alvi languore insanabili

Well each person will have to choose if they will vote. The bible clearly indicates that Babylon the great is religion which is bedfellows with politics. Christian's are warned to get out of Babylon the great.
This will become a test for witnesses in the time of end since jesus was also accused on a false political charge of sedition. Non- voting is the reason governments will hate us as is our stance to refuse to go to war. 
This is the factor which allows for us to be a truly peaceful people all over the world with a self-sacrificing love for each other.

http://web.archive.org/web/19990129063340/http://www.dhcommhr.coe.fr/eng/28626CP.E.html
Press communiqué issued by the Secretary
to the European Commission of Human Rights
Application No. 28626/95
Khristiansko Sdruzhenie "Svideteli na Iehova"
(Christian Association Jehovah's Witnesses)
v.
Bulgaria
Quote:
As regards the alleged involvement of children the applicant association submits that children cannot become members of the association but only participate, together with their parents, in the religious activities of the community. In respect of the refusal of blood transfusion, the applicant association submits that there are no religious sanctions for a Jehovah's Witness who chooses to accept blood transfusion and that, therefore, the fact that the religious doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses is against blood transfusion cannot amount to a threat to "public health".

They have already lied about blood transfusions and shunning, I'm sure they will managed to lie the way out of this too... Shame shame shame

Each person will have to choose if they will vote. !
its fine to say that to the public but unfortunately that's not really true when you are a JW.
Actually what my wife and I have noticed for the last few years is that the society is happy to portrait a different kind of rules kinda show a different society to the public where we have a choice or is up to each individual to choose about blood, shunning, vote etc but that's not reality.

This will soon be so. Governments will clamp down on ANY organization which enforces biblical law... I see you do not get it.  ..the tide against ALL Christian' laws/principles  is turning.
It will be up to the individual to decide to vote, not take a blood transfusion, or not condone unchristian behaviour,  by cutting association with those who approve LGBT or any other prohibition imposed God.  You do not get it - this is the 'beginning ' of governments enforcing their new moral laws on all Christian's and especially those who stand out for their obedience to laws which other christians do not care about.  In England and Scandinavia people are going to prison or taken into custody for talking against Islam and LGBT - soon it will include voting, blood transfusions and shunning.... and much more........ the world will take away freedom of choice and impose their humanist/satanic laws on us under the guise of human rights.
 
 

Well I haven't heard or see anything as yet about voting, but wouldn't surprise me that they will make a public declaration saying is a personal decision and no JW would be deciplined if they do. 
Well I haven't heard or see anything as yet about voting, but wouldn't surprise me that they will make a public declaration saying is a personal decision and no JW would be deciplined if they do. 

Yes. That is how humans are. That is how nations are. That is how the world is. But that is not the way among Christians.
(Matthew 20:24-27) 24 When the ten others heard of this, they became indignant at the two brothers. 25 But Jesus, calling them to him, said: “YOU know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them and the great men wield authority over them. 26 This is not the way among YOU; but whoever wants to become great among YOU must be YOUR minister, 27 and whoever wants to be first among YOU must be YOUR slave. Hebrews 13 gives us the right view of leadership in the same context, and in the chapters leading up to this verse. In context, we are submissive in that we look to follow good examples of older men and others who have remained faithful and have continued to show brotherly love (13:1), continued to show hospitality (13:2), visited those in prison and those who have been mistreated (13:3), continued to keep their marriages honorable (13:4), continue to lead a life free of the love of money putting faith in Jehovah instead (13:5,6). Therefore, as we are looking for examples to follow so that our own lives can turn out just as honorably, we look to those who came before us, those who have taught us about such things, and those in the congregation who are right there in front of us to find such faithful examples:
(Hebrews 13:7) Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith. The main reason we meet together is in order to look for and hear from such encouraging examples of fine conduct and good works:
(Hebrews 10:24-25)  24 And let us consider [fn: 'pay attention to'] one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, . . . Those who are taking the lead, then, are the ones we see regularly giving their time to those who have been mistreated, those setting a good example when it comes to a non-materialistic lifestyle, morality, hospitality, etc. We look for such persons as we meet together, and as our own faith and conduct turns out, others will be looking to us for the same kind of encouragement, so that we are encouraging one another to love and fine works.
But we are not to look to the example of Israel, and their human kings and priests, as an example to go back to. People often bring up Moses (and sometimes Aaron) and how their leadership was not to be questioned, as a good example for our day, which completely misses the point about the leadership of Christ. Persons who question the Governing Body for example are quickly reminded of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. But that doesn't mean that anyone who sets themselves up in the seat of Moses today shouldn't be questioned. It can mean the opposite, because we should question the very fact of any group of humans sets themselves up in a leadership position like that of Moses.
(Hebrews 3:1-6) . . .consider the apostle and high priest whom we acknowledge—Jesus. 2 He was faithful to the One who appointed him, just as Moses also was in all the house of that One. 3 For he is counted worthy of more glory than Moses, since the one who constructs a house has more honor than the house itself. 4 Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God. 5 Now Moses was faithful as an attendant in all the house of that One as a testimony of the things that were to be spoken afterward, 6 but Christ was faithful as a son over God’s house. We are His house if, indeed, we hold on firmly to our freeness of speech and the hope of which we boast down to the end. None of us are to be faithful to anyone in the house, because, at most, we are the house. But Jesus is the only one who is over the house. Anyone who claims to be a special attendant in God's household of faith today should be questioned. They are trying to "lord it over" others in the same household. Anyone who believes that their form of Christianity requires such a hierarchy to create an "ark of salvation" must watch out that they are not being like Korah if they in any way try to share the leadership of Jesus Christ, or attempt to mediate the salvation of that household.
(Hebrews 8:7-13) 7 If that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need for a second. . . .  10 “‘For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,’ says Jehovah. ‘I will put my laws in their mind, and in their hearts I will write them. And I will become their God, and they will become my people. 11 “‘And they will no longer teach each one his fellow citizen and each one his brother, saying: “Know Jehovah!” For they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful toward their unrighteous deeds, and I will no longer call their sins to mind.’” 13 In his saying “a new covenant,” he has made the former one obsolete. Now what is obsolete and growing old is near to vanishing away.

This is certainly true. This kind of attitude led the Israelites into demanding a king which Jehovah saw as a rejection of himself, despite the fact that he went along with the arrangement and gave them a succession of human "leader"s (for example: 1Sam.9:16; 13:14; 2Sam.1:35; 1Ki.14:7; 20:5; to name a few). There are leaders mentioned in a number of approved contexts other than kingship.
So the real problem is not that there would be leaders, this is a natural human characteristic and appears to be part of Jehovah's design of humans. The problem is how leaders view themselves, how they project themselves, what the privilege of leadership does to them;  and how those whom they lead view them. And the added ingredient of imperfection into the mix complicates matters.
But of course this how humans are isn't it? Jehovah knows all the implications of this. So does Jesus, and he went to great pains to demonstrate how leadership should be excercised. (John 13:14-13). His comments on being the only Leader were in the context of vainglorious Leadership. He wasn't doing away with leadership (Heb.13:7) was he?  
So as long as we all keep this in mind. I remember once acting as chairman for a GB member who gave us a talk. He called me aside and said quietly "please don't introduce me with a fanfare as a member of the GB. Just say I am a visiting speaker"
Due you think that was mock humility?
As I see it, true leadership is a role designated by Jehovah on a needs basis. Even the glorified Jesus recognises this 1Cor.15:58.

Yes. Some. Not so much the somewhat innocent involvement with such things, but the promotion of them in the service of religion. I was reading a "Modern Living" type magazine from the 1930's yesterday and couldn't help but notice how much like the "Golden Age" that it was, except that the Golden Age backed up its quackery with religious ideology. That's where it's more cringe-worthy.

Not so much that, but something related to it. (And I'm not actually that concerned about any modern-day play on the idea that "messenger"="angel", although some Bible Students actually started up Angelophone (Angelico) Records as a way to promote Russell's sermons in combination with religious hymns.) The orange "book-study" book named "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" changed the prophetic fulfillment of the Elijah-Elisha mantle transfer to the transfer between Rutherford's presidency and Knorr's presidency. Previously, it was explained that this part of the Bible had really been prophesying the transfer from Russell's presidency to Rutherford's presidency. (Rutherford himself had NOT tried to focus this fulfillment just on himself personally, but focused more on the work of the "Society" beginning especially in 1918 and 1919. He would have focused on 1916/1917, I think, if he thought this was about him personally.) Although it was easy to see that the "ns" book's focus was on the presidents themselves, technically the wording of the doctrine also vaguely included those anointed associates of Rutherford and Knorr, too. But it was a moot point because all the quotes and references were almost all about Rutherford the individual and Knorr the individual. So it was a distinction without a distinction.
Of course, the Society (in 2014) dropped the so-called "prophetic narrative" teachings, and 1942 is no longer significant prophetically. But we still look back especially to just one particular name from pre-1914, that of C.T.Russell, and his associates. And, yes, it results in looking back at Russell as the "Leader" during this time period. To me, this detracts us from seeing Jesus as the only Leader during this time period (and all time periods from his earthly life, his resurrection, and his presence with us until the conclusion of the system of things). Yes, Jesus was able to use and bless the efforts of another sinful human. I'm not at all concerned about the very minor danger that some might be confused if Russell's reputation becomes tarnished whenever some of his more hidden episodes are revealed. In my opinion, the scope creep that is much more dangerous to true Christians is that it legitimizes a similar view that tells us we should elevate to a kind of rulership, or at least "governorship," a small group of sinful humans in our day. It tends to make us want to put our trust in nobles, in whom no salvation belongs. It tends to make us forget that we should let God be found true, though every man be found a liar.

Mission control....We have a problem......
Seriously even though it's all a bit Ripley now I am still fascinated by it.

Actually, are you embarrassed by all this connection with unadulterated quackery?

I figure that when C.T.Russell had read George Storrs' phrenological report from 1849, published in his "Six Sermons" in 1855, that Russell just had to have one, too. Some phrenology was used to prove that criminals were born that way and that there should be no death penalty, but most White men who were would-be promoters of their ideas would go to these racists, I mean, phrenologists, to help prove to the public how smart they were.
George Storrs report concluded the following about him:
A Phrenological description of Mr. Storrs, given in 1849, may conclude this account of the author of the Six Sermons. It is as follows:— Mr. Storrs' physical and mental constitution is durable; he has considerable force and energy of character, with fortitude,firmness and perseverance. He thinks for himself, but is open to conviction; will not be forced, but may be persuaded.He is naturally confiding, but experience may have, to a considerable extent, corrected this predisposition to believe, confide in, or give credence to. He is a man of enlarged views, liberal sentiment, and a benevolent disposition. His object is truth, and this he strives to obtain, no matter at what sacrifice. He consults duty before expediency; and would sooner stand alone with truth, than go with the multitude and be in error; yet, he is not dogmatical in the advocacy of what he conceives to be the truth, but is rather persuasive, conciliatory and argumentative. He is a warm friend, a good companion, and an excellent counsellor. He takes comprehensive views of things, examines both sides of all questions of a scriptural character, and decides according to the weight of evidence. - While he uncompromisingly advocates what he believes to be truth, in opposition to this and past ages, he does not sit in judgment on his opponents, but leaves them in the hands of God, to whom they must give account, and unto whom they stand or fall. How convenient, that bumps on one's head could reveal just how good someone was at interpreting scripture. If phrenologists were such good judges of such things, one wonders why we didn't just make sure that the best religions were started by phrenologists themselves.
Russell, in 1913, wrote in the March 15 Watch Tower:
The Scriptures say that no man can come unto Christ except the Father draw him. (John 6:44.) The answer is that the drawing cannot be done through the Holy Spirit; for the world has not yet received that Spirit. The drawing power which the Almighty exercises over humanity is in different degrees. Some have a strong desire to worship God, others have a weak desire, and others have no desire at all. This difference is due to the shape of the brain. Mankind are born with differences in this respect.--Psa. 51:5. Beliefs like this must have informed some of the more racist statements found in early Watch Tower publications.
The July 15, 1907 Watch Tower included some interesting conclusions correlating the phrenology map with the layout of the Tabernacle:
Without claiming that Phrenology has reached a perfection of development--without claiming that any has learned to read accurately from the shape of the human skull the various traits of character therein represented, even while admitting that such a reading of character might be defective, and particularly so with those whose characters have been transformed by the renewing of their mind through the begettal of the holy Spirit--nevertheless we may admit that Phrenology so far as understood fully corroborates the picture given us in the arrangement of the Tabernacle of Israel surrounded by the camp. Thus:-- If we imagine the human skull as spread out flat, we find that the central part would correspond to the Tabernacle and its court; for in the very center of the head on top lies spirituality, and directly in front of it lies veneration. The latter organ would correspond well to the court, the former to the holy. As to enter the holies it was necessary to pass through the court, so to enter into a proper heart-appreciation of the spiritual things it is necessary that we enter in through veneration, reverence for God, which will lead us to worship him and to seek to know and to do his will. Surrounding these two central organs are others which correspond well to the different divisions of the tribe of Levi--the sacred tribe devoted to the service of God in the court and in the Tabernacle. These organs represent faith, hope, benevolence, conscientiousness, firmness, etc., and then outside of these again come the various organs of the mind, which have to do more particularly with earthly things. These, useful and valuable in themselves, all need to be controlled and guided from the center. Even as in the camp of Israel, the center, the Tabernacle, was not controlled by the tribes, but the tribes were controlled and guided from the Tabernacle. Thus all the talents and qualities of mind and body which we possess, and which are all represented in our brains, are all to be subject to and guided by our reverence for God and our spiritual perception of his will concerning us, which will is to be expressed primarily through the intermediary organs of benevolence, faith, hope, conscience, etc. It's ironic that the primary reason people like Russell went to phrenologists was to get their ego boosted, or for self-promotional reasons. At Russell's trial with his wife, he lost his case primarily because the judge agreed with Maria Russell that he had often acted with excessively arrogance. C.T.Russell's defense included the fact that he had seen two phrenologists, and both assured him that "he was deficient in self-esteem." So there! (See Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports, Vol. 37, p. 351)

Oh that. Wow, I thought it was some sort of cultish thing going on over in the US somewhere.
Right, so are you talking about the notion that the work done by active Bible Students prior to 1914 was like a preparatory work similar to that carried out the 1st century by John the Baptizer prior to Jesus appearance as the Messiah?
So of course they wouldn't be considered any more a "messenger [Gk. "angel"]" in a spirit creature sense than John was, although a group rather than an individual. I mean, anybody Jehovah sends with a message is an "angel" right? (Hag.1:13, Mal.2:7), although in English the word seems to be reserved for spirit creatures(apart from some references in Revelation).
So do you have a concern that this idea might have be subject to a sort of "scope-creep" in reverse and got funneled down into CTR as the messenger in some minds, a bit like the GB getting condensed out of all the anointed as the FDS?

We had a fairly recent Watchtower Study and a very recent Congregation Bible Study where it was claimed that Russell and his movement represented the larger fulfillment of the messenger [Gk. "angel"] of Malachi 3:1-4:
*** ws13 7/15 pp. 10-11 “Look! I Am With You All the Days” ***
A MESSENGER ‘CLEARS UP A WAY’
5 Long before Jesus gave the illustration of the wheat and the weeds, Jehovah inspired Malachi to foretell some of the same events. (Read Malachi 3:1-4.) John the Baptizer was the ‘messenger who cleared up the way.’ (Matthew 11:10, 11) The nation of Israel would be judged soon after John’s arrival in the year 29. Jesus was the second messenger mentioned in Malachi’s prophecy. He cleansed the temple in Jerusalem twice. The first time was at the start of his ministry, and the second was at the end of his ministry. (Matthew 21:12, 13; John 2:14-17) So the cleansing of that temple happened over a period of time. 6 What is the larger fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy? For many years before 1914, C. T. Russell and the brothers working with him did a work like that of John the Baptizer. Russell and unnamed associates are the LARGER fulfillment of Malachi, whereas John the Baptizer was therefore the SMALLER fulfillment when he cleared up the way for Jesus.
*** kr chap. 2 p. 14 pars. 5-6 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven ***
Who, though, was the other “messenger,” the first one mentioned at Malachi 3:1? This prophetic figure would be on the scene well before the Messianic King’s presence. In the decades before 1914, did anyone “clear up a way” before the Messianic King? 6 Throughout this publication, we will find answers to such questions in the thrilling history of Jehovah’s modern-day people. This history shows that in the latter part of the 19th century, one small group of faithful people was emerging as the only body of genuine Christians in a vast field of imitations. That group came to be known as the Bible Students. Those taking the lead among them—Charles T. Russell and his close associates—did, indeed, act as the foretold “messenger,” giving spiritual direction to God’s people and preparing them for the events ahead. Let us consider four ways in which the “messenger” did so.

I meant it is a case of: "Who are you to judge the house servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for Jehovah can make him stand." (Rom.14:4). And Jehovah actually does have  to make him stand now doesn't he, in view of the passage of time. (Not minimising Jesus's role in judgement of course).
For those who are still are followers of Charles Taze Russell though, there might be a need to elaborate on his foibles and eccentricities, but really, who would believe that gobbledegook element now anyway? Pyramidology and those Divine Plan of the Ages Charts? The Laodicean messenger? It's all a bit Ripley isn't it? Actually, I have met one Pyramidologist and one British Israelist who called himself a Rutherfordite (probably not enamoured by CTR actually), in the ministry, so they are out there, (I know some have a web presence, even contributing to this forum),  but that's it in all the years.
These antiquated ideas have a fascination of course, and I love learning about them. But they are a bit like phrenology surely? Although even this may still have a following? Actually, the theory of evolution seems to have some sort of connection with phrenology now I come to think of it......(Muse, muse....another post somewhere else I think).  
: 
 

That sentence might have just pinpointed the issue. Russell collected a body of teachings and promoted them with faith and vigor and a sense of urgency. Jehovah doesn't forget his work and the love he showed for him. Neither should we.
(Hebrews 6:10) For God is not unrighteous so as to forget your work and the love you showed for his name by ministering and continuing to minister to the holy ones. But we should not be trying to defend him as a person in such a way that we rationalize the false teachings. For most of my life I fell into the same trap of saying, yes he was wrong on this or that, but we can ignore it because of the greater good he did. I had to wonder why I am defending him as a person. He may or may not have been a good person, we can't judge. I believe that in the main he was a very good person. And when I had read through the old Watch Tower magazines, I realized that the majority of his work was still quite useful and valuable for Christians and would-be Christians. (As opposed to "The Finished Mystery" aka "The Seventh Volume," for example, for which the great majority of it is worthless and false.)
But we are not supposed to concern ourselves with Russell as a person, or defend him as if he were some kind of canonized saint. We should be concerned with the truth and "wholesomeness" of the teachings that we have basically inherited from the body of teachings he collected.
(1 Timothy 1:10) .and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching (1 Timothy 1:5-7) 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly.
One of the great problems, in my opinion, of course, is that when Bible Students and Watch Tower readers heard what Russell taught and thought, they might think: Russell might have many things wrong but who is to say?
For example(s): Russell copied and expanded upon some embarrassingly false beliefs about the value of the Great Pyramid to our faith. Russell copied and expanded upon some embarrassingly false beliefs about the times and seasons (eschatology), and built up a whole doctrine around a debate over words like "parousia" that had come up as a means to avoid admitting the complete failure of a false prophecy.
Now we may still agree with some of these teachings, but some of them were clearly wrong, and many Bible Students apparently accepted them without question: He might be wrong, but who is to say? But Jesus, in Revelation 2-3 had said that it was up to each of us to say: individual Christians and Christian congregations. Just as Paul said that even if it were apostles or angels who declared something not in line with the truth they had learned, THEY, as individuals were responsible to reject the teachings even of those who were called and seen as apostles.
(2 Corinthians 11:5) 5 For I consider that I have not proved inferior to your superfine apostles in a single thing. (Galatians 1:8 ) However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:17) 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was,. . . (Galatians 2:5, 6) 5 we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you. 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. (Revelation 2:2) . . .put to the test those who say they are apostles,. . . When Paul said: "O senseless Ga·laʹtians! Who has brought you under this evil influence . . .?" (Galatians 3:1) he knew it included some of the 12 original apostles of Jesus himself, or what we might call the "Governing Body" at Jerusalem. The Galatians were so enamored by their position and how they were so highly regarded, that Paul needed to remind them that even if it were an angel out of heaven, they shouldn't listen. Did Paul mean that everything that came out of Jerusalem and the teaching of the apostles was "evil"? Of course not! He just used it as an example to prove that they should have been more responsible to pick and choose as mature persons:
(Hebrews 5:12-14) 12 For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong. Today, we have the same issue. The "Governing Body" provides us with a wealth of valuable and nourishing spiritual food. They admit that they aren't inspired and that might even be wrong on some doctrines. But we generally go about with the attitude: They might be wrong on some things, but who's to say? In such a case, it's clearly our own faith, reasonableness and conscience that must come into play.
(1 Timothy 4:6-16) 6 By giving this counsel to the brothers, you will be a fine minister of Christ Jesus, one nourished with the words of the faith and of the fine teaching that you have followed closely. 7 But reject irreverent false stories. . . 15 Ponder over these things; be absorbed in them, so that your advancement may be plainly seen by all people. 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. . . .

This shouldn’t be surprising since Gerald seems to expand his research that doesn’t necessarily agree with the Watchtower, nor does it conform to critical peer review.

The Name of God will have differences by language, but by in large, the general understanding stands as Yahweh under the old and new refined language and Jehovah with all the language adjustment made to appeal to modern language.

http://realnewsrightnow.com/2017/02/pope-francis-orders-vatican-archives-reveal-gods-name-ending-centuries-secrecy/

By this standard, Gerard Gertoux brings nothing new to the table, and he is certainly not a scholar to be admired for his work. The Watchtower is clear in its understanding, and it has for a long time. What interested me? How mindful it is not to have this scholars information violated when it is done with the Watchtower literature at every turn.

I have recently, just today, communicated again with Gerard Gertoux requesting permission to quote extensive long passages from his book on this topic as a basis for a more in-depth forum discussion. The Amazon link to his book is here:
The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is pronounced as it is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah
A subset of that same material is also found here:
http://areopage.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Gertoux_UseNameEarlyChristians.pdf
Gerard Gertoux has responded that it would be better to use  https://www.academia.edu/14029315 as it is a free version that all of us can download, and it has no copyright.
Since this topic comes up now and then, under various topic headings, I hope that some might find it useful to understand the basics of his argument. He assumes a lot of background and expertise that many do not have, but the material is accessible enough so that we can all learn a lot about the topic and even about the related background material at the same time.
Out of respect for the author's wishes, let's not make extensive quotes from the book or the "areopage.net" link above except where fair use might allow. And even the "academia.edu" content should only be quoted in reasonable portions to the extent that it is needed for discussion. I have also mentioned to the author that I will do my best to keep the topic from devolving into a discussion of the Trinity. I will try to keep the discussion on topic, which also means that it should not become a free-for-all with critiques of the New World Translation or the persons who may have worked on it.
The topic will not revolve only around Gerard Gertoux's writing, but it's a good place to start. Feel free to bring in evidence from other authors and researchers if it is related to the questions. As a reminder the evidence we discuss should focus especially on the following questions:
Did Jesus and the apostles and disciples of the first century use the Divine Name? Did they read it aloud when they came to it in the OT Scriptures? Did they include it (and therefore expect it to be used aloud) in the writings of the NT? [And, of course, feel free to use the terms OT and NT as abbreviations for "Hebrew Scriptures" and "Christian Greek Scriptures" respectively.]

I have downloaded several that I never read. His papers on specific Bible-related chronology issues are interesting but I haven't completed them, and he keeps more papers coming.
A quick word on my own personal bias here. As I told the author: "I am very much aligned with your work on the topic. Naturally there are a few specific things I question, even if I end up with an overall conclusion that is generally like yours."
I think that when I bring up questions, just as I have on several issues coming from the WTS or GB, there are always a few persons who believe this is highly disrespectful, and they make it clear that to question the GB is tantamount to questioning God. Of course, I not only consider it our Christian obligation to question, it also serves the purpose of refining. Even the questioning by various sects helped refine Christian truth according to Paul.
(1 Corinthians 11:19) For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident. This fits the idea in Greek that testing is the same as refining.
(1 Peter 1:7) 7 in order that the tested quality of your faith, of much greater value than gold that perishes despite its being tested by fire,. . . The NWT in the footnote here says that "tested" could be translated as "refined."
So I propose we should put any argument through the fire. It's not a sign of disrespect for the author. (Abraham didn't think it was such a bad thing to question God!) It can mean just the opposite, that we are treating someone's words the way we would treat nuggets of newly found gold . . . to refine them and make sure that what holds up is pure. Mostly, however, I think we should question and test and put all ideas through the fire so that we can have a better understanding ourselves, and thus be better prepared to defend what we believe. (1 Peter 3:15)

Sweden is just exercising their right to challenge anyone they think is no conforming to the E.U. empowerment of gay rights.

While they can scrutinize the Watchtower, they will not be able to prove malice. We are in an age of religion being challenged by the far left that has embodied itself to atheism rather than a religious order. But why would it surprise anyone within the Watchtower organization, if these events are foretold?

LGBT people have the same human rights as all individuals, which include the right to non-discrimination in the enjoyment of these rights. This
principle is enshrined in numerous international instruments, providing
for a wide scope in its application. Specifically, at the global level, it is

embodied in Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) and Article 2 of the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (see Annex 1).
The EU unanimously supported the December 2008 United Nations
General Assembly (UNGA) Statement on human rights, sexual orientation
and gender identity

1
supported by 68 countries from five continents. The Statement reaffirms the principle of non-discrimination and condemns executions, arbitrary arrest or violations of human rights on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.


 
The same principle that is emerging in the U.S. Religion has been steadily being attacked since the millennials took over. 2000’s

The E.U will someday decide who is more beneficial. Christianity had a long run, So, now?

For now, just like article 26 give rights to gays? Article 9 give the same rights to religion. What the E.U. wants is a balanced approach by conscience.

In the meantime? Read up on all the sensational propaganda news.

UPDATE: Swedish POLICE launch preliminary INVESTIGATION in Jehovah's Witnesses anti-LGBT video from 2018 Regional Convention

A major front page headline and two page article in Sweden's Metro newspaper.
The Metro newspaper is a free newspaper that distributes 550,000-copies daily with a daily readership of some 1,153,000 people
http://www.tmnww.com/metro-network/metro-europe/metro-sweden
HBTQ = Homosexual, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer.
Defector: Jehovah's film dangerous to the children
Jehovah's Witnesses Show Movies That Disregard Children's HBTQ - Missing permission
I'm compared to pedophiles and killers - to the joy of the sect