever shows himself as victor. But it might not have been noticed that Knorr was merely reading various quotes about how various leaders planned to be involved in a post-war peace. Rightly, Knorr never took sides in this -- even in another spot when he mentioned the king of the north and king of the south, he didn't predict which side would come out on top.
More importantly, when Knorr uses the expression "based on the United Nations" he is referring to an existing entity, not one that only appears first in planning stages in 1944 and then shows up for real in 1945. That's why he can quote a cabinet member in the next sentence who already refers to the United Nations as an existing entity when he says: "A world organization, with the United Nations as its base, will determine the peace, and the postwar world will be policed by the allied powers." Knorr did not predict that the allies would win; allied powers predicted (of course) that the allied powers would win. I think it's fair to say that Knorr probably thought the allied powers would win. But a "United Nations" of some kind would be the only hope of a more lasting peace no matter who won.
The United Nations was actually named by F.D.Roosevelt at the Arcadia Conference and adopted on January 1, 1942. It was already in the news, and it was obvious that the writer of this speech was well aware of these various proposals in the news. (The writer was not Knorr, apparently, as evidenced by the way Knorr reads and misreads several items which sometimes indicates a lack of understanding as to the intended meaning.) But Knorr does not commit to any particular one of these names or organizations as the particular one that would end up reviving an organization like the League of Nations after the war.

Sometimes, the Watchtower publications have pointed back to a time when the Watchtower predicted World War One (WWI) in 1914 and then also predicted that the United Nations would rise up to replace the League of Nations. These two "predictions" have even been paired together and presented nearly back-to-back in our publications. They were even brought up again at the 2014 convention and the 2009 convention. The reason the Watchtower has reviewed these two ideas from our history is probably already obvious and clear, and it has been clearly stated, too.
One of the most recent reviews of the history of Jehovah's Witnesses contains very similar claims, and is found in one of the videos, now also available on tv.jw.org: https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/VODOrgHistory/pub-ivfa2_x_VIDEO
These online transcripts appear fairly accurate:
Video Transcript Jehovah's Witnesses Faith in Action Part 1 Out of Darkness.pdf Video Transcript Jehovah's Witnesses Faith in Action Part 2 Let the Light Shine.pdf Here is the relevant part about 1914:
—Geoffrey W. Jackson—
They realized that 1914 had a significance, —Gerrit Lösch—
When World War I broke out in July, they felt vindicated and it strengthened their faith in the Bible, and in Jehovah’s prophetic Word. Also, it enhanced their trust that Jehovah was using Brother Russell and his friends to explain truth to others. —Anthony Morris III—
Just looking at the sign of the times that Jesus told us to look at is enough, but it's still significant that they could pinpoint that year. That's phenomenal. Here is the relevant part about the UN and League of Nations:
—Narrator—
. . . And soon, they would boldly proclaim a Bible prophecy that pointed to the outcome of that war. ——Chapter 4: "Taught By Jehovah"——
—Narrator—
The year was 1941. Having taken the lead for 25 momentous years, J. F. Rutherford had become seriously ill and was about to make his final public appearance. . . . The second World War was raging. Some felt that these events could lead directly into Armageddon. In spite of this, in 1942, Nathan H. Knorr—the one next appointed to take the lead among Jehovah's Witnesses—spoke at a convention about a Bible prophecy that indicated that significant events had to occur first. —Knorr (reenactment)—
This international war is not 'the battle of the great day of God Almighty.' Before Armageddon comes, the Scriptures show, a peace must come. —John Wischuk—
There was no peace on the horizon, and yet we said, "Peace—Can It Last?" —Narrator—
Knorr centered attention on Revelation 17:8, which indicates that a figurative wild beast would come into existence, would cease to exist, but then would come back to life. Knorr then drew his listeners' attention to the defunct League of Nations. —Knorr (reenactment)—
The League is in effect in a state of suspended animation and needs to be revived if it is ever to live again. It has gone into the abyss of inaction and ineffectiveness. It "is not." Will the League remain in the pit? Again the Word of God gives answer: The association of worldly nations will rise again. —Narrator—
That association did rise again three years later as the United Nations. —Anthony Morris III—
They didn't know it was going to be called the United Nations, and we don't make that claim. But they knew it was coming out.  
[Should be noted that Morris is claiming something that they "KNEW" in advance but he is also correcting a common claim that not only did Knorr predict the rise of the League of Nations three years ahead of time, but that he even used the term "United Nations." As one person writes on a website "Knorr prophesied in 1942 that the League of Nations would rise out of the abyss. Knorr used the expression 'United Nations.' How could he have known the exact name of the new incarnation, when it wasn't established until 1945?"]
Witnesses got these ideas about a correctly predicted prophecy from an article published a few years later under Knorr's administration in 1960. These quotes should be compared with the actual transcript of the speech Knorr made on September 20, 1942, which was made available as a booklet, and can be found here: http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/booklets/peace.html
The July 15, 1960 Watchtower, page 444, said this:
"In 1942 the “faithful and discreet slave” guided by Jehovah’s unerring spirit made known that the democracies would win World War II and that there would be a United Nations organization set up." You can also see a reference to the 1942 event in the Revelation book (p.248) on WOL at jw.org: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101988034
You can also read the following about it in the April 15, 1989 Watchtower, p.14 https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101988034
By divine providence, Jehovah’s Witnesses received enlightenment on that mystery in 1942. . . . Nathan H. Knorr, president of the Watch Tower Society, gave the public talk, “Peace—Can It Last?” Therein he reviewed Revelation 17:8, . . . . Was that Bible-based forecast fulfilled? Truly it was! In 1945 the international “wild beast” emerged from its abyss of inactivity as the United Nations. See also the Kingdom Come book  kc chap. 17 pp. 162-173 and and interesting version of events found in a 1981 Watchtower about why this "insight" was given w81 12/15 pp. 28-30
The Proclaimers book states it like this on page 192-3 (  jv chap. 14 pp. 188-201 )
This time, it involved the United Nations, successor to the League. While World War II was still under way, in 1942, Jehovah’s Witnesses had already discerned from the Bible, at Revelation 17:8, that the world peace organization would rise again, also that it would fail to bring lasting peace. This was explained by N. H. Knorr, then president of the Watch Tower Society, in the convention discourse “Peace—Can It Last?” Boldly Jehovah’s Witnesses proclaimed that view of the developing world situation. In 1993 the idea was stated as follows:
“The Disgusting Thing” 12, 13. What was “the disgusting thing,” and—as foreseen by the faithful and discreet slave—when and how was it reestablished? 12 When the end of the second world war was in sight, there was another development. “They will certainly put in place the disgusting thing that is causing desolation.” (Daniel 11:31b) This “disgusting thing,” which Jesus also mentioned, had already been recognized as the League of Nations, the scarlet-colored wild beast that according to Revelation went into the abyss. (Matthew 24:15; Revelation 17:8; see Light, Book Two, page 94.) It did this when World War II broke out. However, at the New World Theocratic Assembly of Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1942, Nathan H. Knorr, third president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, discussed the prophecy of Revelation 17 and warned that the beast would rise again from the abyss. 13 History bore out the truth of his words. Between August and October 1944, at Dumbarton Oaks in the United States, work was begun on the charter of what would be called the United Nations. The charter was adopted by 51 nations, including the former Soviet Union, and when it came into force on October 24, 1945, the defunct League of Nations in effect came out of the abyss. There are several more examples, but this should suffice. I am struck by how often the point is emphasized that these were Knorr's words, "his words" and that they were a Bible-based forecast "foreseen" and "discerned" and "known" in advance through "divine providence" and "enlightenment" and men being "guided by Jehovah's unerring spirit." This is an odd focus on the insights and discernment of men. These expressions are also dangerously presumptuous in that they are so often applied to the one or two times when it seems something was foreseen correctly, but there is no balanced way of discussing the reasons that literally dozens of predictions were made incorrectly and have been dropped as "old light."
But, as many Witnesses already know, there is something even deeper that is wrong with these claims of accuracy in discernment. The claims are inaccurate! It turns out that this was not really even predicted in advance. A close look at the original transcript of Knorr's talk actually solves the mystery of why he used the term United Nations in his speech. It's because he gave the speech AFTER official work on the United Nations had already begun.

Thank you for noticing that I have always considered my opinions here to reflect nothing more than my opinions here.
I have noticed statements from JTR and Anna that actually state just the opposite. I've said it many times, too, that it really is humanly possible to make all the prophetic conjectures that you wish, and then just be humble about it and state that we really don't know for sure about these things we are conjecturing about. In other words, it's possible to make conjectures and be 100% right about everything we state as long as we are humble, discreet, and not presumptuous. The GB could have said that they don't know for sure, but that they believe the UN will attack religion for certain reasons, and then give those reasons. None of us would have the right to be dogmatic. We would always be 100% right, because we only stated that it was our current belief -- our opinion. Of course, I don't demand that we admit when we are just "conjecturing." But the Bible says it's the best course to avoid presumptuousness and the Bible recommends being faithful and discreet.
Your "word salads" imply so much that is incorrect that I won't bother to untangle them. But it is funny that you find a person who says none of us has a crystal ball, and that none of us should claim to have one, and then you claim that this person thinks he has a crystal ball.
I didn't want you deleted and you didn't want you deleted. So you are like me in that regard. Someone went against the whims of people like you and me. However, you have repeatedly claimed that you have not been silenced because you merely had to create new versions of your name and new versions of several other supportive "characters" who can up-vote yourself and show derision to others. I agree with you that you have never actually been silenced. So this should not be an excuse for coming up with no evidence for your opinions. Your opinions are just fine. Many have been spot on. Some of mine have been merely opinions unsupported with evidence. Opinions on their own are not valid or invalid, just opinions. But if anyone shows evidence contrary to my opinion, I will ALWAYS adjust my opinion in favor of the evidence. This is one of those places where no one has to hold back in presenting either opinions or evidence or counter-evidence. So if you have evidence, great. But if you don't have any evidence, then please stop whining about how one or two of your "characters" were deleted for abusive behavior several years ago.
I apologize. I was only thinking about prophecies associated with dates and time periods like 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, the mid-70's, the end of the century, the generation, etc. But I admit that there is one "prophetic fulfillment" in another category that comes very close. It's the best example available. I'm referring to the one that Knorr "predicted" about the League of Nations rising again as the United Nations. This one was not originally from the Watchtower, but from Christendom, but still the Watchtower should get credit for choosing to repeat it.
Here, it seems, we really do agree! And this was the main point I was making, too.

Assuming your obfuscation is purposeful, I'll try to translate your apparent intent:
"I, AllenSmith, have never yet failed to understand the true character and intent when I view certain people here. To myself, I now understand that I had previously misunderstood the main thing that 'JWInsider' was saying, although since I will never actually admit a fault, be they ever so blatant to others, I will, instead, focus on the new claim that that I never misunderstood the subliminal message."
If you meant @Srecko Sostar, I have never seen this person as a staunch supporter. If you meant @Melinda Mills, then you probably missed the fact that she does not typically "support" my views in areas where they might differ from the Watchtower, and never staunchly even when she does. In this case, she merely pointed out the fact that I left out the word "not," because the sentence wouldn't have made any sense in context as it stood. But she was pointing out what I must have meant, not what she necessarily believes. I see she did "upvote" a comment or two of mine, and that is always a dangerous thing for people to do when you are around, since they will often have to brave your disapproval. You often convey this disapproval of any kind of support in a bullying manner and go after people for assumed sins just because they found something agreeable in a post of mine. I hope you will stop this kind of bullying. (I'm not saying that what other people do doesn't ALSO come across as bullying . . . [ahem..j.t.r..ahem] . . . but it's easier to take when it's cushioned with a sense of humor.)
Yes. It's true. I gladly admit that this post was not primarily about the differences in our view of the GB. Still, many JWs believe that the time will come when the UN will attack religion, and there is an associated assumption that this will result in a collapse of religion in some global sense, and will thus precipitate a specific attack on Witnesses which is thwarted by Jehovah, Jesus and the angelic hosts. This is supposed to be our lot between the great tribulation and Armageddon. We are told to expect that it means times of being cut off from communication with New York, and a need for almost unquestioning reliance on local leadership through the guidance of congregation elders. In some cases, we expect that some will be cut off from even that much association.  JWs want to feel prepared to face such a time without fear.
I don't think it's out of place, then, to discuss this entire supposed "UN episode" in the light of such expectations.
I don't feel right about discussing it unless I also disclose that I have my own questions about the readiness of many Witnesses to face such a scenario. Part of that is the strained relationship that I see many Witnesses have with their local elders, and others in the congregations in general. Part of that is what I see as an unhealthy and immature relationship of dependency on the Governing Body for almost every aspect of their spirituality and worship. For me personally, I must also deal with the fact that I look to the track record of the Governing Body in attempting to predict the meaning of scripture, and I realize that so far they have something like a 0% accuracy rating in everything ever predicted when it comes to fulfilled prophecy. So, just out of the honest need for full disclosure when I give an opinion, I will be forced to include some of my personal hesitance to accept these predicted scenarios as necessarily accurate.
But I should still have a right to an opinion, and you should have a right to yours, and a right to give counterbalancing evidence if you have any.
Interesting. It's false to say they have never claimed this. But it's usually more subtle than an outright claim. Whether they claim it or not is immaterial. It's an impression that is given and never completely corrected. We could have a whole separate discussion on this topic.
I never claimed they asked for anyone to glorify them. Please stick with the evidence, not stuff you make up.
They should feel no superiority for having served at the "Bethel House." No one should. I certainly don't. In fact, as you have pointed out yourself, sometimes serving at Bethel is a detriment to true spirituality.

I attempted above to only address the actual point of difference, as I see it, between your view and my view of the GB.  To be fair, I should probably acknowledge that you appear to be trying to make some additional specific points in your post, but there was nothing there that seemed very appropriate to comment on, because most of what you said just simply doesn't apply or I have always been in full agreement with it. The intent of some of your post wasn't clear to me. So perhaps if I try to respond to what I think you meant, you will be able to clarify further if you can see I'm not understanding you correctly.
From what I can tell, your instant reaction to call me and my views heretical and your other attempts at defamation have become a kind of reflex for you. You apparently don't read what I am saying before quickly misunderstanding words that you don't like.
In this case, I think the primary word you didn't like was "influence." You didn't like that I had said used the term "influence . . . emanated from the Governing Body" in the following question that I had asked:
You might not have understood that I meant this in a very positive way. I mean that the Governing Body has positively influenced Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide with proper guidance and teachings. Yes, I know I have not held back from discussing non-Biblical influences in the past, too, but the question above focused only on the positive influences. It could be restated as follows:
Is it possible that (through all the various publications, practices, encouragement of good habits, assigned Bible reading/discussion, reviewing of important Bible topics, etc.) that the Governing Body has already produced enough good influence on congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses so that they are readily capable of standing on their own in the event of severe persecution that would cut us off from communication with the Governing Body? I hoped the question was rhetorical, because it seems obvious that congregational elders and servants should already be trusted to help guide and teach a congregation in such circumstances. We already know there have been exceptional cases and extreme circumstances in the recent modern history of Jehovah's Witnesses where communication has been cut off and the Witness work and congregational matters went on without any major problems. And as I already stated in the post, we are reminded that we should be ready for such extreme circumstances.
I also note that you might have misunderstood my use of the word "past." It didn't refer to Russell, Rutherford, and past GB "influences." It refers to the pattern of instruction already received, with good habits learned over the years. Many elders and servants had no ability to manage even a small project, yet past assignments over the years have taught many brothers and sisters to rise to the occasion to manage complex tasks. (Assembly organization, budgets, donations, paperwork, building halls, scheduling assignments.)
I think you took some offense to the fact that I mentioned influence of the GB as if it superseded the influence of Jehovah, Jesus, the Bible, and the holy spirit. That wasn't the intent. For some individuals, unfortunately, I think it does supersede all these entities. But that wasn't the topic here. I meant it only as a guide for understanding proper spiritual influence.
This is where I figured you must have misunderstood GB influence. I meant it, just as you said: "a GUIDE to the teachings of Christ" not a replacement for Scripture. I know where you are coming from, so I don't blame you for thinking I was here referring to areas where I believe the Bible gives us a clear reason to disagree. But in this context I was referring to the many areas where we can positively agree.

"It is precisely what Jesus was referring to when when he said that we should look to specific persons as our leaders or teachers."  You may wish to review this sentence in the context of what you are speaking about.
 

I Corinthians 12:27 is a perfect example of what I believe. It says:
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. (NIV) Anyone who believes that says there is currently another body to look to, such as a Governing Body, should be the ones defending against a potentially heretical view. I believe that there is a way to view the Governing Body concept in a way that is is not heretical, and not at odds with the Bible, and I have explained it before. Holding a specific, proper view about a group of 8 specific men in New York who make up this "Governing Body" is NOT, in my view heretical. For the sake of efficiency, an organization will find it useful, helpful, and proper to look to groups of older men for guidance. We have the example of Moses taking the advice of Jethro. We have the Sanhedrin. Jesus, in fact, wanted the combined experience and advice of the apostles to help guide the first-century congregations as they emanated forth from Jerusalem in the days following his death, ascension, and the pouring out of the holy spirit at Pentecost.
So there is nothing necessarily wrong or heretical about a group of men selected for the purpose of efficiently running an organization. 1 Corinthians 12:28 mentions teaching and helping and guiding as proper ministries for some of the body of Christ to be involved in. It would therefore be proper for the body of Christ to select specific persons or even committees of persons to serve in various capacities as that body of Christ might choose using Scriptural guidance and advice.
The potentially heretical view is the claim that these men and only these men currently make up the fulfillment of the parable Jesus gave about the unfaithful slave. (Yes, it is also a parable about a faithful slave, but the primary focus and majority of content in the parable is about the unfaithful slave.)  Because then we would have a body of men who are not the apostles, wishing to be thought of as if they were apostles. It would require us to view a specific body of specific men as a Body within the Body of Christ. Looking to a body of men as a committee who are our specific leaders to follow is precisely what Paul spoke against when he spoke of those who would look to various "superfine" apostles. It is precisely what Jesus was referring to when when he said that we should [NOT]** look to specific persons as our leaders or teachers. The Bible often mentions the dangers of such arrangements. It even mentions the potential danger of looking to the body of apostles themselves as our leaders. This is what Paul emphasizes when he tells the Galatians that he did not look to the body of elders in Jerusalem for leadership, not even the apostles, those who "seemed to be" pillars in the Jerusalem congregation.
[Edited to add the "NOT" in the above paragraph where Melinda pointed out the error.]

How to tell to some Catholic priest or GB leader or to some secular politician or city major that he/she is wrong in something or that he/she made bad deed, or pointing on their hypocrisy and similar?? ..... and in the same time not to be, not to sound offensive or rude and in the same time expressing own feeling and thoughts? 
Does it "pointing out" or "criticism" on something and someone, only privilege of "higher class" of people aka that same leaders or is that same "privilege" actual  "human rights" of all people, not just few chosen?   
 
In first example "suppression" came from WT leaders, own Church and   such GB decision was "justified, righteous, wisdom from Above" :)))) ..... but in Russia case it is "devil attack, suppression caused of enemy worldly people". :))))))  Past and present events in different perception (differences in perception) on, about good and bad, about "proper or less proper or worldly forms of sacred service to god and all other forms.  Interesting!  
 
Of course, it is WT lawyers false claim :)))))
WT is Corporation. From that, this point, post, standpoint, view, every JW member must start processing all what came from Main Church Body aka GB. 
 
.... or whatever else. Does some group or individual can express disagreement on all and every issue??  Not only to different, other groups, but to his own group too?  Or  to be "politically correct", whatever such frase means? :)
 
 "Transformers" :) 
 
please , this is grey field ... motivations, humans hearts, minds :))) interpretations are many. They will judge you and praise you for the same thing :) I have enjoy in reading your posts. Have a good and peaceful day, greetings!

AllenSmith:
You are confusing faith in the Almighty God, with gullibility drooling over the opinions of people neither inspired of God, nor infallible ... and even though they were forced by outside sources to admit it ... I give them credit that they did admit it .... even if it was almost hidden in the February 2017 Watchtower, as a synopsis of a hundred years of goofiness, pretending to be the Guardians of Doctrine, that they themselves made up out of thin air for their own profit and aggrandizement...

If the goal is to imitate the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, we are well on our way.
Already we are baptizing children as young as 8 years old... and the exemplar, Jesus Christ was not baptized until he was 33 years old.
Trials and inquires in ancient Israel were in the City Gates, where all could see, hear, and make comments ... completely open and above board ... complete transparency of the institution of Justice, and the administrators of Justice.
It served God's people well for many thousands of years.
What we have now only serves the best interests of the Corporation.

The problem is ..... the people who THINK they know the right answers .... and keep everything they do hidden in back rooms under a veil of secrecy .... DON'T.
That's why their proceedings MUST be kept secret.
So they will not be exposed as self-serving, self-aggrandizing frauds.
This applies to EVERYBODY, inside and outside of Jehovah's Witnesses.
 

In the end it all boils down to Church Discipline and Rules, Laws of the Land and what such laws consist of for they vary in each state, especially in regards to child abuse, and exemptions.
 
Mind you, this is a place that Child Marriage is a thing there whereas the rate is in the 10k, the age to marry is 15-16 with judicial approval being set for all minors, in addition with paternal offer consent being enabled, be it the minor is and or becomes pregnant or not.
It is hurdles like that that makes things far complex to deal with, mainly in regards to the abused.

AllenSmith:
I bet you are a LOT of fun at parties!
... sorta like a bipolar clown with Tourette's syndrome.

@AllenSmith what were you trying to say with the Spartacus clip? Have you seen the movie?

Agreed. The thing is some people who just suddenly come across child abuse assumes that the whole world does not know what it is, especially to those who do not educate children and adults on how to see the signs of abuse and how to prevent something from taking place, and instead, they take their action out on a whole group instead of the individual. 3-4 months ago, a man molested over 50 children since he was the age of 10 into his adulthood years of 18, he confessed to the police himself (the institution he worked as was not to blame for they didn't contact the police outsiders, children's parents, did), while another abuser, age 23 abused a child, only for the child, the victim to contact the police himself because the man who abused him prevented him from contacting his parents, but the victim manage to get a whole of the police, mind you, the justice system is broken and this abuse didn't go to jail, he was left off easy because the judge felt sorry for a man who sexual abused a child. Ironically when it is someone of another race and or specific religious background, they will literally throw the book at the person and criticize the group of the same faith.
That being said, even with facts and truth, sadly it will not push someone to accept it and instead they want to see the world around a group turn into ashes for those who want this to happen are the people setting the fire. But it is what it is, and seeing I, and others do handle children who suffer from these kind of things to some expect, we tend not to be oblivious to the truth as most who are uneducated about child abuse are.
It is hat it is, but in the end,we hold and know to what is true and the facts and the information that stems from the truth and nothing but the truth an the reality that is abuse.

This is really awful. I didn't want to just ignore this. It's all the more tragic for you, it evidently being so close to home, and so recent. I don't want to trivialize it by mixing the topic of drug addiction into a conversation about child abuse statistics, but you already know that this is a huge problem in parts of the world, and we can be thankful for the protections among Jehovah's people that leave us relatively immune from so many of such problems.  
I see your point, and in spite of the interpretation people have imputed onto this conversation, I don't agree that our problem with child abuse is nearly as bad as is generally found on the outside. I have only disagreed with using a flawed set of numbers and apple-and-orange ratio comparisons to make the claim. And I am concerned that after being associated (in several major legal systems) with a flawed process, we might appear to be defending the flawed process. Our numbers may actually be 10 times better, or 6 times better, but we attract unnecessary negative attention by appearing to defend a process that has been used in the way it has, especially in our own organization's recent history.
My wife started a Bible study with a woman, now a sister, who had a drug abuse problem, not an addiction problem. I was asked to study with this woman's brother, who did have an on-and-off drug addiction problem. He was getting treatment, but it was a long process for him and he never managed to get to a point where he thought he was ready for baptism. If he had been baptized, he might have still struggled. But I would agree with calling the organization a "lifeline" for this type of person. Learning to rely on Jehovah to help overcome major issues with wrong desires becomes a positive habit in itself. I think he had a desire to get to a point where he could feel proud of his life, feel a purpose in life, and to some extent feel that he had a social structure and network to fall back upon in time of need. Part of what held him back, he said, is that he didn't feel worthy of association with a group of people who appeared to be ready to love him as he is and take him in as a friend. It's something I've seen in the prison work, too. Even after a baptism, some prisoners don't feel worthy of associating with the class of person that Witnesses represent to them. (For cases like this, I like the experiences such as the brother on the monthly broadcast a few months back who had been a true-to-life criminal, but speaks with joy and obvious acceptance of his past, present and future.)
Even in the context of writing a book that could use a "study" or two for more credibility, I still don't see why you are looking for a specific number. The point is that we have made progress beyond most religions on most issues, but we always look to use the Bible as our guiding set of principles. Sometimes this makes us look a bit backward, but we stand on our record in dealing with all the issues that plague the world today. We don't dig our heels in to hang onto traditional ways of doing things, but we look to the Bible for the wisdom and counsel to meet all challenges, old and new.

Saludos hermano Allen. Creo que soy Allen también. Ha! Ha!

I do not believe John Butler is an agent and or servant of Satan, for I have truly seen people who are pawns of Satan and have challenged them before, nor do I believe Witness is either - for these two are quite far from it and real servants of Satan are very obvious, an example would be the Cemetery incident with Christians vs Satanist  a Minnesota, the abortion protesting, and the Black Mass temples to mock Christians. However, both of them are simply on the wrong path and going about the situation the wrong way, one of them even has accepted and or given himself up to the likes of conspiracy while at the same time believes that the Father and the Son would want that.
Sadly, a good man or a good woman may think they are in the right, but the tragedy is, they do not see what is going on behind the blindfold they have on their faces and others who see them will only see that their works is not good and not smart. 

Ohhhh ... I am sorry I missed them!
Sometimes from the back of the Hall I hear mechanical clicking sounds after the paragraphs are read,  and again and again, three successive people giving the same answers, straight from the article .... and hear someone despondently whispering ...
I gotta oil this thing........
. shoot me, someone please shoot me....

John, I think you are in some danger of losing it. Take some time off. Seriously. I am not out to get you. I have just  pushed back at some of your charges.
You initially represented yourself as about to embark on a quest to find just what was the truth, or something to that effect - I forget the exact wording. The way you have conducted yourself here would indicate you were never in the slightest doubt of it. Go off on your quest if you are going to.
Sit silently in the Hall if it helps you in any way, but it sounds to me like you have absolutely writen that option off and I do not know how you can take umbridge at "so and so is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses." Are you? Sounds like a good call, to me. 
Either make your peace with JWs are they are represented on move on. Don't stay here, at least not for now. You are working yourself into a lather.
 

@Space Merchant People outside the faith know only because victims have now made it known, and hence the investigations Earthwide. But the names of the pedophiles and their locations are not known, not even to the brothers and sisters that have children in the congregations. Hence i say prdophiles are being protected and hidden. And brothers and sisters that serve the Org do not look into these things, so they do not know. Nor do they know of the danger they may face on the ministry or at the hall, because the Elders do not make any of this known. If i had spoken about it in the Kingdom Hall when I was a brother,  I would have been disfellowshipped for 'causing a division in the congregation'... This is how they keep things quiet, because brothers and sisters are frightened to talk about anything...  You have to be there in person to fully understand how frightened the congregation members are of the Elders. There are so many things that you just cannot talk about. And the meetings are fully controlled. the Watchtower Study is controlled, so that brothers and sisters only answer the question put in the paragraphs. And no one is allowed to ask question, it's just parrot fashion, read a paragraph then give correct answers. Then move on, next paragraph.... 
Jesus himself was very blunt and to the point when he noted those that were trying to twist things and use lies and false ideas. Sometimes there is no other way, you just have to tell someone that you can see 'where they are coming from'. 
JW's Governing Body make up the rules and change them when it suits, by misusing scriptures. Elders in turn act like robotic servants of the Governing Body. There is no love shown, no empathy. This has been made so clear by the victims of Child Abuse Earthwide and by people that have been shunned for no good reason. And now i fall into the latter catagory. Shunned by brothers and sisters, probably because they think i was disfellowshipped, as they don't tell people when they say ' John Butler is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses'. Members of the congregation have no idea if i was disfellowshipped or if I left of my own choice. Though i am very disappointed by those i told prior to leaving, that they too should shun me. But once again fear of man, fear of the elders, fear of 'getting into trouble' if they talk to me.. It's very sad.
Doing anything on the Sabbath was wrong according to the Mosaic Law and punishable, but Jesus said there were times when doing good would override that Law. But the JW Governing Body do not seem to recognise the principle behind that, hence they show no mercy or love.

@TrueTomHarley I'll go further and repeat, i think you are a servant of the devil. Protecting pedophiles within the JW org.  Hating anyone that dares to question the GB. Twisting every comment made by genuine people on here. Good bye Tom.