Pudgy

I can assure you, that's not the majority reason.
 
This is closer to the majority reason. Just how many brothers has the GB fail to 'back up' over the years for trying to do right, even going to far as to beg for their help to understand why the GB is teaching certain things it teaches and imposes under pain of being ostracized by close family and friends? You tell me. 

He was playing with words when he said this…because the question was addressed to the GB specifically….he could say such a statement because he knew within the org there were many others who claimed to be anointed and the great crowed who were speaking on behalf of jehovah/ bible ….at this time the witness followed the GBs understanding that you had to be baptised witness to survive.
That has now changed,,,,as it should be.
nearly everything he said was nullified later by the rest of the GB.
he was caught on the hop….he didn’t expect to be part of the commission.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say he was lying..more like acting like Abraham when he claimed Sarah’s as his sister….technically he wasn’t lying as they were actually closely related ( cannot remember how close ) .
I think when he got back to HQs he got into hot water over some of his statements.
But  I also think the GB acted cowardly and it was an embarrassment to us that one of them didn’t willingly take part in that to back their brothers up.
We have a great shortage of brothers to take the lead over here ..they literally begged them to step up to the mark…..I cannot but think….it was fear as to what the courts could do to them.
 

You have a great quality of humbleness Tom….i try to learn from it .

I think it would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using. Not my words. But I agree with the sentiment.
The early Christian church found it difficult to think there were people whose worship God accepted outside Judaism and outside Christianity. But God showed them different. There's no reason to think these worshipers were particularly organized. They were just living life in a way God accepted. How we live our life is our worship, not what organization we do or do not belong to. Just think about all the good that came from how Job lived his life, and this despite him having no advertised affiliation with any organization.
Asserting we must be organized to get things done is a slippery slop, and oftentimes the sentiment has ended up hurting people because too late folks discovered an organization had an underlying operating arrangement different than they were either allowed to or led to believe. God is not dependent on humans organizing to get His will done.
Because people organize to get things done does not mean to get things done you have to be organized. Because someone does not organize does not mean they don't care about getting things done; it just means they don't organize. That said, unity within an organization is not because of uniformity. To the contrary, unity is continuing within a common cause despite holding differences.
I'm not anti-organization. I am for rationality and transparency. Any organization whose primary purpose is to help people follow Jesus should be completely transparent and rational in all things. We find these attributes in the early Christian church.
 

…. you need to reread Luke 22:36-38.
Jesus DID COMMAND his Apostles to buy swords, but agreed that two were enough!
Your agenda is interfering with your reading comprehension.
He was not talking about swords for bears!
 

I am challenging YOU George88, because in response to SPECIFICS, I give SPECIFIC answers, and you give vague, nebulous, general statements based on nested false premises.
You demonstrate my observations.
 

It took a while for me to realize that, among some branches of Christians, there is virtue in ‘moving beyond’ the Bible. Most Witnesses will assume that if they can demonstrate they are adhering to the Bible, they’re golden. Those other church people will hang their heads sheepishly. Or they will argue that something is not translated accurately, or interpreted accurately, or that it applied to a specific and temporary situation. Instead, ‘progressive’ Christians take pride in moving beyond the Bible. It is not a misunderstanding for them. It is deliberate. They will even look upon you pityingly for still practicing ‘primitive’ Christianity, as though a spiritual Neanderthal who should have evolved with the times, but hasn’t.
The expression ‘primitive Christianity’—‘scholars’ will say that Jehovah's Witnesses practice it. We take it as a compliment, but it is actually an insult. It may not be intended as an insult, but the terminology itself is coined by those who view matters that way. In any other context, would you be flattered by being described as ‘primitive?’ Moreover, who would ever do it other than someone thoroughly steeped in evolution? Their philosophical view spill over into everything else. Humans evolved from the caveman. So should you, in their view. Grow up from your ‘caveman’ religion.
Anyone seeking to adhere to the Bible as written will be described today as a ‘cult.’ This is certainly true of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but it is also true of ‘fundamentalist’ faiths which, in their own eyes, at least, are also adhering to the Bible. The branches of Christianity that are progressive, that ‘keep up’ with the times, that do not make a fuss about the morality it deems outdated, is never described that way.
The criteria for cult classification used to be: if you fell under the spell of a charismatic leader, withdrew from society, and began doing strange things, you just might be a member of a cult. By this definition, JWs are not a cult. Their leaders are anything but charismatic—some are an acquired taste to listen to. They don’t withdraw from life, but continue in work, school, and the greater community. Do they do ‘strange things?’ It’s in the eye of the beholder, I suppose, but there was a time when speaking about one’s faith was not considered overly strange. They are not a cult by the old standard.
By the new one, the BITE one that revolves around various forms of ‘undue influence,’ they are—but so is the Bible, since those forms of ‘influence’ are no more than attempts to carry out what was clearly written as policy for the first-century congregation. The real question is, ‘Is it such a horrid thing to be in such a ‘cult’ if that is exactly what the Bible advises? Or is it more horrid to insist upon ‘freedom of mind’ to the nth degree, as is typical today in the West? Look at the world such ‘freedom of mind’ has collectively produced—it can be argued that such ‘freedom’ does not serve humanity well.
Witnesses will say that we need some ‘authority’ that is more than collective popular opinion, and so they put themselves where such authority exists. What we need is authority that reflects godly thinking and not just evolving human wisdom. Plainly, there will be some flaws in such authority, since everything humans touch is flawed. ‘We have this treasure [of the ministry] in earthen vessels [us—with all our imperfections] the NT writer advises. But when Christians cast off such authority in favor of something, say, more democratic in nature, they presently become almost indistinguishable from the evolving and declining standards of the greater world.
Students of the 60s taunted police by calling them PIGS, doubling down when they saw it got under their skin. In time, one innovative officer responded with: PIGS—Pride, Integrity, Guts, Service. Why not do the same with CULT when applied to Jehovah’s Witnesses. CULT—Courage, Unity, Love, Truth. Let persons insist upon their ‘freedom of mind.’ They end up missing the greatest freedom of all: freedom from sin and its resulting death.
The latest manifestation of that ‘freedom of mind’ obsession? An article about the decreasing popularity of religion (any religion, not just JW) among the young. “They. Really. Don’t. Like. Organized. Religion.” it states. That sentence (if it is one) says it all. I know the following in symbolic, but as symbolism goes, it doesn’t get any better. Todays ‘freedom of mind’ people are so fiercely independent they can’t even stand for words to be organized properly, lest one unduly influence another.
You organize to get things done. If you don’t care about getting things done, you don’t organize. To spread the news of God’s Kingdom worldwide in a way that does not quickly devolve into a quagmire of individual opinion seems to Jehovah’s Witnesses a project worth organizing for. So they do. And they put up with how in any organization, ‘you can’t always get what you want’ even as they at the same time reap the benefits of organization.

…. you need to reread Luke 22:36-38.
Jesus DID COMMAND his Apostles to buy swords, but agreed that two were enough!
Your agenda is interfering with your reading comprehension.
He was not talking about swords for bears!
 

Just to show @Thinkingthat we are thoroughly attuned to ‘down under,’ here are some pictures we took at the Columbus Zoo:


No. He is probably more like this guy:

I’m looking for a discount code on a 2,000 watt ultraviolet deck mounted laser for my boat.

I just woke up from a nap.
I dreamed my face and neck was a million times larger.
…. but everything else in the Universe was also a million times larger.
But it’s OK.
 I was wearing a dog collar size 3-1/2 million.

Well—had you put it that way in the first place . . .

"God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul." (Gen 2:7) 
Or, as the Live Forever book expresses it:
"Notice, however, that the Bible does not say that God gave man a soul. Rather, it says that after God started man breathing “the man came to be a living soul.” So the man was a soul, just as a man who becomes a doctor is a doctor. (1 Corinthians 15:45)  The “dust from the ground,” from which the physical body is formed, is not the soul. Nor does the Bible say that the “breath of life” is the soul. Rather, the Bible shows that the putting together of these two things is what resulted in ‘man’s becoming a living soul.’"
Plenty of children have comprehended that.
 

Yes koalas are very cute but they have a big problem with STDs which I think they are trying to eradicate …..I wouldn’t hold one ..but one day ..it’s a sure thing….i don’t think pudgy looks as cute as that when he awakes…

One of the self-defense tools highly recommended by WTJWorg, when it comes to women, is to scream loudly. They never encourage them to take an actual self-defense course.
Please clarify what is the difference between "actual use " and "self-defense"? When is the "sword"  really used in actual defense use, and when is it used in self-defense?
 

When I wake up from a nap, I get dressed, and take myself for a walk ….

I don’t know how else to say this, so here goes…. 
Do we REALLY want Elders in the Congregation to carry guns?

“What do you say, you fornicating punk? Ya feeling lucky today?”

You blockhead. I mean, Duh, if anyone discards belief in God they necessarily focus on only the inconveniences of being Christian in the present system, which no Witness would ever deny there are some, but they are compensated by realities to come.
If there really is a God, and if there really will be a new system in which He rules unopposed, then he will enforce his own standards. Just like during that circuit assembly in the early 70’s in which two resurrected ones were bellyaching over everything under the sun, impervious to the correction that the loving elders (who weren’t packing guns) were pouring on like syrup, then the lights went out, there was a loud zap and a flash from heaven, and they were gone! Oh, yeah—a ‘dramatization’ it was.

Well, there’s plenty in Australia worth fighting for, like this guy:

Be honest. Doesn’t this remind you of Pudgy awakening from a nap?
I dunno. I think of that verse where Jesus said God hides things from the wise and intellectual, while revealing them to babes. Can a babe understand the above? I’m not sure I can myself.
 

I don’t know how else to say this, so here goes…. 
Do we REALLY want Elders in the Congregation to carry guns?

To be fair, I have ADD, and a 77 year old with ADD really needs to write with crayons.

Yes. I agree with that. And, people can debate the veracity of an interpretation. But once someone (anyone!) asserts an interpretation of a given text then they have no choice but to accept that interpretation equally and not pick-and-choose where and when they want that interpretation to apply. That is, if they want to use that interpretation rationally.
Here's an example of one such interpretation:
"So Satan’s ploy roused Eve’s curiosity; it got her to focus on the one thing in all the garden that was forbidden to her."
Short version:
There was only ONE THING in all the garden that was forbidden to Eve.
Among other things, that would mean:
Eve was not forbidden to eat meat, or blood.
Oh. Wait. That would interfere with a pet teaching, wouldn't it.

Thanks for trying but it still seems murky waters..if I had to say that to leave Australia I would think I was giving allegiance to our constitution thus our country…..so happy we never had this problem. Americans are very very political and religious compared to us…makes things so much easier on us.

I hate to say it because 1) it sounds bad. But because 2) I could think of no other reason, and 3) given that the society's top leadership could not have ever imagined their own sworn oaths of allegiance to the United States of America would see the light of day, I 4) teeter between disingenuous and duplicitous.