Thinking

I think it was around 2018 when I read a news report about a meeting of ex-JWs and non-JW relatives of Witnesses. They met somewhere around Seattle. Several of the attendees supposedly gave reports of suicides among disfellowshipped and shunned teenagers. (And I think there were cases of suicides among those who had suffered sexual abuse either in the congregation or from Witness parents.)
I'm sure you are right that it was more than just the shunning that drove them to suicide, but they definitely were presenting a pattern that indicated shunning as a key factor. It was likely exaggerated somewhat, but the report indicated that shunning and suicide became kind of a theme, and there were about a dozen such cases mentioned. It's probably a serious enough problem that the WTS is right now trying to address this issue by making changes to the process of disfellowshipping teenagers.

Just an aside, but I find it curious that Daniel is praying about the 70 years and he is told that the greater fulfillment is not just 70 years but 70 WEEKS of years. But that 70 weeks is broken up into two pieces. A 49-year piece and a 434-year piece. 
(Daniel 9:24, 25) . . .“There are 70 weeks that have been determined for your people and your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, to finish off sin, to make atonement for error, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and the prophecy, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.  You should know and understand that from the issuing of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Mes·siʹah the Leader, there will be 7 weeks, also 62 weeks. She will be restored and rebuilt, with a public square and moat, but in times of distress.
I don't read too much into it, but there are some commentators who believe that this is a direct reference to the fact that Daniel recognized the Persians were ruling now, and the Temple had now been destroyed for 49 years (587 BCE to 538 BCE). The 62 weeks or 434 years could start counting after the completion of the rebuilding with a public square and a moat. 
Notice that the Insight book doesn't have anything more than conjecture about the 7 weeks:
*** dp chap. 11 p. 191 par. 21 The Time of Messiah’s Coming Revealed ***
The work was evidently completed to the extent necessary by about 406 B.C.E.—within the “seven weeks,” or 49 years. (Daniel 9:25) A period of 62 weeks, or 434 years, would follow.
Of course, starting from some time within the reign of Artaxerxes for the 434, (443 BCE?) plus the final 7 year week, this way of splitting the numbers can, at best, only reach about as far as the birth of the Messiah 2BCE/4BCE, not his arrival at baptism.
 
But then again, that might explain Herod's agitation and the magi looking for signs about that time.
Then again, someone could apply those 49 years to the completion of Herod's Temple:
(John 2:20) . . .“This temple was built in 46 years (from 18 BCE), and will you raise it up in three days?” 
But then again, what about those missing 3 years?
This is not a real suggestion below (for those 49-46=3 years), but, just for fun, it just shows that the possibilities are endless when you begin playing with chronology and "the mysterious numbers of the Jewish Temple." 
(Revelation 11:1-4) . . .And a reed like a rod was given to me as he said: “Get up and measure the temple sanctuary of God and the altar and those worshipping in it.  But as for the courtyard that is outside the temple sanctuary, leave it out and do not measure it, because it has been given to the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months.  I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy for 1,260 days dressed in sackcloth.” These are symbolized by the two olive trees and the two lampstands and are standing before the Lord of the earth.
 

Well … that clears THAT up! (???????)

Millions of lobsters worldwide are cheering.

A high academic standard, yes. He graduated from MIT. But he left a trail of insults on this forum that would make a sailor blush. And that was mostly in response to foolish goading from @scholar JWand back and forth escalations of insults between him and [username="César Chávez"], it's not like people were generally cursing at him and he was just responding in kind. 
"César Chávez" is still with us here by the way, under different user names. (For those who care, that apparently also includes the JW Closed Club, so far just as an auditor, not a participant.)

AlanF commented quite often on this forum when he was alive. He and @scholar JW had a history going back for many years —decades—according to scholar JW. Same with Ann O’maly whom scholar JW also appeared to have communicated with for many past years. 
I hated AlanF’s position on evolution and complete dismissal of much of Genesis but I appreciated that both he and Ann O’maly were much more knowledgeable about neo-Babylonian chronology that I am. By a long shot. They both corrected me publicly with good evidence on several mistakes I made here while learning the topic. I always appreciate corrections by anyone, even a "public reproof." 

Yeah, just like the prodigal son’s dad ran a broken home. If he hadn’t, junior would have never departed. 
I dunno. You mean that every obnoxious troll on the internet is underneath it all a gentle misunderstood soul? Haven’t you spoken disparagingly of George88 or some of his personas? Alan behaved worse than he. 
I’ll concede that all I know of the man is the persona he chose to display here. I think what really set me off is not that he came after me, but that he also laid into Arauna and Thinking for doing no more than defending the faith.

These days, tortured souls are a dime a dozen. Even I am that way. And, not to complain, but I don’t think I’m getting anywhere near the love here that I need.
 
Okay, now I see the reason for Aruana’s, Thinking’s and my trouble with Alan. We ‘refused to learn.’ That would make anyone furious.

There are some magnificent threads buried within. Probably, just typing ‘AlanF’ into the search box will bring up a few.
The trouble is, if you held to faith, you were one of those ‘stupid people’ to him. I detest these people who think they can muscle through on brainpower alone. “By their fruits you will know them,” holds no sway with them. Not saying anything of him personally, but you would think people would assess critical thinking by the world it has collectively produced. It has been the chief export of universities for some time now, and few world leaders are not university-equipped. 
Witnesses, on the other hand, though not without the minor mishaps stemming from being ‘earthen vessels,’ have achieved a peacefulness, unity, cohesiveness, that the world can only dream of. Pew Research says their membership (in the U.S.) is almost exactly 1/3 white, 1/3 black, and 1/3 Hispanic, with about 5% Asian thrown in. Translation: They have solved racism, the issue that is ripping this world apart, despite its educational advantage.
Brotherly love is a concept that works, but it does not stand well up to ‘reason,’ especially reason with evolution at its root. It is not a concept that lends itself well to ‘proof.’ The truths that are declared ‘self-evident,’ that ‘all men are created equal,’ are not at all self-evident to those evolution-based. What is self-evident to them is the 2001 Space Odyssey humanoid discovering he can beat the snot out of his competitor with a leg bone, whereupon he throws it into the air and out comes this spacecraft to Jupiter. 

Never in my life had I encountered a more unpleasant person than AlanF. He was fine if you acquiesced to him . . . but if you disagreed to any significant degree, he would launch incredible streams of non-stop insults. My greatest fear was that his cherished evolution teachings might be correct and that he was the end result. Without specifically naming him, (which would be mean) ‘In the Last of the Last Days’ tells of a voracious opponent whose headstone no doubt calls the cemetery caretaker a moron for supposing the surrounding flowers are creations of God. 
I didn’t like him very much.

Imagine a time when people no longer treat one another like animals. I know, it’s hard to fathom. After all, religion herself is the cause for many wars, causing strife and hatred that permeates mankind, but not for much longer. These manifestations will soon reveal themselves all over the world and is also known as the revealing of the Son of Man. This phase is the third and final phase known as the revelation phase of the Presence of Christ.
One would think that all of mankind would welcome such a wonderful environment but the majority of earth’s inhabitants will actually reject and fight against this revelation tooth and nail, for mankind’s inhabitants as a whole have become wicked and godless. We read:
But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. (2 Timothy 3:1-5) After reading this scripture, you may have gained discernment that we could already have come into this period of critical times and you will have assumed correctly. This time period has been prophesied about in the Bible to give righteous ones a heads up. This time period is also called a time of distress, a time of anxiety, the last days, or the last days of wickedness. We entered this time period in 1914 and we were warned about it from faithful men. One of those Biblical accounts is (Daniel 12:1) which reads:
During that time Michael will stand up, the Great Prince who is standing in behalf of your people. And there will occur a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book. Notice this period is a time of distress which means this period does not go on and on with the no end to them. They in fact do come and will come to an end. But a work would need to be done first. A warning and a witness would need to be given out on a global basis. A heads up as you will. “And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.” (Matthew 24:14)
The end that comes about is not the end of the earth, but rather then end of wickedness. This system of things is on its way out! Jesus Christ calmly stated, “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. For just as the days of Noah were, so the Presence of the Son of man will be.” (Matthew 24:36-37)
If you appreciated this witness about the Good News about God’s Kingdom, then I ask you to fill out this form for a Free Bible Study. The scriptures state, “And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book.” (Daniel 12:1)
That time is Now, the book which is also known as the Book of Life is the Bible. We invite you and your family to come into our interior rooms until the denunciation passes as the days of wickedness come to their end. Get the Answers you seek to keep on living into Christ Millennial Reign.
2034 and its significance…

…

Rotherham:
"Some have presented the notion that the Apostolic Decree to “abstain from blood” and the other abstinences mentioned were not commands for Christians to adhere to indefinitely, but were simply concessions made for the sensitivities of the Jewish populace among them. These ones appeal to 1 Corinthians 8 to prove this claim. We will take a closer look at this to determine the truth of the matter.

The topic in Acts 15 specifically addressed what some JEWISH Christians felt the Gentiles had to do to be saved. That WAS the backdrop of the entire conversation as is clearly spelled out in the first verse and the verses to follow. Follow it through and you will see this clearly demonstrated.

Notice the following that is interspersed throughout this chapter 15:
Verse 1: The supporters of the circumcision claim that Gentile Christians must be circumcised AND observe the Law of Moses in order TO BE SAVED.
Verse 2: The dispute escalates and they decide to take it to the Apostles and older men in Jerusalem.
Verse 5: Again the Jewish faction states it is NECESSARY for Gentiles to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses. In what sense were they using the word NECESSARY? In keeping with the context as established with verse one they were stating that is was necessary for their SALVATION to get circumcised and follow the Law of Moses.
Verse 11: Peter clarifies the Christian position regarding SALVATION which is through the undeserved kindness (grace) of the Lord Jesus.
Verses 23-29: After a decision is made regarding the issues, a letter is drawn up to inform the Gentiles what would be NECESSARY for them to do that had a bearing on the principles found in the Mosaic Law. Again, in keeping with the context, the word NECESSARY is used in regard to SALVATION as that is the entire backdrop to the dispute as is shown from verses 1, 5 and 11. To deny a connection with salvation is to deny the context.

At this point I would like to address further the claim that this is merely a command given out of regard for Jewish sensitivities. There are a number of things which speak against such a conclusion. First, as I have demonstrated, the backdrop of the discussion was SALVATION. How could it not be in regard to Acts 15:1, 5 and 11 in the immediate context?

Secondly, consider this: If such a command to abstain from things sacrificed to idols and things strangled and from blood was merely for the sensitivities of the Jews one could ask why the Apostles and older men did not recommend “circumcision” for Gentile Christians which was a MUCH MORE burning and divisive issue of that day? The circumcision issue was the CAUSE for the conference of the body at Jerusalem and the moving cause for writing the letter! There was strong opposition to the decree about circumcision by those Jews who falsely claimed to be Christian and insisted on staying under the Law. Notice the following passages: Galatians 5:3-6, 11, 12; 6:12-15; Romans 2:25-29; 4:9-12; Philippians 3:2-4. If anything should have been considered in regard to Jewish sensitivities it should have been that one, yet, why would the apostles conciliate them on the point of blood and things sacrificed to idols and raise greater opposition to circumcision, since we know that Paul in the very next chapter was willing to let someone BE CIRCUMCISED out of regard for the JEWISH SENSITIVITIES? (Acts 16:3) Surely, if the list in Acts 15 was merely for their sensitivities, circumcision would have been included since the next chapter shows how they handled circumcision in regard to Jewish sensitivities. With that considered and with the backdrop of the entire council being a connection with salvation, this should dispel the notion in anyone’s mind that it was not binding and lasting MORAL LAW. It WAS binding and lasting moral Law. The sensitivity argument does not fit the context and neither does the claim that the issues did not have to do with salvation.

Furthermore, consider the following information in Insight on the Scriptures under “Blood” (published by Jehovah’s Witnesses):
Noah and his sons were allowed by Jehovah to add animal flesh to their diet after the Flood, but they were strictly commanded not to eat blood. (Ge 9:1, 3, 4) God here set out a regulation that applied, not merely to Noah and his immediate family, but to all mankind from that time on, because all those living since the Flood are descendants of Noah’s family.

Concerning the permanence of this prohibition, Joseph Benson noted: “It ought to be observed, that this prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and all his posterity, and repeated to the Israelites, in a most solemn manner, under the Mosaic dispensation, has never been revoked, but, on the contrary, has been confirmed under the New Testament, Acts xv.; and thereby made of perpetual obligation.”—Benson’s Notes, 1839, Vol. I, p. 43. …
[The Apostolic] decree rests, ultimately, on God’s command not to eat blood, as given to Noah and his sons and, therefore, to all mankind. In this regard, the following is found in The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, by Sir Isaac Newton (Dublin, 1728, p. 184): “This law [of abstaining from blood] was ancienter [sic] than the days of Moses, being given to Noah and his sons, long before the days of Abraham: and therefore when the Apostles and Elders in the Council at Jerusalem declared that the Gentiles were not obliged to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, they excepted this law of abstaining from blood, and things strangled, as being an earlier law of God, imposed not on the sons of Abraham only, but on all nations, while they lived together in Shinar under the dominion of Noah: and of the same kind is the law of abstaining from meats offered to Idols or false Gods, and from fornication.”—Italics his.
…The Jerusalem council sent its decision to the Christian congregations to be observed. (Ac 16:4) About seven years after the Jerusalem council issued the decree, Christians continued to comply with the “decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication.” (Ac 21:25) And more than a hundred years later, in 177 C.E., in Lyons (now in France), when religious enemies falsely accused Christians of eating children, a woman named Biblis said: “How would such men eat children, when they are not allowed to eat the blood even of irrational animals?”—The Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius, V, I, 26.
Early Christians abstained from eating any sort of blood. In this regard Tertullian (c. 155-a. 220 C.E.) pointed out in his work Apology (IX, 13, 14): “Let your error blush before the Christians, for we do not include even animals’ blood in our natural diet. We abstain on that account from things strangled or that die of themselves, that we may not in any way be polluted by blood, even if it is buried in the meat. Finally, when you are testing Christians, you offer them sausages full of blood; you are thoroughly well aware, of course, that among them it is forbidden; but you want to make them transgress.” Minucius Felix, a Roman lawyer who lived until about 250 C.E., made the same point, writing: “For us it is not permissible either to see or to hear of human slaughter; we have such a shrinking from human blood that at our meals we avoid the blood of animals used for food.”—Octavius, XXX, 6.

Surely “fornication” was not being forbidden for the sake of Jewish sensitivities. It was forbidden absolutely, and the word “necessary” in verse 28 would certainly mean necessary in the same sense. The word “necessary” is applied equally to each thing in the list.

Fornication in ANY form would not only cause offense, but would be a death-dealing sin against God. Likewise with the rest of the list. The word “necessary” would not apply to one item in the list differently then it would apply to the rest.

Therefore, one of those things in the list is unquestionably a sin that if committed without repentance could cost us our salvation. What about the others though that are in that list? Do we see indication that those things are “sin” as well, or are they simply issues of sensitivity?

Let’s take a look at the very word that others use to establish that what was really spoken of was just a sensitivity issue and not a sin that could cost us our salvation. That word used is “eidolothuton,” generally translated as “things sacrificed to idols.” Also another very pertinent phrase that we must include in this examination is “alisgema eidolon,” generally translated as things “polluted by idols” or “pollution of idols,” found at Acts 15:20.

We will note first that the phrase “pollution” of idols in verse 20 is equated with the phrase “things sacrificed to idols” in verse 29. So, in this context, whatever was meant by the “pollution” of idols was also meant by what was stated in verse 29. It should also be noted that the word “meat” as is found in many translations of verse 29 does not occur there, which is a bit misleading to the overall context. The Greek word there used simply means “things sacrificed to idols.” There is no “meat” specified at all. So what was spoken of in verse 29 was a “pollution” of idols as is stated in verse 20, they being parallel statements.

Therefore, we are not just speaking of “things” sacrificed to idols but the “pollution” that those things would create, which seems a clear reference to the fact this is speaking of “idolatry,” and not just items that might serve as idols to the pagan mind. Do we have any other biblical evidence to help us appreciate that even the phrase “things sacrificed to idols” could be understood in a “forbidden” sense to ALL Christians? Not just for sake of sensitivity issues but because of direct idolatrous connection? Yes we do. In fact, one of those occurrences is in the very chapter that most refer to as the passage that supposedly waters down the Apostolic Decree to a mere sensitivity issue. But first, before coming to 1 Corinthians 8, let’s look at another passage which clearly equates the phrase “things sacrificed to idols” with “sin,” not just an issue of sensitivity.

In Revelation 2:14 and 2:20, it states in regard to the Pergamum congregation and the Thyatiran congregation that they were tolerating that woman Jezebel (obviously a symbolism for a Jezebel-like woman) and holding fast to the teaching of Balaam who leads them to “commit fornication” and to “eat things sacrificed to idols.” Both times the “eating of things sacrificed to idols” is listed with the undeniably deadly sin of fornication. Clearly, in these passages, the “eating of things sacrificed to idols” was the sin of “idolatry” that brought God’s condemnation to those congregations. This is undeniable when one looks up what happened in the incidents that are referred to in Revelation in connection with the teaching of Balaam. (Numbers 25:1-3, 31:15,16)
With it established that the phrase “things sacrificed to idols” and “eating things sacrificed to idols” can be a clear reference to “idolatrous practices”, it would be no wonder then that Acts 15:20 parallels “pollution” of idols with “things sacrificed to idols,” which both could clearly refer to idolatrous practices, especially the phrase involving the word “pollution.”
TrueTheology.net • View topic - Christianity and the Use of Blood

Of course they can, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to find exactly that all throughout the New Testament.
@Many Miles
You can do as you like. You can keep psychoanalyzing and doing apologetics, while making assertions that will get you nowhere. Or you can engage in good faith dialogue and actually show how they both can’t be true. 
I understand the Blood teaching is a life and death issue. I take it so serious even to the point of white martyrdom (disfellowshipped, insult, derision) and death. But I’m not going to take your word for it on how to go about seeking reform. The stakes are far too high. Especially with someone anonymous, who doesn’t attend public meetings, who hides his identity and can’t take responsibility for his words by allowing them to be connected with his personal identity.The sins of Heresy and Division are errors too serious to risk on the basis of a private judgment or a hermeneutical toss up between the Congregation’s doctrine and your interpretation of the Bible. 
One does not slice up the Body of Christ on a maybe. One would have to be absolutely certain that one is right, that the Congregation is wrong, and that schism from the Congregation is justified, because one will have to stand before the Bridegroom and give an account for having carved up His Bride into pieces, and for having influenced others to do so as well by one's actions and example, and because one's eternal salvation is at stake. I would not want to have to stand before the throne and answer for having perpetuated schism on the basis of mere uncertain speculation.
You can give up on your fellow Brothers like Bro. Hal Flemings and treat us with contempt. Or you can roll up your sleeves, and serve the Congregation, and help clean up the mess. Leaving the Congregation sets an example for others, that separating is permissible. In other words, separating only adds to the mess to be cleaned up, by creating a separation from the Congregation, and by creating a scandalous example to others, that division is ok when the going gets tough. In our fast food era, we want everything to be better, right now. But have to be prepared to live our whole lives, serving the Congregation in faithfulness, seeking reform, without seeing the changes we’d like to see. That’s because ultimately, it is not about us, or what we want, or what fulfills us.
 

@Many Miles No. In very simple terms the Congregation cannot teach whatever she wants. And certainly cannot teach that the Old Covenant is somehow still valid or that we can be saved by it.
We already said that she cannot contradict the faith that has been handed down.
Cannot contradict the Good News that were once and for all established.
Cannot contradict the primary teachings: Hebrews 6:1,2.
Cannot contradict the core teachings.
Cannot command us to violate our conscience.
There are numerous explicit statements and teachings within the Bible.Such as: Jesus Christ is the Son of God. God is Almighty. God is the Creator. Jesus Christ died and was resurrected. Jesus Christ provided the ransom for the salvation of mankind. If the Governing Body came out and stated that the scriptures are no longer considered inspired of God or that Jesus Christ was not resurrected, that would be clear and defined stand against what the scriptures teach. That would be apostasy, and naturally any Bible believing Christian would walk away from an organization that would promote such and idea, and rightfully so. To do so would immediately disqualify them from any claim of being the body of Christ for that could not be the result of God’s spirit upon them, but rather the opposite.

I hear you. Here's where I'm coming from. In 1 Corinthians 9:9, for example, Paul says, “For it is written in the Law of Moses: “You must not muzzle a bull when it is threshing out the grain.” Obviously, Paul is not saying that the Mosaic law concerning oxen still has legal force, rather, Paul is merely extracting the Mosaic principle of providing for the needs of the worker, in this case, the preacher of the Good News. Likewise, I'm saying that whatever law is cited or practiced today in Christianity, whether it is natural law, Mosaic law, etc., it is only because the Congregation, under its own legal authority, decided to incorporate those particular principles into the New Covenant.  At the present time, the Old Covenant’s purpose is to serve as a model, a precedent, a teacher, for the divine principles that will be needed to allow the New Covenant to function as efficiently as it possibly can. But there is only one covenant that has legal force, that can save and condemn and that Jehovah recognizes today.

There is only one covenant that has legal force, that can save and condemn. There's a difference between obeying the law within the system of undeserved kindness and system of law (Judaic Law). As a Witness I assume you believe and hold to the official position of the Congregation's understanding about faith and works and the Good News, Justification and Salvation. Do you? If not, I fail to see how you identify as a Jehovah's Witness.
I think I said that whatever law is utilized, it will be legalized and controlled by the New Covenant, not the Old. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point, I fail to see based on what I have said how it stands condemned? Can you restate your point?

I found it super interesting to see the unearthed walls of Nineveh.... 
I remember seeing the Assyrian burnt walls in the Louvre as well years ago.
Agape!
p.s. - I'll try to link this up to Jonah chapter 1 one of these days somehow.

It's 1:30 AM and I just got back from NYC and realized what I had done. My apologies for starting this post outside the JW Closed Club. I was in that club and clicked "start a new topic" although I now vaguely recall that I probably had to start the new topic a second time because I had accidentally clicked off the page, due to an oversensitive trackpad that sometimes thinks I am clicking something just because my thumb gets too close to it.
Anyway, I will be restarting this topic under the JW Closed Club. Sorry about that BillyTheKid59 and your doppelganger, Alphonse. 

- I personally would also love to hear from some brothers/sisters and their daily struggles in other lands.... and how they are overcoming them.  Sharing practical ideas might help us all. 
- Thx for sharing your post / ideas @JW Insider as always.

I'd like to ramble a bit about the Watchtower Study linked here:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-november-2023/You-Can-Remain-Confident-During-Uncertain-Times/
I'm often too critical, but I thought this one was excellent. I'll try to include a balance of some things I thought about and some things I questioned along with the reasons I thought it was excellent.
It's a great way to introduce a past example from the Bible by tying it to our own experiences today, and they managed to include everyone with the opening:
DO YOU at times worry about the future? Perhaps you have lost your job and you worry about providing for your family. You may be concerned about your family’s safety because of unstable political conditions, persecution, or opposition to the preaching work. Are you facing any of these issues?
One thing I thought about first was how Babylonian Exile was presented as a punishment, just as the destruction of the Temple and removal from their land was a punishment. Still it was better than death, and Jeremiah had warned his countrymen that they should put themselves under the Babylonian yoke for safety because this destruction/devastation/desolation was coming no matter what.
Yet, historically, it turned out pretty well for a lot (most?) of the Jews who were taken captive. They did well for themselves. Started businesses, etc. And when it came time to leave, they didn't want to go, mostly because (evidently) they were doing fine economically and the move would be an economic hardship:
It took faith on the part of the Jews who had lived in Babylon all their lives to leave behind a comfortable lifestyle and travel to a country that most of them knew very little about.
You don't often think of captivity and exile as "comfort." 
Clearly, the importance of going back was to re-establish a center for pure worship of Jehovah. That was the priority of the prophets, Ezra and Nehemiah and later the scribe, Ezra. 
When they arrived, it was not long before they were affected by unstable economic and political conditions as well as opposition. Some therefore found it hard to focus on rebuilding Jehovah’s temple.
With the focus on "Remaining Confident" one might have thought this would be another article on showing confidence in Jehovah's Organization and the FDS. Not that we don't need some reminders in that regard now and then, but this did NOT focus on the leaders, it focused on the "people" the "rank and file" as it were. When the leaders are mentioned it's mostly about their encouragement and example -- and the people's response. Not about the importance of obedience. 
the encouragement given by these prophets proved to be very effective. Nearly 50 years later, however, the returning Jews again reached a low point. Ezra, a skilled copyist of the Law, then came from Babylon to Jerusalem to encourage God’s people to give priority to true worship.
More to follow.... later. . . . I just discovered I have to go somewhere.

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,

Hopefully, the publishing of Governing Body Update 2023-8 on December 15, 2023 about beards will help heal some great injustices that have taken place over the last 80 plus years in the Congregations, and usher in an era of much needed and long overdue reforms. 
I am glad to have lived long enough to see it happen, where Liberty is proclaimed throughout the Earth.
In his second inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1865, during the final stages of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln emphasized unity and reconciliation. He famously stated, "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds." The address reflected Lincoln's commitment to healing the nation and rebuilding after a divisive conflict.
May we do the same.
When I saw the picture of Bro. Jackson with the goatee, I did not think it was fake.  I thought it looked good, and set a good example that Update No. 8 greatly needed to overcome 80 plus years of, as was admitted, unscriptural policy.

I was thinking how (I mean I don't know because I'm not privy to the GB's private thoughts, but I can imagine them being frustrated at) some who have the desire to worship the organization.
Reminds me of this scripture:
"...But when the apostles Barʹna·bas and Paul heard of it, they ripped their outer garments and leaped out into the crowd, crying out and saying: 'Men, why are you doing these things? We too are humans having the same infirmities as you have. " Acts 14:8-18

In France it could be known as the Day the Beardstile fell.
 
Maybe if they are doused with water they will melt away like the wicked witch, leaving the rest of us frrreeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!! 
Then you would not be so sad and could instead be happy.
Next thing you know, my spiritual life will have come round full circle, back to ‘Be good so you can go to heaven when you die and meet the Man Upstairs.’