George88

Seemed like sarcasm or satire. I have never seen the magazine. But the author may have known our take on neutrality, or thought it was well-known enough to make use of as the key to the satire. If people didn't know that JWs were neutral and didn't hold political offices, then this line would potentially fall flat.
To me, then, it showed that the author knew JWs pretty well something beyond no war and no flag salute. Otherwise, I was thinking there might have been something more specific in the article that tied something he said or did to JWs. 

I am not trying to sell an item on eBay. This item has been listed up there for quite some time, and the seller is in the UK. 
I was only wondering if anyone knew why the reference to JWs was on the cover. Did he actually say something like what's on the cover?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/155110296118

The description. says: The front cover features Harold Wilson - Wislon Joins Jehovah’s Witnesses. Wilson is saying: “I cannot be a Christian and Prime Minister". 
Note that they spelled Jehovah's Witnesses correctly, but not Wilson.
The Awake! mentions him a couple of times:
*** g74 8/8 p. 30 Watching the World ***
Church and State
◆ The recently appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, Donald Coggan, now heads the (Episcopalian) Anglican Church of England. Embarrassingly, a Methodist appointed him! Why? That is the religion of England’s prime minister, Harold Wilson, whose duty it is to make such appointments.
 
*** g74 5/8 pp. 11-12 What Hope for Britain’s Economic Recovery? ***
The Campaign
The Conservatives (Tories), led by Heath, campaigned under the slogan, “Who Rules Britain?” They claimed that militant union extremists were bent on imposing their will on the nation in defiance of Parliament. Heath asked the country’s voters to return him to power with a strong majority in Parliament, to give him authority to deal with the problem of inflation.
His Labour Party opponents, led by Harold Wilson, lost no time in calling it a phony election, telling Mr. Heath that, in spite of a working majority in Parliament since 1970, he had signally failed to deal with inflation. They castigated his campaign against union militants as a “Reds under the bed” campaign meant to scare the unwary into line.
Throughout the three-week campaign an endless stream of opinion polls consistently put Heath’s Conservatives in the lead, with Labour a few percentage points behind. An unexpected element was the steady resurgence of the Liberal Party, which, after fifty years in the political wilderness, was shown to be gaining substantial support.
 
As an aside, this makes me wonder if the Awake! would ever return to doing long (4-page) articles reporting on various political issues and campaigns. 

I wonder if the image submitted by pudgy is irrelevant.
 
I hadn't noticed until I took a closer look. lol!
I also found where another sister took a photo of Bro. Jackson at an assembly in the Netherlands.

Certainly, the Governing Body members are becoming more relaxed. Who knows, perhaps long hair will be the next trend. In Brother Jackson's case, maybe a toupee.

The only reason my posts are irrelevant TO YOU is you are clueless as to parallism of ideas.
That’s why your strained responses of irrelevancy are so stupid.
A common problem for those with NO sense of humor. They think biting satire is irrelevant.
 

You have quite the challenge ahead, sport. You must demonstrate why the picture being circulated shows an abundance of hair on the side of the brother's head, despite him keeping it extremely short or shaved. That is a feature of AI that can modify photos, as shown by my previous example. Regardless, it's not a big deal.
If it's worth arguing about, why not have Tom or JWinsider contact the Watchtower help desk and inquire whether Bro. Jackson is indeed wearing a goatee, not a goatie?

I suppose I have acquired that unfortunate habit from you, Pudgy, as you frequently deviate from the topic with your irrelevant rants and incoherent comments.
Once you offer evidence to back up your expertise rather than confusion, you will likely have something valuable to add, particularly when accompanied by your friends.
Meanwhile, I see you as nothing more than a disillusioned and expelled person who seeks to lay the blame for their own mistakes solely on the Watchtower.

@George88
Answers are in this comment, again:
 

Tell me, please, how can imperfect people be perfectly frank in their statements about own mistakes?
Doesn't imperfection imply the constant possibility of error, by the own admission of these church leaders? How, then, can the alleged sincerity in statements be spared from mistakes?
Is there really such sincerity among religious leaders that does not hide a touch of falsehood?
 

Did you manage to accomplish everything on your own without guidance from your parents, teachers, or schools? Furthermore, have you chosen to obey your government's legislation yourself, or were you taught about those laws?
How can you personally guarantee someone else's actions? Do you have psychic abilities or supernatural powers to predict the future? Could you have anticipated that a 66-year-old man who was baptized would later commit child abuse? Bear in mind that there are various forms of child abuse.

Does the Watchtower publication suggest that a young person should be compelled to be baptized, using demands, coercion, obligation, or even torture? If a young individual truly feels in their heart that they want to devote their lives to God, then who should intervene if they have the freedom to choose? It's an utterly ridiculous idea, if you ask me about a middle man. It is important to allow individuals to make their own decisions regarding matters of faith, especially when it comes to such personal and significant commitments as baptism. Imposing or coercing such a decision goes against the principles of free will and personal conviction.
 

I find it truly remarkable that the notion of "spiritual maturity" is not readily grasped as a nourishing aspect, compared to solid food, when using the illustration of "milk".
I don't understand why someone would ask such a question, especially if they were a witness. The evidence of Paul's words to Galatia, which has been a subject of debate here, escapes me in regard to this matter.
This principle is applicable to the situation where individuals who were once spiritually strong have become influenced by worldly ideals. This is illustrated in Galatians 3:1-3 and 6:8.
*** w22 August p. 2 Young Ones—Continue to Make Progress After Baptism***
It warms the hearts of all servants of Jehovah when young ones get baptized. Of course, after baptism, new disciples must continue to make spiritual progress. For the benefit of all in the congregation, this article will focus on ways that recently baptized young Christians can continue to grow toward Christian maturity.
 
Every Witness should be familiar with and grasp the concept of spiritual maturity, especially when it is referenced in the Watchtower publications and is a common theme among theology.
Some Christian sects incorporate it into their publicans and bible. 
Matthew 19:21 Amplified Bible
21 Jesus answered him, “If you wish to be perfect [that is, have the spiritual maturity that accompanies godly character with no moral or ethical deficiencies], go and sell what you have and give [the money] to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me [becoming My disciple, believing and trusting in Me and walking the same path of life that I walk].”
He Shamed Them (2 Cor. 12:11-21)
He Encouraged Them (2 Co 13:9-14) To begin with, Paul encouraged the Corinthians by his personal prayers on their behalf (2 Co 13:9). The word translated "wish" in the King James Version carries the meaning of "pray." Paul prayed for their Perfection, which does not mean absolute sinless perfection, but "spiritual maturity." The word is part of a word family in the Greek that means "to be fitted out to be equipped." As a medical term, it means "to set a broken bone, to adjust a twisted limb." It also means "to outfit a ship for a voyage" and "to equip an army for battle." In Mt 4:21, it is translated "mending nets."
No matter how you choose to present your argument about the concept of "spiritual maturity," ultimately, it all comes down to the process of spiritual growth.

WTJWorg has made a public statement with very clear meaning regarding the mental capacity of children. They made a general statement that covers all children.
As  supposed proof that their claim is justified and correct, they used one biblical verse.
In what context is Paul's statement from this biblical quote applicable? 
Its 13th chapter deals with the spiritual and religious aspects of one's understanding of God's dealings with men. He talks about knowledge and love and faith. Paul is not talking about CSA. Nor is there any indication that he was alluding to the CSA.
WTJWorg used it in the context of a life situation that can affect the youngest members of a family and society in general.
Why do you think that this is the only application that this Bible passage can cover? Don't JWs teach that the Bible is the Word of God that helps people in ALL circumstances of life?
I dismiss your criticism as baseless. I am horrified by your ability and desire to try to selectively apply what WTJWorg baselessly uses only for their current needs of religious domination over people. This shows that you are a successful "student" of your spiritual "teachers".

Here is a Zinger!
There is no biblical example of ANYONE being baptized as anything other than as a full responsible adult.
Jesus was what … 30 years old?
 

Do you believe that everyone in Jesus's time, including the apostles, had beards? This idea seems irrational.
The power of the Holy Spirit rests solely with God, who grants it. Neither the Elders nor the Governing Body have the power to bestow the Holy Spirit upon anyone. Any belief otherwise is mistaken. Therefore, this cynical view is flawed.

Your perspective is simply incorrect. In the past, this might not have been a topic of conversation, but times have changed. The way people perceive a respectable appearance has evolved from being an issue to being a norm. Is it fair to solely blame the worldview for this shift?
Your choice of the word, "tranny," to describe the agreement between fellow believers seems rather inappropriate. However, it is important to note that the Watchtower takes the matter of global trends and styles very seriously. When Jehovah's Witnesses present themselves to the public, they do so as representatives of God. I'm curious, are you suggesting that God is a tyrant?   The decision by the GB most likely stems from the need for a level playing field, as other countries do not have a problem with beards. It may have become an issue when witnesses noticed different cultures sporting beards at international assemblies. Now that the playing field is level, why should anyone care?

It's alarming to witness someone so ready to defend something trivial by embracing exaggerated claims. I would argue that the truth lies somewhere in between the culture of past and present, and it's up to us to use our common sense to see through the distraction of the disgruntled. The truth is not always black and white, and it requires a thorough examination of the facts deciding who is on the right side is essential. I strongly believe in religious freedom and oppose any form of oppression that restricts people's worship. Unlike the Vatican, which seemed to endorse the death penalty in the past for those who interpret scripture differently just like the British suppressed religious freedom and then were willing to kill their fellow Christians over it, I'd advocate for a more tolerant approach. However, getting into arguments over insignificant things like beards seems rather trivial and immature. Let's leave that type of thinking to schoolchildren and focus on the true matters that make a difference.
When I read the Constitution without inserting my opinion, it becomes apparent that it offers a valuable opportunity to grasp the exact wording and the intentions of the founding fathers.

Apostates always highlight trivial matters. It's interesting to see if witnesses accept the exaggeration. I often ponder why many in the Catholic faith prioritize being clean-shaven over traditional practices. What was once respectable in the past is now deemed acceptable in the present.
A: First of all, there is at present no law in canonical discipline which forbids beards, so our reader can be tranquil as to the legitimacy of the practice. With respect to local laws there are some religious orders which recommend that its members either shave or, on the contrary, have a beard.

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/beards-and-priests-4752

Allow me to clarify unequivocally: this is not a rebuke, but rather an observation. Should anyone perceive it as a rebuke, it is solely because they are excessively sensitive to personal matters.
I appreciate the symbolic gesture, but it would be even more valuable if you refrained from deleting individuals solely based on your emotional reactions. I understand that moderators have certain privileges, such as being able to mark someone and then, just like that, they disappear. But think about it: is it fair to delete someone just because they happened to prove the regulars wrong and showed that they don't know what they're talking about? Are you guys bored in the closed club where it's currently quiet? Instead of hearing crickets, does it appeal to everyone to increase the traffic here to hear the powerful roar of a lion, devouring the souls of the innocent? Seems your monikers continue unimpeded, while you blame others for having to create a different account just to return. How is that fair play?
I comprehend the tolerance of abuse and foul language exhibited by the individuals endorsed by this group.
Additionally, I have observed a tendency to selectively enforce the bylaws. I believe there was an issue concerning the number of downvotes. Could you please explain that? If people are not permitted to express their dissatisfaction with an unappealing post simply due to ignorance, what purpose does the downvote function serve? I came across a post that raised an invalid concern about the inability of a poster that creates a topic to lock it, especially if they believe it will attract unnecessary negative comments. The rules seem not to favor the poster in this situation. Can you explain the reasoning behind this?
It is important to include a clear disclaimer regarding bylaws on your website. It is crucial to recognize that only moderators have the authority to lock a topic, not the individuals who initiate the discussion. It appears that this website is attempting to suppress individuals by altering its bylaws simply because they dislike being confronted with evidence from scripture and common sense. While it is within your rights to manage your site as you see fit, it is important to be consistent in your decisions and refrain from blaming others for creating new accounts when faced with your regulations of deletion. There is no justification for criticizing individuals for a situation that your own decisions have created.
If you want to address issues like "rebuke," "superiority," and "unreasonable language," "harsh behavior," it's best to start with yourselves before addressing others. Am I going to be removed for sharing my views on this website? I hope not.

Buuaacck buck buck suawaaack, cluck, cluck.
It’s a way of earning the respect you crave. It is not as though you are not plenty nasty to him.

The difference is that God did not declare that organs were precious to him and provide rules for their use. 
There is not even a stated objection to straight cannibalism ! None whatsoever!
Jehovah DID declare that blood was precious to him, and in addition to SPECIFIC rules, the respect for honoring his jealous possessiveness of blood is a common CONSISTENT theme that runs throughout the Old and New Testament.
THAT is the difference!

Yeah. I remembers some of those talks myself. The real whoppers were the talks given as second and third-hand accounts of men who shared what they learned from those talks. Some real eye-rollers there!
There is current research underway looking at tissue memory and what effect tissue-to-brain communication may have in patients the result of organ transplant. There is so much to learn about biological physiology. But suggesting an outcome of any such research before sound conclusions are achieved is a problem.

It’s an old teaching..may or not be true ..I have see even studies  from the world concerning this 

a brothers nightmare …