Pudgy

Perhaps @Witness needs to go careful ? She may find herself at the end of Billy the Kids rope as i did. 
We have to be careful what we say about the GB don't we ? 

This process has been going on for decades. Every new "refining", "clarification" and "new light" is, essentially, a proclamation that previous JW scholars have spoken / written nonsense, stupidity.
What do you mean?

I used to know a JW who saw bad motives in everything others did. She was hyper-critical.  It messed up her life.

Sounds doubtful. Almost as if it needs to be true just to make that particular interpretation work. Worse than eisegesis.

I agree, but that's not what I was talking about.
To me it looks more like they are trying to make us think that they will deliver some kind of "piece de resistance" which will save our lives at Armageddon and if we don't listen to instructions now, we may not listen to that special piece of instruction later on and as a consequence we will die. That is rubbish*. Again, I am not saying instructions are bad. It is the way this is being done. Using this type of reasoning as a coercive tool to obey instructions today. That's what I don't like. Not the listening to instructions.  The thing is, like this they have every Witness second guessing themselves with how far they should take today's instructions seriously, (vaccination being an example) and sitting on the edge of their seat in anticipation of some future imagined instruction, instead of focusing on what really matters. Too much focus on last minute "life saving" instructions coming from imperfect men. As I explained in my original post, the mark on our forehead is what qualifies each individual for survival. The way we live our life now. The mark for survival is not given at obedience to some instructions delivered at, or just before, Armageddon. Pure worship book: "Before the destruction comes, individuals need to be “sighing and groaning”—deeply grieved  at heart—over the wickedness of this world. And rather than hide their feelings, they must demonstrate by words and actions their devotion to pure worship. How can they do so? They need to react favorably to the preaching work that is being done today, to continue putting on a Christlike personality, to get baptized in symbol of their dedication to Jehovah, and to support Christ’s brothers loyally."  It doesn't say "And you must listen to instructions to go and hide in an attic/basement/forest and get vaccinated" Or whatever the case may be....
*It’s as stupid as saying you all must get vaccinated in order to get saved at Armageddon. 

I think we tend to misinterpret Acts 20:20, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't preach from house to house. I'm only saying that this isn't what that specific verse is about. We tend to impose a meaning on it that isn't there because of our favored method of preaching. But that doesn't mean that the term "house to house" is a terrible translation, only that we don't think enough about what it must have meant in that particular context.
There are good reasons today to use the house-to-house preaching methods, because there is no central gathering place where people get news and share ideas. In some cities there is something akin to that in certain parks. Union Square Park and Washington Square Park in NYC come to mind as places where people, often from NYU, meet to hold up signs and megaphones to promote an ideology. In fact, I have had success talking to individuals in these parks. But most people are not there to get talked to.
We are "encouraged" to report, it isn't "demanded."

I always enjoyed the house to house work, but I never enjoyed getting up early in the morning, having to shave and put on a monkey suit … er …business suit and going out and sweating as if someone was hosing me down with a sprinkler.
I was told once that the Europeans can always tell Americans on the street because they are the worst dressed people in the world. To me I thought that was a compliment because I am not a “clothes horse” myself.
I strongly suspect, almost to the point of certainty, that if the Society would relax their dress standards and allow casualwear it would double or triple the publishers that would present themselves for Service.
One thing I know for an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY …. and that is that the general public does NOT disparage casual dress or beards.
It has been 75 or so years since suits and Roman Army face shaving has been the norm.
However, my favorite form of Field Service would be to collect about a hundred or so tons of old magazines that have piled up at Witnesses’ houses, and over medium to large cities, shovel them out the back of a C-130 cargo plane.

Your question is a based on TWO blatantly false assumptions and is a thinly disguised insult that legitimately deserves no response other than strong condemnation of the thought processes that spawned it.

I … I’ve been concerned lately about the outbreak of monkey-pox, and I’ve been thinking about wearing my welding helmet.

I … I’ve been concerned lately about the outbreak of monkey-pox, and I’ve been thinking about wearing my welding helmet.

“Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere to put their posts in proper categories. And what is more, he even brought malcontents into the temple and has defiled this holy place.” For they had previously seen Srecko in the city with him, and they assumed that JWI had brought him into the temple.”
Act now! The next ten comments should be on entirely different topics until he gives up on this nonsense!

I dunno. I think this is more like my son-in-law not going to another house until he has cleaned out my fridge.

Are you kidding? I love the house to house work!! It's true that Rutherford made excuses as to why he didn't participate, but I bet he would have loved it, too, if he had just did done more of it. At least he pushed the laws of the land to make it more legal and more commonplace. Rutherford deserves a lot of credit for why Witnesses have the top reputation for the religion that preaches the kingdom from house-to-house, even after the hiatus.
I think it's also a very appropriate method for today. We don't really have a town square "agora" equivalent today. House to house isn't as effective as some methods, such as good publicity in widely watched media, but it's still the perfect method for most of us.
My true preference is a mix of face-to-face Bible studies for about half my time, and house-to-house for the other half. I like to see the householder's face to see how they are really responding.
In Jesus' day and in Paul's day you could find interest by preaching in a synagogue or town square or another public meeting place, and then follow up on that interest by getting invited to the home to develop the interest of that person/family.

No, one could not. Again, you misunderstand everything.
The day any member of the Governing Body takes full and personal credit for any deed performed on his watch, ignoring Jehovah, then and only then will your scripture have relevance. 
If you approach a Witness public speaker with commendation after a fine talk, he will more often than not murmur something to the effect that it is not he but Jehovah. He says this even though it is perfectly possible to give a persuasive talk without any input at all from Jehovah. Lots of people in the world speak persuasively.
So what are we to make of someone who takes full personal credit for doing what no human in a thousand years would be able to do?
and in accord with the principle, ‘to he who has been given much, much will be demanded.’ It was needed discipline that will benefit Moses. 
Find an instance where a member of the Governing Body has taken personal credit for some deed, to the exclusion of Jehovah. We will all wait for your apology and retraction.

I do know better, and I apologized.  🙂  But do your leaders?  After how many years of failed teachings, do they know better?  
"This is what the Lord of Armies says: Don’t listen to what the prophets are saying to you. They fill you with false hope. They speak about visions that they dreamed up. These visions are not from the Lord."             Jer 23:16
What about you?  Do you know better not to listen to them?

Yes. He said that because they had been wildly anticipating and speculating as to just when the end will come, imagining it imminent.
In that case, you will be delighted to reflect upon how Christ kept those humans in their respective stations despite this failing. You will put aside your unhinged hatred of the Governing Body and come on board with their program.

Now knowing that this writer twisted the quote, I would not defend him in any way.  I also would not come to the defense of the accurate quote JWI provided, because its writers have twisted the word of God.  By everyone’s upvotes when it was presented, most JWs here seem to defend something that turned out to be speculation not sourced in Holy Spirit.  Remember, its message was heralded far and wide and then turned out to be untrue…and it caused tremendous damage to JWs.  Was it intended?  Was it hatred?  Did the leaders learn from their past mistakes to stop projecting a date of Armageddon that always failed? Did they refer to the word of God before doing so?
Although I regret posting the quote because of its inaccuracy, in this case of quotes, what is the difference?  What side of the fence should we be on when it comes to lies present on both sides? 
I choose God’s word in Christ. 
He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.”  Acts 1:7
 
 

Granted, you did.
Here’s a fine article about the ‘mother of all lies’ retracted so that no one would believe the ‘lying apostate’ adage. Once again, as with you, it does not appear the lie was deliberate, but the malignancy of the writer is so intense that any ill-report, the wilder the better, is eagerly seized upon and heralded far and wide (and then it turns out to be untrue).
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/hey-guys-sorry-about-that-mother-of-all-lies.html
Kind of like how the Russian Orthodox Church squeals with delight (like kids on Christmas morning) at the ban on Jehovah’s people, even though they themselves did not originate it. 
Kind of like how the ‘yellow rain’ dossier was eagerly gobbled up by enemies of a controversial president because they hated him.
Hatred invariably blinds a person.
 

Also what about angels? They must have still had the ability to guide circumstances here and there on earth, even when the spiritual gifts waned.
And there was another practical method of preaching that we don't have. There was a reason that Paul didn't go from house to house. And there was a reason that Jesus forbid the 70 disciples from going house to house. It was because you had an immediate assembly as soon as got into the gates of most towns/cities. You could begin announcing the reason for your visit in the town square and draw a crowd. There was no reason to go from house to house. It would be a waste of time (and they were never going to finish the circuit of towns in Israel as it was).
But there was always a chance to find multiple favorable ears, all that would listen, by just walking into a town and start preaching to the crowd in the marketplace, the square, the agora.

Persecution, from Jewish religious leaders at first, and Romans soon after, can also act as a unifying force, and creates a lot of publicity and concern over who these people are and exactly what is the claim against them.
There were a lot of prejudices, I think, in the Roman empire against Jews in some circles (and many of the Christians were treated as if the same as Jews). But Romans also put up with a lot of religious variety, including some "novel" ones, and many found the Jewish religion very appealing too. (Probably due to its sense of historical purpose, and better-documented claims of ancient origins, and a more rational story of creation than the Greek/Roman pantheons.)
Also, I think that the Christian variety of Judaism was one that some Roman political leaders did have a use for. It taught peace and cooperation with the political rulers, right up to the point where they wanted to force the worship of pagan gods or forbid the Christians their preaching ministry. If the Romans would learn not to push them too far, they were ideal citizens. 
Maybe not most, but the Greek mindset of the elites often found the idea of listening to new ideas (seedpickers) appealing.
I'd have to agree. This must have been a big thing in the first century. Although Christianity began reporting huge numbers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, when we assume that these gifts had already faded to near non-existence.
It's possible, like some scholars claim, that the quick growth of Christianity outside "Palestine" was based on the appeal to wealthier Greek/Roman proselytes to Judaism. A lot of the synagogue funds for the Jewish diaspora had been coming from these families who had found Judaism appealing. But now a new version of Judaism had developed that had all the appeal of Judaism, but with a more urgent purpose, vibrant "living" beliefs, a much more appealing "Lord" and an imminent solution to political problems and injustices. And no pressure to circumcise!!!
The movie "Agora" (2009) doesn't claim to explain Christianity's rise in the early centuries, but it's historically sound enough to give us a good idea that the appeal for many adherents was more economic than spiritual. Christianity, to them, was a socialist revolution, with enough wealthy adherents to cover the needs of the poorest, through re-distribution.
(This probably doesn't belong to the Rutherford topic either, but ...)

From the event related to Moses (and not only him), one could conclude differently. Just before entering the Promised Land, Moses ignored the instruction he received from God (concerning water for a thirsty people). The "punishment" was swift and irreversible.
The duty and privilege of leading the people to enter the Promised Land has been delegated to new people, Joshua and Caleb and others.

What I'm curious about is what it was about the people in the first century that was so incredibly convincing to people. It's not as if there weren't other individuals claiming this or that thing, moreover it was totally persecuted by the religious leaders and the Romans had no use for any of their nonsense either. It's also not as if people were thoroughly ensconced in rhetoric and logic and had at their mental disposal a myriad of apologetic arguments. 
I'm thinking that the gifts of the spirit must have been running rampant, at least enough so to convince a huge number of people in a short time, otherwise the whole thing might have easily been snuffed. We have to realize what an incredible departure the whole Christianity thing was and how powerful the testimony of the converts must have been.

Sigh—I thought this was put into the closed group—that’s why I upvoted it—where it should have been in the first place (IMO) but it was not.
 It is so wearing for opposers, who misunderstand fundamental ways of how God deals with humans, to malign the Witness organization based upon false premises. 
The trick is, not to sanitize the present, but to desanitize the past. Plenty of responsible ones in Bible history have said or done wrong or clumsy things, yet continued to be used prominently in Jehovah’s service. No reason to think it would be any different today.

HA! The crazy malignant woman. She surely knows better.

So does the Bible, most notably putting the singers up front.
What’s the big deal? Having just viewed the video for the midweek meeting about pulling unitedly should disaster strike, I find it impossible to grumble about it. If someone wants to pull my bacon out of the fire, and train me to do the same for others, why would I interfere with that? You could just view these bits of advice as given to overcome the natural human tendency to squabble and go off in a hundred different directions in times of stress. Can you imagine the participants here all pulling together in times of chaos? 
Don’t overthink it. When the time comes if you find you can’t do something, don’t.
It’s a little like when the Babylon Bee guys pressed Elon Musk into whether he would confess Jesus and be saved. After dancing around a little, Elon said ‘if Jesus is into saving people, I have no problem with that. Sure, why not?’
Do the same kind of dance yourself.