Thinking

Sloppy sloppy. Where do you get your quotations? The above quote is a lie. Here's the actual quote:
*** w68 8/15 p. 499 par. 30 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes. Our chronology, however, which is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible), at the best only points to the autumn of 1975 as the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence on earth. It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the “sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the “seventh day.” And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.
 

I was just thinking of that expression "Jehovah allowed it." You might think it flippant for me to say, Jehovah also allowed the Holocaust. But, I once hired a consultant who was a Jewish rabbi, and who also had some specific IT skills we needed. His conversations about religion were usually guarded, but I asked him if he thinks that so many Jews are either atheist or agnostic because of the Holocaust. He said that ha-Shem (God) allowed it as a test to see who would still have faith. To me, that sounded rather distasteful, and I don't know if it's a common belief among Jews. In one sense, we almost have to believe that it's partly true of all bad things that Jehovah allows, but what kind of a test is that?
I think we should still fall back upon the idea that we are all imperfect and not to be trusted, and yet, if an individual or group will gather in Jesus' name to accomplish a ministry with the right heart condition, then their effort will be blessed. And I think that what proved a right heart condition among Russell and early Bible Students included the desire not to kill fellow humans (no war) the desire to see Jehovah as a real approachable and understanding, loving person (no Hellfire, no Trinity), and a desire to spread the good news of the Kingdom. To the extent that this desire was motivated by love, the work was blessed. This blessing is manifested especially in the fact that it attracts more persons of like motivation. 
The failures and imperfections aren't really "tests" so much as they are the natural interaction among highly imperfect persons. True Christianity is set up this way so that our own motivations are made manifest by how we see the conduct and faith of others working out, and our desire to apply spiritual growth in our own lives. It's the idea of pressing on to maturity, chewing solid food, and leaving the milk behind. Yet there are always some of us who are still more comfortable and satisfied with the "milk," and there are always some who will be serving "milk" instead of "solid food." The GB serve both. No matter where we are on this food maturity spectrum, we should be welcoming to all the others no matter where they are on that food spectrum. -- And then, what some obsess over as items of solid food, thinking these are "deep things of God," are probably the milkiest of all.
The most solid food of all, for the most mature, is simply love out of a purely motivated heart.
(1 Timothy 1:4, 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.

For the life of me I do not understand why you are so harsh with regard to my books. They are 100% loyal, entirely devoted to defending the faith from attacks.  
I am not that bad Shultz who teams up with a non-believer. I am not that bad JWI who signals nonalignment with several current beliefs. 
I honestly don’t understand it. You have at least Tom Irregardless and Me. I know you do because I gave you a copy and at the time you were very gracious over it.
What changed?

The problem with apostate literature is that the people that read it, the great majority, do not have the background or analytical skills that most of us here on this forum have.
When I read the book “ 30 Years a Watchtower Slave” l had sufficient experience and background to understand the fallacies of the assumptions and therefore the fallacies of the conclusions that the author drew.
For example, he recounted that before World War I that (paraphrased) “ … the teachings of the Watchtower were taking over all of Europe, and especially Germany … but FORTUNATELY World War I intervened …”.
WOW!
To me, that was encouraging that JWs did in fact have “The Truth”.
If the Watchtower had been successful, perhaps there would have been no World War I … but the author preferred the war.

I think you are right. This was the main issue that the "Stand Fasters" publicized. The Watchtower and Rutherford said that there was no problem in buying War Bonds, because it showed we were "friends" with the United States.
But I notice the date on the pamphlet you posted. January 1919. So this was also just about the exact same time when the Watchtower had declared its basic "support" for the League of Nations. In effect, the Watchtower was calling it 'the political expression of God's Kingdom on earth." Naturally they didn't think it in any way "replaced" God's Kingdom, but thought of it as a kind of expression of God's Kingdom because it had the same shared purpose and goals. The February 1919 Watchtower said:
“We cannot but admire the high principles embodied in the proposed League of Nations, formulated undoubtedly by those who have no knowledge of the great plan of God. This fact makes all the more wonderful the ideals which they express. For instance, it has been made plain by President Wilson and the advocates of his ideas that the proposed League of Nations is more than merely a league to enforce peace. They would not have us consider it to exclusively from the standpoint of politics or of military relations. It should be considered as fully from the economic and social points of view. The President’s idea seems to be that the League of Nations which he proposes would stand for world service rather than mere world regulation in the military sense, and that the very smallest of nations shall be participants in its every arrangement. In other words, his idea undoubtedly is that the league shall not be established merely for the purpose of promoting peace by threat or coercion; but that its purpose, when put into operation, will be to make all nations of earth one great family, working together for the common benefit in all the avenues of national life. Truly this is idealistic, and approximates in a small way that which God has foretold that he will bring about after this great time of trouble.” — Watch Tower,  February 15, 1919,  p.51
l have seen it pointed out that it was also a crazy coincidence that the Watchtower was here "wondering admiringly" at the League, even using the same words about its "wonderful" expressions and that we cannot but "admire" it's high principles. This was an unfortunate use of words when we consider that the 1984 New World Translation translated Revelation 17:8, purportedly about the same League of Nations, as follows:
(Revelation 17:8)  The wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss, and it is to go off into destruction. And when they see how the wild beast was, but is not, and yet will be present, those who dwell on the earth will wonder admiringly, but their names have not been written upon the scroll of life from the founding of the world.
The Stand Fasters claimed that Rutherford's attitude and words were compromising toward the world and its politics.

I think that part of the problem is that apostates are driven by a variety of motivations, and there is therefore a wide range of quality in their work. I have never heard of this book by Casarona, but from what you have shared, it seems to be the kind of book you could thumb through very quickly and reject as one of those that grasps at straws and just presents anything negative without doing much research, merely copying the worst claims he has heard about.
For example, Richard Wheelock did not jump from a third floor factory window as so many people think. He jumped from a window in the Towers Hotel. He had been suffering from depression from many years before this happened. He had even threatened suicide going as far back as the time when his fiance, Audrey Mock, left him to marry Brother Knorr.
It's stupid to blame the Society directly for factory accidents. These are usually human error. There are probably only a very few cases where legal liability might have reached "to the top." But it would be rare to get credible public knowledge of such events, because it would be rare for the family of a Bethelite to make a case against the entire Watchtower Society for a wrongful death. I can't imagine my own parents even thinking of such a thing if anything had happened to me there.
Yes, there were suicides even when I was there, but only two, I think. The numbers of Bethelites were greatly increased in the 1970s and there was a thought going around that congregation elders were purposely encouraging Bethel service to young brothers whom they termed "damaged goods." They thought that the spirituality at Bethel would fix them. In some cases it was evidently mental issues stemming from sexual abuse catching up to them. And we'll never really know what it was in this lifetime.
It appears that those were your words, not Casarona's. If so, I don't think it's fair to try to judge the faith of someone who suffers from deep bouts of depression. For all we know it was confident faith in the resurrection that motivated his suicide.
I do think, of course, that some ex-JWs, non-JWs, and apostates are definitely out to give Bethel, or the Watchtower Society, a bad review. But no matter their motive, I think we also need to look at the quality of their research. I remember when Jim Penton wrote a book about the history of the persecution of Witnesses in Canada. It was considered an excellent book and was available in the Bethel Library. Penton was considered an excellent historian and of course there was pride in that a professor or PhD had written such a good book. The Watchtower even said:
*** w77 1/1 p. 11 Insight on the News ***
“A Debt of Gratitude”
● Writing in the Toronto “Star” of October 4, 1976, Stuart Shaw mentions the book “Jehovah’s Witnesses in Canada: Champions of Freedom of Speech and Worship,” by James Penton, associate professor of history at the University of Lethbridge. Shaw explains that it discusses the intense persecution of the Witnesses in that country from 1939 to 1956, “first at the instance of the federal government and then at that of the government of Quebec.” . . .  Referring to the recent book, however, and shedding some light on the underlying cause, Shaw comments: “Penton argues convincingly, citing official correspondence and documents of the period, that the real reason was entirely different. The King government was under heavy clerical pressure—from the Roman Catholic Church in particular, but also from some Protestant clergymen—to suppress these ‘heretics.’”
Of course, when Penton later criticized certain aspects of the organization, he was disfellowshipped, and suddenly his books, even if they were better researched, were no longer argued convincingly, and he had somehow turned into a sloppy historian. 
I think that motivations and biases can be important to understand, but mostly it's about the quality of research and presentation of evidence. And sometimes we might have to ignore some conclusions a researcher might draw from the evidence, but still find the presentation of evidence itself valuable. 
Also, if no one finds anything specifically wrong with a book or research, or makes no attempt to counter the evidence, then it is probable that they are just complaining about the person BECAUSE the evidence itself is too strong to deal with.

as though that doesn’t happen anywhere else.
as though everyone else celebrates when their wife dies.
Whatever her influence once was, she’s been dead for several years. Her death preceded the release of Volume II. As to parameters, I’m not versed enough in the history to know what they might be.
In the 70s some touring Bethel brother presented a few clips from the PhotoDrama of creation at the Blue Cross Arena [then the Rochester War Memorial]. I was struck by how it appeared to be his own project and that otherwise Bethel would have let the film disintegrate through neglect. Not that anyone was ashamed of it. It was just that they were forward looking and didn’t do much to preserve history. The tone of his remarks was that he had to sort through the basement, or the attic, to assemble what he had, which was not in good shape and soon would have vanished.
The release of the Proclaimers book seemed to signal a shift from neglect of the past to cherishing ‘our spiritual heritage.’ Nothing wrong with that, in my view. It was as though, after assembling the yearbook material for 74 and 75 (Germany and US) it occurred to the brothers, seemingly for the first time, that if they didn’t start preserving records of the past it would soon be lost forever.
Maybe that’s why Rud can find an audience for his expensive book (I should take lessons from him in commanding a price); there’s a relative dearth of official historical material. It’s not my field of interest, but I recognize everyone wants to tell their own story and relate their own ‘expertise.’ As for me, I say, ‘If you have to go back 100 years to dig up dirt, there can’t be too much dirt to dig.’ Alas, they have modern-day allies, who endeavor to dig it up —some would say ‘concoct’—in the present too.

I agree with Thinking 100%.
Well …. The first paragraph….. not the second paragraph.
I know Bethel is totally hosed, and know at least all the things Thinking knows about the specifics … perhaps even more. I knew these things 40 years ago, when my children were born at 3 year intervals.
Knowing all these things, I recognized that Jehovah’s Witnesses are probably the best bet mankind has to serve God.
Yeah, “new light” is often a joke, and embarrassing to see taught, but ALL THE OTHERS ARE WORSE.
I explained all this to my 3 children in detail when they were young … and encouraged them to full theocratic activity  …. Bethel, pioneering, overseas work … the list is extensive …. anyway!  
 
Of COURSE they viewed me as a rebellious apostate for giving them all that background information, but each of their lives has turned out demonstratively better than my own.
I suppose that is the wish of every parent.
Yeah … Bethel is a nut house, run by nuts … but many men join the Marines, knowing all there is that is wrong with it before they sign up …. and do it anyway!
Apparently Jehovah puts up with a lot of crap about theology, caring more about obedience and a pure heart, than   getting details entirely correct.
I think Jesus said something about that when some group was teaching “Jesus”, and it was not the Apostles, and Jesus said (paraphrased), “leave them alone, those that are not against us are for us …”, or something like that.
 

They have their own standards. It’s not so much humility as it is meeting their standards. Their club consists of published authors and/or scholars with advanced degrees.. I can spin a good story, self publish with typos, shift the gem to see things from a different perspective, but am not really in their league. There has been someone saying he will try to gain me admittance but I’m not holding my breath. If I did gain admittance I am not sure I would participate much. I’m not sure my advocate has the stature to recommend a new member anyway. He talks a good game.
I’m not overly impressed with ‘scholars’ anyway. It’s not the ‘greater gift.’ It’s a fine addition if you have the greater gift down pat but comes across as a little pretentious if you don’t. The twelve were not scholars. Paul (who was) said a Christian should be “a workman [not a professional] with nothing to be ashamed of,” thus choosing his words to favor the non-scholars. God arranged that his son should be born in the Bethehem Manger, not the Jerusalem Hyatt. He could have chosen the latter; he knows a lot of people. But he didn’t.
I don’t think these humble roots are embarrassing shortcomings to pull oneself up by one’s bootstraps from, which is how they are usually presented. I think they are permanent indications of the ones who God chooses. As soon as people fancy themselves ‘scholars’ they are inclined to get too big for their pants. They start to think, as did Rud, “The Branch wouldn’t dare mess with me!” In time they bluster around like Alan F, calling anyone who disagrees a ignoramus.
Have the greater gifts down pat and scholarship is fine. You need scholarship. I get that. But the guys that are topheavy with it wear me out.
I have one of his too. So far as I am aware he does have the greater gifts down pat. He writes Bethel in connection to his research and to a reasonable degree they cooperate. As he is reaching advanced years with poor health he donates rare literature to them. I’m glad he does the work he does. Somebody has to. I’m glad it is him. But I would never have the patience to put something like that together.
They sent a copy of their work to Bethel, to no comment, and his non-Witness niece speculated that Bethel “is incurious as to its own beginnings.” By and large I think that is true. They don’t look behind too much. They look forward.

Yes we do, we definitely think it all through.

Sometimes I wonder if Jehovah allows these things to see who will follow man and who will have worked on their faith hard enough to to see thru this…bit like when Aaron built the golden calf and many even tho they demanded it were prepared to get all excited and party over it….where as others quietly stood back knowing it wasn’t right….actually I dont know if they quietly stood back as I would imagine Kaleb and Joshua have at least something to say about it….but been respectful of Aaron’s position I suppose…….there always seems to be these tests of following men or Our God…and again as Anna I don’t mean their excellent biblical advice…just these odd things of comparing themselves to prophets etc..
sorry JWI we seem to have derailed your and Wally’s communications 

It’s okay JWI…I hadn’t actually finished my comment when I posted…and I’m just grateful the teaching has been changed….Jesus was a stumbling block for his own people…..and I beleive the organization at times has been like that with their own…a stumbling block.".the sadness of it at times is just overwhelming for those who dont survive.

Exaggeration is not something invented by ex-JWs. I would not be surprised if some biblical texts are exaggerated in their description of events. Exaggeration or alteration of the description sometimes comes when things are retold. And this is often the case in this human activity, regardless of origin.
GB has often dealt with interpretations of the biblical text relating to Jesus' statements. And they used just this kind of parameter and premise you mentioned: It is like this: "We, GB, know what Jesus meant when he said this or that. It is therefore important that you now believe what we have changed in our interpretation." :))
 

Not particularly well-veiled. The problem as I see it is that it emboldens those who are already tyrants and bullies. When these become elders, they encourage more of the same cult-like behavior. I'm suspicious of anyone who is inclined to think of himself or any other human more than it is necessary to think. It's the same with the obsessive interest in the historical lint of the organization. If you want to do this with the actual bible, bible history, biblical archaeology and apologetics, then great! But this poking around the septic tank of the organization is unhealthy and unwholesome.

Just to clarify a few things. I am not averse to cooperating with instructions. That is not what I am talking about at all. And I am very appreciative of the constant reminders in WT studies, talks etc. which help us to remain in pure worship. Very grateful for it, and I think the GB are doing an excellent job. And our family does have a backpack ready (ha!)
What really irritates me though is this constant need to harp on about the reason to obey now .....the reason being that if we get used to obeying now,  it will mean our salvation in the future when we have to obey this one last instruction (whatever "impractical" thing that will be) to get saved. That is wrong. It's like a veiled threat. 

What gets me is when we keep going on about obeying instructions in order to survive Armageddon. This weekends WT study mentioned it agaiin....comparing the GB to Joshuah and Zerubabel. (Otherwise the study was very good). "Sometimes God’s people received direction that did not appear to be practical from a human standpoint but turned out to be lifesaving". 
The WT gave a couple of current examples....just stopping short of mentioning getting vaccinated against covid (thank goodness).
Are we not putting too much emphasis on the organization being the saving power, in other words our salvation being dependent on instructions coming from imperfect men? Whereas salvation is clearly going to come from Jesus, and we may be anywhere doing anything when Jesus saves us. Or is the mark for survival from the secretaries ink horn contingent on having our backpack ready or hunkering down somewhere?? As if Jesus cannot save us uless we listen to these types of instructions. I always thought the criterion was dependent on pure worship. This whole life we live is a test of our loyalty to Jesus and Jehovah. Everything we do today and tomorrow, the choices we make with respect to pure worship is what places that mark on our foreheads. And after all these tests we encounter every day, then there will be another test to see how obedient we are to the GB?? Give me a break! Past Bible examples do show that there were certain procedures the people had to follow in order to survive, BUT the situation at Armageddon will be incomparable, it cannot be said to parallel any other situation before then. I don't know why we keep obsessing that it is the same. It's like regurgitating types and anti types again....drawing parallels where there are none.

Are you kidding me? Who can tolerate that stuff?
Everyone but me, apparently. It’s my bad, I know. But whether it was right or wrong, it’s 100 years old and we’ve long since moved on, either building upon or discarding it. 
I’m glad there are people who take interest in the old stuff, and I won’t say I don’t have any. Yes, I did recently purchase it at the eclectic book store. Yes, I did issue an off-the-cuff remark to Srecko that’d I’d finish it and get back to him. But there are just too many things of higher priority to me.
It’s a little like when Minh offered me a treat he really really enjoyed and it was horrible. “I do like it,” I told the hopeful fellow, “it’s just like I like other things more.”
I may get to it someday, about the same time I read Rud’s book.

It was stated by a bethel brother at an assembly…we were quiet relieved to hear it..it was when they were asking us if we had kept up with the changes…that was one of them….2006 is old news now.
Also brother Luchiani ( however you spell it )  gave a very recent talk on …only Jesus knows who will be saved…it was a excellent talk…you could tell he was reminding us…it wasn’t as blatant as the talk at the assembly and that talk was well after 2006 
Yes I still hear some talks given saying our life will depend on our loyalty to the org…..but I have never heard them equate the org with the ark since that assembly talk..
just on a side note I know it’s an organization but personally I prefer Gods people to organization…..the Israelites were GODS PEOPLE….the Jews were GODS PEOPLE…..The Christian’s were GODS PEOPLE….perhaps it’s something that’s just me…a little bit of a quirky thing,

It’s okay JWI…I hadn’t actually finished my comment when I posted…and I’m just grateful the teaching has been changed….Jesus was a stumbling block for his own people…..and I beleive the organization at times has been like that with their own…a stumbling block.".the sadness of it at times is just overwhelming for those who dont survive.

It was stated by a bethel brother at an assembly…we were quiet relieved to hear it..it was when they were asking us if we had kept up with the changes…that was one of them….2006 is old news now.
Also brother Luchiani ( however you spell it )  gave a very recent talk on …only Jesus knows who will be saved…it was a excellent talk…you could tell he was reminding us…it wasn’t as blatant as the talk at the assembly and that talk was well after 2006 
Yes I still hear some talks given saying our life will depend on our loyalty to the org…..but I have never heard them equate the org with the ark since that assembly talk..
just on a side note I know it’s an organization but personally I prefer Gods people to organization…..the Israelites were GODS PEOPLE….the Jews were GODS PEOPLE…..The Christian’s were GODS PEOPLE….perhaps it’s something that’s just me…a little bit of a quirky thing,

It’s okay JWI…I hadn’t actually finished my comment when I posted…and I’m just grateful the teaching has been changed….Jesus was a stumbling block for his own people…..and I beleive the organization at times has been like that with their own…a stumbling block.".the sadness of it at times is just overwhelming for those who dont survive.

We can always trust that Jehovah is righteous and his judgments are righteous. When all things are made new, the old will be forgotten. And I don't think we know enough about who will and won't survive anyway.

I wasn't trying to beat round the bush. I agree that a lot of damage was done to many. For example, my father and his two sisters (my aunts) received the Children book in person at the St. Louis assembly. The Children book made my father and his two sisters reconsider marriage and having children, because it made having children in this system appear untheocratic, even unchristian. My father of course decided to marry and have children, but my two aunts did not have any children, and in later years they were both quite sad about having followed these "instructions from the Lord."
In 1950, the Watchtower was already loosening up on those instructions, as you can see from a Watchtower article that year, but still with the remaining implication that if you want "perfect" children, you should wait:
*** w50 6/1 p. 176 Letter ***
The flood was a real physical catastrophe to the old ungodly world. The Battle of Armageddon will be likewise a physical catastrophe to this present evil world, and not something just spiritual. The ark of salvation that we enter is not a literal ark but is God’s organization; and as for Noah’s family’s not having children while in the ark, if the “other sheep” class’ now having natural children in the “ark” condition vitiated the picture of the childlessness of the ark’s occupants, then the anointed remnant’s having natural children now would also vitiate the “ark” picture or type. But it does not. Children born now are not born in fulfillment of the divine mandate reissued. When God reissued this mandate to marry and reproduce to Noah after the flood (Genesis 9:1, 7) the mandate was fulfilled in a typical way by a token fulfillment, 70 (10 X 7) generations being listed in Genesis, chapter 10, as springing from Noah and his sons. In the same way the fulfillment of the divine mandate reissued after Armageddon will be, not by crowding it with inhabitants to the saturation point, but by a token fulfillment that will allow for the resurrection of the dead with plenty of room for these resurrected ones. Thus, as pointed out in the Watchtower article “The Apostle’s Counsel on Wedlock”, February 1, 1947, page 45, column 2, footnote, God will show that he can have the divine mandate fulfilled in a very literal way in vindication of his world and he will give a faithful demonstration of its fulfillment. Those having part in its fulfillment will still ‘serve God in his temple day and night’ (Rev. 7:15), they will fulfill Deuteronomy 6:7 as to bringing up their children, and their children will fulfill Ephesians 6:1-3 as to obeying their parents, in the same way that the anointed remnant and their children are instructed to obey these divine commandments.

I agree, one should at least get a warning that one is overstepping the line.  I myself have overstepped the line I set for myself, so I can feel for you.  I think it happens when someone specifically was badly targeted in an abusive way for a period of time and the victim said something on the thread itself.  It need not necessarily be a private complaint. 
So I hope you can continue here and be your normal  self. ...even if we do not always agree. 

Did he or did he not change the understanding that the ark no longer represented Jesus and baptism to meaning the ark represented the organization?