Patiently waiting for Truth

Yes, I do wonder. Being irritated by something is no reason to go outside where there is chaos and where there are no answers. 

Maybe some folks want to know the foundation that the JW Org is built on. Rock or sand ? 

WONDERFUL WORDS but when I say anything similar or if @Witness, or @Srecko Sostarsays so, then we get shot down for it. 

BUT, your GB state that 'God and Jesus trust the GB so all JWs must trust the GB'
So isn't that a contradiction ? Would God want the GB to say those words above, and then the GB give false inforamtion ? 
You JWs do not think it all through do you. 

WONDERFUL WORDS but when I say anything similar or if @Witness, or @Srecko Sostarsays so, then we get shot down for it. 

At the International Congress in Vienna, I think 1989 or so, they repeated that nonsense about marriage and children.

This reminded me of Space Merchant claiming that Rutherford also held the title of “Pastor”. From this quote it seems how JFR thought differently.

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." :))
 

When posts get flagged for deletion, moderators, including me, can still see the posts with a pink background. When I see one of these I capture the screen, because there are always going to be people who say that words might have been changed, that moderators edited things, etc. And when a post disappears people can make up anything about who said what first, or whether they got a warning or not. It's just a simple key press and I've captured a screen, and I never even look at it. I have about 1,000 of these.
What happened to @Patiently waiting for Truth (PWFTT) was unfortunate, because it started with a discussion of God's judgment on the GB. I think the Librarian realized that religious discussion is often about life and death judgments that will be carried out by angels or Jehovah himself. They shouldn't be confused with personal threats. But a rather harsh-sounding judgmental post was flagged (by BillyTheKid) and this was treated as a kind of warning, after which, since PWFTT didn't back down, he lost his entire account. What makes this unfair, in my opinion, is that just a day or so ago, WalterPrescott told PWFTT that he should get his demons exorcised, and he and others have often indicated that he will not survive Armageddon, to which PWFTT has several times replied that he expects to die in this system anyway, and does not expect even to be resurrected.
One last time, I'll post what was considered the warning, and if you know who "BillyTheKid" was, it will make more sense. When legal intervention is threatened, I think that account owners and perhaps some moderators, too, will prefer to play it safe, and just delete offending posts and sometimes offending accounts, too. BTK also lost his account a while later for what was considered abusive behavior.
   

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. 

The qualification “in effect” makes the quote not a direct quote from the Watchtower,  but a comparison of similarity.(?) of Christendom’s sentiments and the Watchtower’s sentiments.
At least that is how I read it.

I suppose JWI will clarify.
I do know that the 9-1/2 years the Society was affiliated with the United Nations as an NGO, there were puff pieces in the Awake! Magazine about the United Nations.

 
What the NGO supporting articles stated was precisely fair and accurate, but the puffery was to fulfill their obligations to the UN to show they supported the IDEALS of the UN.
My guess is the articles by themselves were sent to the UN, and not the whole Awake!.

Please can you tell me where it was written? Ever since I know for myself, and while I was JW, I have been taught in the Congregation that this claim was made by the Catholic Church and how blasphemous it is on their part.
quote from "Revelation book":
As early as December 18, 1918, the body now known as the National Council of the Churches of Christ in America adopted a declaration that declared in part: “Such a League is not a mere political expedient; it is rather the political expression of the Kingdom of God on earth. . . . The Church can give a spirit of good-will, without which no League of Nations can endure. . . . The League of Nations is rooted in the Gospel. Like the Gospel, its objective is ‘peace on earth, good-will toward men.’” - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/index/r1/lp-e?index-ref=1101988033%3A30%2C1101988033%3A38%2C1101988033%3A44%2C1101988033%3A83

But then along came the Who and they all got fooled again.

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 can think of a solution to that little problem.

He is many different people, don't you already know that ?  

Alright. Let me be even clearer. I have never even tried to get you banned. I have never even tried to get any account of anyone banned. I have never tried to get any of your account names banned. I have never tried to get any variation of the account name "Allen Smith"  banned.
I was opposed to having the "Allen Smith" account(s) banned, and still am. I wish they could bring it back. I was also surprised (and annoyed) that they just removed almost all the content that you had contributed. Much of it was very valuable and I could tell you had put a lot of thought into it. I thought this was most unfair.
I do understand where one could get the impression that I was trying to get various new names banned, because I would point out when a new account was really just Allen Smith coming back under a new name. I think you figured that if Allen Smith was banned, then I could have only ONE reason to point out that, "Billy The Kid" for example, was the same person/account. You thought that was to try to get the new account banned.
It wasn't the reason, ever. I never pointed it out until after I made it clear that I never wanted "Allen Smith" banned in the first place. Also, you might not have noticed that I never even pointed this out until waiting several weeks watching how you would handle your new account. (Your early new accounts made it obvious since they were often just "AllenSmith" with a number attached at the end.) It was when other people noticed that additional accounts also sounded like you that I chimed in with ways that any of us could verify that those suspicions were true. Also I noticed that you would come very close to denying that these accounts were the same person, but without directly lying about it. I have to admit that this would irritate me, so I wold call you out with evidence that would confirm the suspicions others were having. But I would not immediately point out new accounts that were yours because I figured you might use one of more to really attempt a fresh start. (By that, I mean not so often trying to be divisive and negative and insulting about others.) When you would get right back into making ugly, insulting and judgmental accusations, I would begin to point out that what you were doing, without waiting for someone else to raise the suspicion first.
Since I've gone on this long, I might as well clear up one other thing, too. You have many times complained that I made fun of your various spelling and grammar mistakes. I always denied this, because I thought I was being so careful never to make fun of any of those things. I realized later why you thought I was making fun of you, and why you thought I was lying whenever I denied it. It's because pointing out these "consistencies" was a way to easily identify your accounts. I was pointing out various consistent spelling errors and grammar quirks across several of the accounts that I already knew were you for other reasons.  For me, I never thought of this as making fun. I never thought of it as a way to show superiority of grammar, as you claimed. It was just a very useful way of confirming suspicions. And you may recall that it was actually others who first pointed out a couple of these points (e.g., excessive commas, etc.) but I did "pile on," as they say, and have pointed out about a dozen other indicators, over the years.
I thought that others should know where you were coming from, and why you spent so much time complaining about why Allen Smith had been banned, for example, when it was off topic. So, yes, I have often "piled on" and provided some of the reasons that I recognized your accounts.
Now that I have said this, I think I can make a promise I'll try not to break. It's this: I will do my best to avoid the subject of multiple accounts altogether. I won't point out any reasons again about accounts that are run by the same person as other accounts.

That was only his personal opinion.  If I recall correctly he had a lot of verbal abuse - and he went too far!    None of us wanted him off!   The only reason people are kicked off here is when they really go over the boundaries of mild abuse to extreme abuse. 

@Thinking, Eoin Joyce is the name of a person from UK (England) who contributed his comments here for several years. He indicated often that he was fed up with the lack of spiritual value in most of these discussions. (Which is all the more obvious lately.) He changed his account name from Eoin Joyce to "Gone Fishing" when he stopped commenting for a few months. Then he changed it to "Outta Here" when he got even more serious about leaving here for good. I believe that, by now, he has completely left the forum.
I can't hazard a guess as to why WalterPrescott assumed that someone from Australia was from the same neck of the woods as someone from England. But he has done this before, under several of his own previous account names, where he will make wild guesses about who is really the same as someone else. I think it is related to the fact that it's quite obvious to many of us when he tries to pass himself off as a different person, thinking perhaps that no one will notice that he is the same as AllenSmith/BillyTheKid/NoisySrecko/Dmitar and about 30 other different attempts to disguise himself under different account names.
For a while, he kept many of these identities simultaneously, and I could actually see the evidence for when he logged out from one name and logged back in with another. He tried to keep up the appearance of some intentional differences between some of those accounts, but he sometimes messed it up and used a characteristic of one account on another one.  For this new "WalterPrescott" account, he has borrowed a feature from @Cos, a Trinitarian, who often signed his posts with the fish symbol: "<><". Walter has already pointed this fish out as if it is evidence he isn't really "Allen Smith" but he probably doesn't realize that this kind of thing doesn't really work when there so many other giveaways, including a complete inability to "clothe himself with a new personality."

Wrong- I will not hurt someone with real OCD.  I  call the apostates hate-OCD because all they can do is repeat the same stuff over and over about the GB

I’m not a mate…I’m a Sheila …

I would be asking just what sort of pressure he had been under and for how long …and from whom…..and is this in our historical publications….and if not…why not.

Paul Samuel Leo Johnson Born Paul Samuel Leo Levitsky
October 4, 1873 Titusville, Pennsylvania, US Died October 22, 1950(aged 77) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US Occupation Minister Years active 1898–1950 Known for Founder of the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement Notable work Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures Part of a series on Bible Students Communities Free Bible Students Laymen's Home Missionary Movement Publishing houses Dawn Bible Students Association Pastoral Bible Institute Publications The Dawn The New Creation Frank and Ernest (broadcast) Studies in the Scriptures The Photo-Drama of Creation Biographies Charles Taze Russell Jonas Wendell William Henry Conley Nelson H. Barbour Paul S. L. Johnson A. H. Macmillan J. F. Rutherford Conrad C. Binkele Beliefs Jehovah Nontrinitarianism Atonement Dispensationalism Sheol and Hades Resurrection Annihilationism Separations Jehovah's Witnesses  Christianity portal v t e Paul Samuel Leo (formerly Levitsky) Johnson (October 4, 1873 – October 22, 1950) was an American scholar and pastor, the founder of the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement. He authored 17 volumes of religious writings entitled Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures, and published two magazines from about 1918 until his death in 1950. The movement he created continues his work and publishes his writings, operating from Chester Springs, Pennsylvania.
He was born in Titusville, Pennsylvania on October 4, 1873, to Jewishparents who had recently immigrated from Poland. His father was a prominent Hebrew scholar,[citation needed] and eventually became president of the Titusville synagogue. His mother died when he was 12, and his father remarried, both of which caused him distress; he ran away from home several times.
He eventually converted to Christianity and joined the Methodist Church.[clarification needed]
In 1890, he entered the Capital University of Columbus, Ohio, and graduated in 1895 with high honors. Records in that University's Library show him enrolled as Paul Levitsky;[citation needed] he then went to the Theological Seminary of the Evangelical Lutheran Joint Synod of Ohioand graduated in 1898. He pastored a Lutheran church for a short time in Mars, Pennsylvania, and was then transferred back to Columbus, Ohio, at St. Matthew's Lutheran Church, which was later razed to make way for highway infrastructure. He soon built a new church building and was noted (by the Capitol University Synod)[citation needed] to have baptized more people and collected less money than any other pastor in the synod.
In May 1903 he left the Lutheran Church as a consequence of changes in his beliefs, and began fellowship with the Columbus Ecclesia of the Watch Tower Society. The Lutheran Church later claimed they had disfellowshipped him for heresy, but he had already left them of his own free will.[citation needed] A year later, Pastor Charles Taze Russellappointed him as a Pilgrim of the Bible Student movement. He eventually served as Russell's personal secretary. In time, he became Russell's most trusted friend and advisor.[citation needed]
Johnson suffered a nervous breakdown in 1910 a result of withstanding dissidents from within who were challenging the teachings of Pastor C.T. Russell on questions around his understanding of the new covenant and the ransom for all.
Johnson left the Watch Tower Society when Joseph F. Rutherford took over its direction after Russell's death. He founded the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement in 1920, and served on its board of directors from 1920 until his death on October 22, 1950.
 
Rutherford changed Russell’s understanding of the ark from that representing Jesus…to representing the organisation….and just from this fast cursory search it doesnt seem he was much of a friend to Rutherford as he was to Russell.

The freedom to go in that direction of interpretation stems from the silly comparisons and logic of GB members. In style, "Jesus and JHVH have complete confidence in us (GB) so you rank and file JWs should have complete confidence in us too".
GB, on the other hand, claims for himself that he is the only FDS who shares only accurate spiritual food. If you want to ask me as a former JW, whose spiritual food could be the only health-spiritually correct one, then it is probably only from Jesus, not from the self-proclaimed members of the GB. Comparing the same kind of activity, and that is “sharing spiritual food,” from Jesus and / or GB cannot be in the same rank, class.
Because GB promotes the constant need to be trusted just as people trust Jesus, it sends a clear enough message that one should be extremely careful with GB.
How did Rutherford feel? In what role did he think he was?

That was a great answer…you have a lot of knowledge and experience…and express it so well…
Sometimes it’s like you are two different people…this one…I really like..I actually LEARN from such comments.