Patiently waiting for Truth

Oh this is lovely  .  Basically saying "We have to continue to tell lies otherwise we loose the congregation". 
A core doctrine that is a deliberate lie.  Oh they of little faith. 
Didn't it ever come to mind about Jesus saying "Unless you drink my blood and eat my flesh ...... "  Shock happens, but when faith is strong then the faithful remain. 
Worried about being d/fed. Worrying about the 'flock' not having enough to 'fall back on'.  Absolutely no faith what so ever. 

What gross misuse of scripture. You are here pretending that the whole CCJW / JW Org ARE the Body of Christ by deliberately misusing scripture.   That is sick in the worse possible way. 
You people really do not understand that the scriptures were written for the True Anointed. 
This means the Body of Christ, NOT the Organisation.  No division in Christ's body of 144,000. 

Yep. Seriously. Are you saying that God through Christ made the Watchtower leaders deliberately tell lies to test people's faith in ???? whom ?  
So what exactly were JWs to think about ALL the failures ?  You are just having a laugh here.  You know it was the Watchtower leaders that were just putting their own interpretation on scripture because they were not, and are not, inspired by God's Holy Spirit. 
 

What gross misuse of scripture. You are here pretending that the whole CCJW / JW Org ARE the Body of Christ by deliberately misusing scripture.   That is sick in the worse possible way. 
You people really do not understand that the scriptures were written for the True Anointed. 
This means the Body of Christ, NOT the Organisation.  No division in Christ's body of 144,000. 

I am so tired of these idiots who think building bigger barns and ignoring whatever comes after this brief life is “aiming high.”

I think you should say "It depends on level of obedience to" the GB and the Org.  Because that is the truth of it. 

I think, you should read what I said and think about that.  Not interpret your own agenda into what I said.

There are many things the bible does not condemn outright  but if you want to be morally clean and without any pagan images in your worship then one understands that it is wrong. It depends on level of obedience to god and the level of accurate knowledge.

Bible not condemns birthdays as it is clearly visible by few records in Bible text. Also, what is "birthday"? Start of new period of life, for kid and for family. And people wish/want to be reminded of that happy day. What is wrong with that?
Celebrating a wedding day is allowed in JW religion, but celebrating a child’s birthday is not allowed. A complete absurdity!

Like all of us - she made her choice. Halloween, birthdays, Xmas and other pagan holidays like valentines day was too important to her.  Her freedom to do as she likes made her a different kind of slave - to her desires - but she does not realize that.
I bet she found reading the bible also tedious..... nor every person one earth today have the same capacity for godly devotion.  They want to have their cake and eat it and then still be accepted unconditionally.
Pity - she will soon regret her decisions..... we are on our way to Armageddon and persecution of true Christians.  She will be looking for knowledge of Jehovah but it will not be found.

JWI - "I have many things yet to tell you, but you can't bear them at present."
Certainly there was an operation of error w/regard to allowing the people in the 1st century to imagine many things. Take the apostle John. Many thought he would never die. Sure things changed, but there was no divine intervention to quell that thinking. Many no doubt sped up their evangelizing as a result of imagining the whole thing would be wrapped up in their own lifetime.

... each member agrees to "disagree without being disagreeable." :)))

Oh give me a break!
Show me anything, anywhere that can stand the “test of fire” (so to speak)
We can’t even get people to agree that they landed on the moon in 69.
If there is one constant in life, it is that no position exists that does not have a retinue of people bellyaching against it.

Thanks for respond and opinion.
If you pay attention to this down, it is clear that this JW Open Club  and Forum as such, not advocating WTJWorg as "only true religion". Even G. Jackson said that in crystal clear way in ARC testimony (perhaps/for sure that was for public only). I underlined a few sentences in Guidelines. What the Forum stands for is completely contrary to the hopes that are ideologically promoted in WTJWorg. 
A) WTJWorg argues that there will be no coexistence of religions in the “New World,” for there will be only one religion known today as "Jehovah's Witnesses".
B) GB does not allow their views to be questioned and challenged.
C) GB does not allow as much freedom of speech as is allowed at the Open Club. I do not mean the freedom of insult that happens from time to time, but the freedom of speech that provides enough arguments to question the existing ideology of WTJWorg.
Guidelines
In addition to the terms and policies upon signup, each member agrees to "disagree without being disagreeable."
This is a place where news and ideas are expressed, debated and information shared and as such ad hominem (personal) attacks  or labels are not permitted.
Every race, religion, age, disability, gender must coexist on here the same way they would as in a public square in New York Times Square. Illegal, threatening behavior will have you taken out of this public square.
If you are of a certain religion and do not like what someone posts in a different religion's forum you may down vote the post. However expect your views of the world to be respectfully challenged.
Truth only exists if it can stand the "test of fire" so to speak.
We strongly believe in freedom of speech (within legal limits) and want to see even minority view still have a place. Anything "illegal" constitutes anything you might be carted off of New York Times square for.
We hope this is clear enough and we will revisit this as needed. 

There is something rather distasteful when one tries to apply the expression about Jehovah allowing an "operation of error" being allowed for anyone's benefit.
(2 Thessalonians 2:9-12) . . .But the lawless one’s presence is according to the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and portents 10 and with every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth that they might be saved. 11 So that is why God lets an operation of error go to them, that they may get to believing the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.
(James 1:13-15) . . .let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone. 14 But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn sin, when it has been carried out, brings forth death.
I know that sincere Watchtower writers have written that it was a good thing that the Watchtower made the past mistake about Romans 13. Because it supposedly made us less respectful of secular authorities at a time when we needed to be less respectful, or it made it easier for us to stand up to draft issues, or something like that. And, of course, similar rationales were claimed for the failures of 1914, 1918, 1925 and have been tried for the 1975 issues, too: that it was a test and a filter, etc. We can probably expect similar things to be said about the overlapping groups in "this generation," too, if time allows.
That's clearly correct. When I was first introduced to the problems of our chronology, this is one of the first things impressed upon me by a member of the GB and by a couple members of the Writing Dept. Daniel Sydlik was the most outspoken about the need to just scrap everything about our chronology to start from scratch. But he also spoke to me about how the tongue is a fire and it can set a whole woodland on fire. Although I couldn't verify it until months later, a couple of brothers in the Writing Department told me that Sydlik wasn't the only member of the GB who felt this way. But at the time, I thought the chronology was so important that I asked how they could stay if they believed the chronology was wrong. Later when I looked at the Bible evidence myself, my question changed to: "Well, why don't they just make the change?" Of course, the answer was that proposing such a change could get you DF'd. But they also said that because many Witnesses think of the chronology as a "core" doctrine, as a foundation, that it's too big of a change. One brother always said that if you pull this out from under them, they don't have enough to fall back upon. They assumed that by continuing to write articles that tried to build faith in other core teachings, that they could do much more good inside the organization than outside. So they were careful to keep relatively quiet unless asked directly.
In the congregation, I try to take that same counsel to heart. We can always do more good from inside than from outside, even if we never talk about these specific doctrines at all. But for the sake of my own conscience, I think it's good to try to prepare ourselves for a significant change when more people realize that the chronology is not something we will always be able to fall back on. So I think it's also a good idea to bring it up now and then, but not in a way that makes waves.
My guess is that this is true. Ones who leave and don't come back seem quite likely to lose spirituality, although I'd also guess that any exceptions are likely not the ones who try to make their voice shout back to us. (Witness thinks that most all the good/true anointed must come through the WTS organization as their test.)
A bit disturbing, again, in the face of scripture:
(Romans 8:14, 15) 14 For all who are led by God’s spirit are indeed God’s sons. 15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery causing fear again. . .

What do you think about the “group dynamics” on this Forum? :))

Good suggestions.
Of course, without getting into any of the specific details of those topics here, I think those suggestions can be properly discussed under this heading about individual and collective conscience.
Let's say that after consideration of the Bible principles involved along with prayer and meditation, a Witness conscientiously believes that he should speak up about a potentially wrong teaching.
Let's say, for example, it was anywhere from 1966 through 1973, and the Witness saw too much improper speculation about the end of 6000 years of human existence in 1975, or the length of a generation after 1914. Or let's say it was 1919 through 1925 and the Witness/BibleStudent saw too much improper speculation about 1925. Or anywhere from 1878 through 1914, when he or she saw too much improper speculation about what would happen in 1914. Or let's say it was 1929 through 1962 and the Witness saw that there was too much emphasis on the misapplication of Romans 13:1-7.
The conscience of an individual Witness might tell him he must speak up whenever he sees brothers going astray.
(Romans 15:14) . . .Now I myself am convinced about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are also full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and that you are able to admonish one another.
But there is also a "collective" conscience, or at least the "sense of what's right and what's wrong" held by the majority within a group. If we've been in business or corporate settings, we know that we are often just playing our parts as rank-and-file employees, not "partners." Therefore, our own sense of what's right and what's wrong is something we will often keep to ourselves. But the company might allow an anonymous "suggestion box" where comments and criticisms are supposedly welcomed. But there are still potential repercussions for speaking up even in a supposedly anonymous format. When the company CIO comes to you and says: "We know that had to be you who made that comment" we must always be prepared to give a reason for the hope within us, even in a secular setting.
Rather than speak up in a congregational setting, I prefer for now to just get my thoughts spelled out on a semi-anonymous forum. A forum where I can be dismissed easily as a crackpot by those who need that kind of protection for themselves. Being too clear can be seen as too pushy, too proud, too presumptuous. And accepting the inevitable wild chaos and mudslinging by those who are afraid of the criticism is another protection for those other readers who are not ready or willing to think about a doctrine.
But most Witnesses, I think, will be quick to think (or say) that anyone who thinks they can "admonish one another" when not bureaucratically assigned to make such admonishments is doing the wrong thing, not waiting on Jehovah, not being a good "corporate" citizen. He or she is being presumptuous even though every one of the wrong teachings I mentioned above was a case of the corporation speaking presumptuously. In retrospect, the corporation took passengers on an uncomfortable "trip to Abilene."
Immediately, many Witnesses will start making analogies to Uzzah, Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and compare to David's attitude about Saul.
But in the Christian setting we have a different analogy before us. There is no more organization in the seat of Moses where criticisms of that organization should remind us of Korah, for example. Effectively, all of us now make up the household of faith, as brothers. It's Jesus, not the organization, that is now in the place of Moses.
(Hebrews 3:5, 6) . . .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 . . .
Effectively, we are all the corporation, the body. Even the least among us. As a body, or organization, we belong to one another.
(Romans 12:3-5)  so we, although many, are one body in union with Christ, but individually we are members belonging to one another.
(1 Corinthians 12:22-27) . . .On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are necessary, 23 and the parts of the body that we think to be less honorable we surround with greater honor, so our unseemly parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 . . . 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but its members should have mutual concern for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all the other members suffer with it; . . .
I think some will jump on the phrase "no division in the body" and think this means "groupthink" is OK. But it's obvious, in context, that it really means there should be no specific members of the body who divide themselves off to give the impression they are superior to the others. Practically this means that in some ways, Brother Lett should see "Brother Cesar Chavez" as superior to himself, and vice versa. Sister Anna should see you as superior, and you should see Anna as superior to you. It also means that you should be able to criticize Anna and Brother Lett and CC, just as they should be able to criticize you. Then we all accept each other's criticism and admonishment to the extent that it fits scripture and conscience.

Yes, makes sense. But I think some people  think that sitting at the right hand of God means waiting to become king. The question is, where would he be sitting then, when he became king? He cannot be sitting in place of Jehovah, so as you say: "When Jesus received all authority in the first century, when did he receive more authority"? Or when he was sitting at the right hand of God where was the place that was more of a throne? (this is not a question for you, it's for the sake of the discussion)

Obviously, Jesus could not use discernment therefore when it came to understanding the book of Daniel. [sarcasm] I guess that's because the last days hadn't begun. That understanding of Daniel could only be understood, I suppose, after 1914 when the Last Days were supposedly upon us. But wait! It was understood exactly this way by Nelson Barbour in 1872 and seen as a possibility by "Reverend" Elliott even in 1844. That must be because the "Last Days" for Barbour and Russell started in 1799.
1914 was NOT embedded in the book of Daniel. Daniel says nothing about the Gentile Times. Therefore, Daniel never says anything about "7 times of the Gentiles."  Daniel never even alludes to a day for a year. The closest that Daniel comes to doing so is when Daniel changes 70 years to 490 years by making 1 year become 7 years (a week of years), which is the same as "1 day = 7 days." But Daniel would have been using 365.25 day years there according to the Watchtower, where these 70 years (*7=490 years) run from 455 BCE to 36 CE.
But even though Daniel never tries to put a "timing" on the "times of the Gentiles" another apocalypse does put a timing on the times of the Gentiles. That's Revelation 11:2,3
(Luke 21:24) . . .the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.
(Revelation 11:2, 3) . . .the nations, and they will trample the holy city underfoot for 42 months. 3 I will cause my two witnesses to prophesy for 1,260 days dressed in sackcloth.”
It's easy to see that the appointed times are given as 42 months, or 1,260 days (which is 3.5 times). You'll notice that the NWT references this verse in Luke back to Daniel 4 in the cross-references even though Daniel 4 never alludes to Jerusalem, or the nations, or trampling. But the NWT will not dare to cross-reference this verse to or from this verse in Revelation, a verse that definitely does allude to it:
-------------
BTW, if anyone wants to see a technical mistake/change/anomaly in the Watchtower CD, search on the word Jerusalem and notice that it comes up 4 times in Revelation. But one of those verses never uses the word Jerusalem. It highlights the word "Zion" in Revelation 14:1. If you search every instance of Jerusalem you will not only get Jerusalem, but also every instance of Zion and Salem, too. (Zion in Mt 21:5; Jn 12:15; Rm 9:33; 11:26; Hb 12:22 1Pt 2:6; Rv 14:1 and Salem in Hebrews 7:1,2). Unfortunately, you can't search on just Salem or Zion without all 1,400 instances of Jerusalem coming up.

You use a calculator, and choose your sums over God's Word. 
 I don't think you understood what JWI asked:
"When Jesus received all authority in the first century, when did he receive more authority?" (Matt 28:18)
 
 
Do you recognize God's authority?
"Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by His own authority. "
If God was to give anyone authority to know the date when this world comes to an end, wouldn't He give it to Jesus Christ, and not to a man with a calculator?
"Then I saw in the right hand of him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals. 2 And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, “Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?” 3 But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it. 4 I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. 5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.”  Rev 5:1-5
You said something somewhere that you calculate a literal thousand years as a literal day (or vice versa) in 2 Pet 3:8, to aid in your calculations.  Jesus and the apostles talked about "day" in different ways, which shows that 2 Pet 3:8 is explaining that God's "thousand year" time period, cannot be limited by men; but you are doing exactly that.
Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours of daylight? Anyone who walks in the daytime will not stumble, for they see by this world’s light. 10 It is when a person walks at night that they stumble, for they have no light.”  John 1:9,10
Then Jesus told them, “You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. Whoever walks in the dark does not know where they are going.”  John 12:35
“The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light.”  Rom 13:1
 
 
 

Don't forget the apostle John and the apostle Paul and Matthew:
(Revelation 1:5) 5 and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.”. . .
(1 Timothy 6:14, 15) . . .until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times. He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords. . .
(1 Corinthians 15:24-27) . . .. 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing. 27 For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him.
(Ephesians 1:20, 21) . . .which he exercised toward Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named, not only in this system of things but also in that to come.
Also the writer of Hebrews, possibly also Paul:
(Hebrews 1:3) . . .and he sustains all things by the word of his power. And after he had made a purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. . .
(Hebrews 1:8) . . .But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. . .
(Hebrews 2:7-9) . . .you crowned him with glory and honor, and appointed him over the works of your hands. 8 All things you subjected under his feet.” By subjecting all things to him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him. 9 But we do see Jesus, who was made a little lower than angels, now crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death, . . .
And Matthew:
(Matthew 28:18) . . .Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.
And Hebrews again:
(Hebrews 6:20-7:3) . . .in the manner of Mel·chizʹe·dek forever. 7 For this Mel·chizʹe·dek, king of Saʹlem, priest of the Most High God, . . . First, his name is translated “King of Righteousness,” and then also king of Saʹlem, that is, “King of Peace.” 3 . . . but being made like the Son of God. . .
I have seen you flail and sling mud and try to cause chaos rather than attempt to answer these questions:
When Jesus received all authority in the first century, when did he receive more authority?
What made Jesus a priest like Melchizedek if he was not also a king and priest at the same time?
 

Always, Wt provides a hint, a taste of truth, followed with a cupful of lies to mask it:
 
"Starting at that time, in 33 C.E., Christ began ruling over the Christian congregation, and his followers happily acknowledged his lordship and heavenly position. (Colossians 1:13, 14) Yet it was not God’s purpose for Jesus to begin ruling over the world of mankind and the universe then.  hp chap. 16 pp. 151-160
 
 
Jesus is the King of God's Kingdom in heaven. He began ruling in 1914.—Revelation 11:15. ijwfq article 44
 
 
 
 

Absolute lie.
King David and Solomon:
1 Kings 1:30 - “I will surely carry out this very day what I swore to you by the Lord, the God of Israel: Solomon your son shall be king after me, and he will sit on my throne in my place.”
1 Chron 29:23 – “So Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king in place of his father David. He prospered and all Israel obeyed him.”
Prov 20:8 – “When a king sits on his throne to judge, he winnows out all evil with his eyes.”
Jesus Christ:
Ps 110:1,2 The Lord says to my lord:
“Sit at my right hand
    until I make your enemies
    a footstool for your feet.”
2 The Lord will extend your mighty scepter from Zion, saying,
    “Rule in the midst of your enemies!”
Sitting on a throne = ruling/judging/reigning as a king.
Jesus Christ:
1 Cor 15:25-27 – “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”
Heb 8:1 – “Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven”
Heb 12:2 – “fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”
King Herod:
Acts 12:21 – “On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people.”
Here, Jesus is standing, well before 1914!:
Acts 7:55,56 - But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
 
Jesus and his faithful ruling priests/kings:
Rev 3:21 - “To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.”
The Heavenly Father also “sits” on His throne.  Are you saying He is not reigning as King? Dan 7:9;Rev 4:1-3
The scriptures cannot be refuted.  The doctrine of 1914 is blasphemy.   To assume that Christ was not ruling since the first century is the result of Satan's deceit.  Satan "rules" over his kingdom on earth and doesn't want to lose it.  Jesus Christ is his enemy.  Who would tell lies about Jesus' authority to rule since the first century?  Men, who preach "another Jesus" and who are influenced by demonic spirits. (2 Cor 11:1-4,13-15; 1 Tim 4:1; Rev 16:13-16)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Cor+11%3A1-4%2C13-15%3B+1+Tim+4%3A1%3B+Rev+16%3A13-16)&version=NIV
 
 
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-9406081/Why-choose-family-Jehovahs-Witness.html
 Raised a Jehovah’s Witness, a prohibition on birthday parties was the tip of the iceberg when it came to the strict beliefs that governed every aspect of my life until I made the decision to step back from the religion a few years ago.   It’s one that has cost me dearly. Some members of my family no longer speak to me, and I’m now an outsider in the only community I’ve ever known. 
Behind closed doors, however, our family life was very different to most people’s. As Jehovah’s Witnesses, every moment of every day was governed by the rules of the faith. And they were endless. Witnesses are Christians who believe the Bible is historically accurate and interpret much of it literally as the basis for how they live their life. They believe the end of the world is coming and only they will survive Armageddon, passing into Paradise, while everyone else is killed.
Something I never enjoyed was ‘ministry’ – going with my parents every weekend from house to house, trying to convert others. Standing in the cold, while one door after another was closed in our faces, I just wanted to be at home.
As I became a teenager, my outlook began to change. I started to look at my life with more mature eyes and I saw so many paths closed to me. Friends from school were planning gap years abroad but I couldn’t do that because I’d miss weekly meetings and ministry. University was also discouraged because it’s seen as an improper use of time in the last days before Armageddon.
In 2015, the church was plunged into a child sex abuse scandal after an investigation in Australia revealed over 1,000 allegations had been reported to elders there since 1950 but not one passed on to the police. This didn’t surprise me, as Witnesses believe the authorities are controlled by Satan. But the idea that children had endured such horrors because members chose to protect one another made me feel sick.
I don’t wish I hadn’t been raised a Witness. Like every religion, there is good and bad in it, and I did have happy times among many good people. But it’s a religion that demands all of you, that generally favours obedience over truth, and I struggled with its lack of flexibility. Ironically, being taught I was different gave me the self-belief to take a step back and put myself and my family first.
I think this is a fabulous article and so true to life for many people. I don't care if she is trying to promote her book, some on this forum are doing likewise. 
The article is well worth a complete read. I've only quoted bits here. 
 
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-9406081/Why-choose-family-Jehovahs-Witness.html
 Raised a Jehovah’s Witness, a prohibition on birthday parties was the tip of the iceberg when it came to the strict beliefs that governed every aspect of my life until I made the decision to step back from the religion a few years ago.   It’s one that has cost me dearly. Some members of my family no longer speak to me, and I’m now an outsider in the only community I’ve ever known. 
Behind closed doors, however, our family life was very different to most people’s. As Jehovah’s Witnesses, every moment of every day was governed by the rules of the faith. And they were endless. Witnesses are Christians who believe the Bible is historically accurate and interpret much of it literally as the basis for how they live their life. They believe the end of the world is coming and only they will survive Armageddon, passing into Paradise, while everyone else is killed.
Something I never enjoyed was ‘ministry’ – going with my parents every weekend from house to house, trying to convert others. Standing in the cold, while one door after another was closed in our faces, I just wanted to be at home.
As I became a teenager, my outlook began to change. I started to look at my life with more mature eyes and I saw so many paths closed to me. Friends from school were planning gap years abroad but I couldn’t do that because I’d miss weekly meetings and ministry. University was also discouraged because it’s seen as an improper use of time in the last days before Armageddon.
In 2015, the church was plunged into a child sex abuse scandal after an investigation in Australia revealed over 1,000 allegations had been reported to elders there since 1950 but not one passed on to the police. This didn’t surprise me, as Witnesses believe the authorities are controlled by Satan. But the idea that children had endured such horrors because members chose to protect one another made me feel sick.
I don’t wish I hadn’t been raised a Witness. Like every religion, there is good and bad in it, and I did have happy times among many good people. But it’s a religion that demands all of you, that generally favours obedience over truth, and I struggled with its lack of flexibility. Ironically, being taught I was different gave me the self-belief to take a step back and put myself and my family first.
I think this is a fabulous article and so true to life for many people. I don't care if she is trying to promote her book, some on this forum are doing likewise. 
The article is well worth a complete read. I've only quoted bits here.