Evacuated

Not quite.
Reporting on the fact that Austria had implemented the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of July 2008 regarding recognition of Jehovah's Witnesses in Austria, the news source, derstandard.at,  stated that: 
"It's not over yet"
8 May 2009, 12:43
Recognition is "milestone, anyway, Jehovah's Witnesses demand change in the legal situation
Vienna - After their recognition as a religious community, the Jehovah's Witnesses continue to pose a change in the legal situation. The recognition is a "milestone", Walter Schneeweiß, a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses board, on Friday at a press conference. 
http://derstandard.at/1241622251341/Zeugen-Jehovas-Es-ist-noch-lange-nicht-zu-Ende
The Austrian Jehovah's Witnesses website also mentions this report.
https://www.jehovas-zeugen.at/Presseschau.19.0.html
So it appears legal recognition obligates to some communal participation as a state recognised religion. Attendance at this meeting of 09June 2009, coming hot on the heels of the announcement of recognised status the previous month, was probably judged as expedient at the time. Walter Schneeweiß represented the branch.

Although it would be true to say that a modification in many cases has placed a very effective gas -blasting vent at the top of the body, a few inches below the eyes........
 
Anyway, stay on topic! This thread is about passing plates...not wind!

I thought I’d also mention that funnily enough this kind of “mass hysteria” regarding spiritism prevailed into the 1990’s among the Witnesses, and was marked by supposed demon possession of items brought in bazaars, including mattresses which would throw the person on to the floor. Friends were known to do almost public burnings reminiscent of those who practiced magic in Paul’s day, of any items thought to be demon possessed. I too was guilty of this "hysteria" which confirms what @Gone Fishinghad probably in mind when he said had we lived in Russell's day, we too would have made the kind of "errors" in judgement that they did. One morning I was lying in bed, when I could have sworn my mattress shook. I thought to myself, this is it, it's possessed. In my mind I was already going through the steps of how I would tell my mother, and then the practical procedure of where and how we would burn it. No doubt we would have to pour  gallons of petrol on it because these demons are very resistant and stubborn, as I learned in one account in one of our magazines. I was worried about how to broach the subject though. The thought did occur to me that maybe I had done something wrong, and this is why I had been chosen by these supernatural beings as their next victim. I didn't have to worry too long because as soon as my mother got out of the shower, she had a phone call from one of her friends asking her if she had felt the tremor too. There had been a small earthquake. Whew!

Bit of confusion on the use of the terms elder(s) and elderly, but otherwise makes sense.
Good example of Caesar at last doing his job as God's minister. This can only work to the benefit of the congregation.
And, hopefully, disqualification to serve the congregation.
Hope so.

I don't know what exactly you mean by "the Watchtower". Surely it was sanctioned by whoever was in charge of the society at the time.
Again, not sure what you mean by "the Watchtower". And no, that is not the only reason, Proclaimers book:
Box/Picture on page 76]
“House of the Princes”
 Brother Rutherford had a severe case of pneumonia after his release from unjust imprisonment in 1919. Thereafter, he had only one good lung. In the 1920’s, under a doctor’s treatment, he went to San Diego, California, and the doctor urged him to spend as much time as possible there. From 1929 on, Brother Rutherford spent the winters working at a San Diego residence he had named Beth-Sarim. Beth-Sarim was built with funds that were a direct contribution for that purpose. The deed, which was published in full in “The Golden Age” of March 19, 1930, conveyed this property to J. F. Rutherford and thereafter to the Watch Tower Society.
  Concerning Beth-Sarim, the book “Salvation,” published in 1939, explains: “The Hebrew words ‘Beth Sarim’ mean ‘House of the Princes’; and the purpose of acquiring that property and building the house was that there might be some tangible proof that there are those on earth today who fully believe God and Christ Jesus and in His kingdom, and who believe that the faithful men of old will soon be resurrected by the Lord, be back on earth, and take charge of the visible affairs of earth.”
  A few years after Brother Rutherford’s death, the board of directors of the Watch Tower Society decided to sell Beth-Sarim. Why? “The Watchtower” of December 15, 1947, explained: “It had fully served its purpose and was now only serving as a monument quite expensive to keep; our faith in the return of the men of old time whom the King Christ Jesus will make princes in ALL the earth (not merely in California) is based, not upon that house Beth-Sarim, but upon God’s Word of promise.”
[Footnote]
At the time, it was believed that faithful men of old times, such as Abraham, Joseph, and David, would be resurrected before the end of this system of things and would serve as “princes in all the earth,” in fulfillment of Psalm 45:16. This view was adjusted in 1950, when further study of the Scriptures indicated that those earthly forefathers of Jesus Christ would be resurrected after Armageddon.—See “The Watchtower,” November 1, 1950, pages 414-17.
 

Important for the appointment of elders
The Australian government will also decide on the appointment of the elderly.
New enforcement act requires the bodies of the elderly to be legally examined if the new possible appointments are free of charge of paedophilia.
Only if the ruling reports that the person has no criminal record of problems with children, he may receive the new card that allows him to deal with children.
Among other things, it is ascertained whether there is a criminal record and the person in the past was already noticeable in the treatment of children. This method is based on the recommendations of the royal commission which had been investigated by Jehovah's witnesses in 2017 in July 2015 and March.
Until now the only question to the candidate on the issue of appointments was: " have you ever harassed or sexually abused a child?" And of course, the answer depends on sincerity.
The appointed elders or service assistants who have successfully passed the check will receive a pass to enable them to work with children. If the appointees act without this card, this results in extreme fines. Possibly even a prison sentence.
This review also applies to the elderly and previously appointed service workers. On Wednesday, 13 September, during a meeting in Sydney, the appointment of a ministerial servant was announced, with the reference to the working with children check.
Known by public and Brother Elders Letter 
Will this spread to the rest of the civilized world?

What is it with your infantile obsession over this? Do you expect me to gasp at discovering they know what money is?
In your 'secret letter' that you gleefully post, you somehow manage to ignore how the elders may choose to adjust any contribution total up or down depending upon the economic abilities of the congregation. Nobody running an organization puts less emphasis on specific money donations than does the Watchtower. 
More telling is the fact that, at that same meeting, finances were atypically discussed at length, yet you somehow do not even notice it: From the God's Kingdom Rules book, the subject has, at long last, got around to 'how the work is funded':
ON ONE occasion, Brother Charles T. Russell was approached by a minister of the Reformed Church who wanted to know how the activities of the Bible Students were managed.
“We never take up a collection,” explained Brother Russell.
“How do you get the money?” asked the minister.
“If I tell you what is the simplest truth you will hardly be able to believe it,” replied Russell. “When people get interested in this way, they find no basket placed under their nose. But they see there are expenses. They say to themselves, ‘This hall costs something . . . How can I get a little money into this thing?’”
The minister looked at Brother Russell in disbelief.
“I am telling you the plain truth,” continued Russell. “They do ask me this very question, ‘How can I get a little money into this cause?’ When one gets a blessing and has any means, he wants to use it for the Lord. If he has no means, why should we prod him for it?” *
2 Brother Russell was indeed telling “the plain truth.” God’s people have a long history of making voluntary contributions to support true worship. In this chapter, we will examine some Scriptural examples of this along with our modern-day history. As we consider how Kingdom activities are being financed today, each of us would do well to ask, ‘How can I show my support for the Kingdom?’
And there is much more. Whereas you do not hesitate to publish confidential letters, I am reluctant to publish excerpts from public books out of regard for copyright law. I don't think I have done it before. I do so now only to address your childish tantrum. Of course any organization uses money - any ten-year-old knows it . The real point is that no one seeks it less obtrusively or stewards it more wisely, even with techniques that your colleague in arms, @James Thomas Rook Jr., rails about, coming from the other side, where he tries to portray wise stewardship as stealing 'his' Kingdom Hall. He didn't really 'give' anything, did he? He just put his assets in another pot that he wants not to let go of. 
Your leaked letter makes us look good, not bad, as you have hoped. An ungodly organization would say "put the screws to them, no matter what!" Ours says "the elders may choose to raise or lower the amount based on the economic abilities of the congregation." And should their goal comes up short nonetheless, they simply readjust the goal, confident that those of greater means will make up for the deficiency of those of lesser means.
 

Unlike "Albert"  she would get my attention.....if only to check the empty compartments of her dossette......

Might be a good time to get that RV out of Yellowstone National Park.  The entire park is the caldera of an ancient volcano.
If it blows at least 5 States will CEASE TO EXIST ... in about 15 minutes.

I don't want to speak for Fishing,  he is quite capable of explaining himself, but what I understood him to mean by that is not that the information you presented was rubbish - as in untrue, after all you cited references, but that the belief itself was rubbish and obviously nonsensical.

That has been true of many teachings that just get ignored long enough, and then no one has to be reminded (or surprised) that we ever taught such a thing. In the case of the Pleiades, however, this had been repeated in about 6 or 7 places, including Studies in the Scriptures (which were sold well into the 1930s) and it had been repeated in Watchtowers in the 1920s. It might have even gotten tangled up in the Photo-Drama of Creation. But remember too that back in the 1950's, the KH Library was the primary source for research, and the unwritten rule was that it was still "on the books" unless expressly changed. And it was one of those things that Rutherford had repeated in the 1920's and he had not changed during those years when he would positively "binge" on change from 1927 to 1931.
So it's true that it hadn't been mentioned for a couple of decades (unless we had "talk outlines" in the 1940's and 1950's that I don't know about.) But the real reason was scriptural. It was thought that continuing this teaching could result in a subtle idolatry or astrology:
*** w53 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
Hence it is useless to indulge in unprofitable speculations. Incidentally, Pleiades can no longer be considered the center of the universe and it would be unwise for us to try to fix God’s throne as being at a particular spot in the universe. Were we to think of the Pleiades as his throne we might improperly view with special veneration that cluster of stars.—Deut. 4:19; 2 Chron. 2:6; 6:18.  

Just watched it. I thought Rocketman had done the dirty.....Whew!
Actually, I don't really like theocratic trinkets, except these ones. They save you having to find real money to get a supermarket cart! And if some one drives into you in the carpark and knocks you out...hopefully you're covered!
 

Akin? Except that it is unlikely there is an angel Moroni. I have my doubts about the existence of the gold plates as well.
Formerly anointed ones now in heaven? No problem with that. Communications with earthly servants of Jehovah, even those with a heavenly hope? Dunno, but on balance, I think more likely than the gold plates. I'll leave someone else to determine the probability ratio.

This paragraph is obviously rubbish. We can do the apostates work for them and list every similar type of statement from past publications if we were of a mind. This comes under my category of "nonsensical gobbledygook" which may or may not be an accurate description, but works for me. However, I don't waste my time mulling over past error amongst Jehovah's Witnesses, IBSA members, or whatever designation applies. Whole websites and reams of literature are dedicated to that cause.
My position with the definition of spritism is that Jehovah has provided an adequate definition of what is encompassed in this practice in His Word.  From comparing both Deuteronomy 18:9-12, and Galatians 5:20, it is quite easy to conclude correctly that engagement in this condemned activity is on the part of the human practicer, as it is both legislated against in a law code for humans, and later described as a "work of the flesh". So it is clear spiritism is not a neutral term, and that that the practice of spiritism encompasses a definition narrower than what you seem to imply. (Forgive any misunderstanding, put it down to ambiguity in your definition).
Surely it could not be argued that Jesus was engaging in spiritism by conversing with Satan and rebutting his attempts to compromise his integrity in the wilderness. (Luke 4:1-13)? Nor on the numerous occasions when both he and disciples "communicated" with the spirit realm in order to release humans tormented by wicked spirit creatures, (comp. Matt.8:28-32)?
What we don't know about spiritism surely comes under the designation "the “deep things of Satan,” as they say" (Rev.2:34). Jehovah has determined that what we do need to know is discernible in his word which "completely" equips us. 2Tim.3:16; Eph.6:11.
Your quotation of my words omitted that I clearly pointed out that spiritism includes :
To clarify, that deception where dead people are impersonated. Communication with demons may omit that stage.
This statement is misleading and wrong. Spiritism, as referred to in Scripture, is communication in the form of a human fellowship or interchange with demonic spirits, whether one is aware of their malevolent intent or otherwise. It is a particular form of sharing at "the table of demons". 
If we see it any other light, then we would have to include all forms of communication with the spirit world, such as those described already, and then add to that list "dreams and visions" as recorded by the prophets, the delivery of angelic messages  to the likes of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Mary, even the shepherds at Jesus birth. In fact, all of the inspired writings which are sourced utimately from the spirit realm, and even prayer itself which is a form of communicating with a spirit.
Now if we are going to start washing the dirty linen of past error on the part of those associated with the movement we now belong to, great care must be taken in the manner and context in which this is shared. Otherwise, there is a danger of  undermining respect for the information and counsel we now get through what amounts to being the same channel. This of course will serve the same interests of the one behind spiritism and will  prove the wisdom of Jesus' words "Every kingdom divided against itself comes to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand." As we are aware that the kingdom of God is a kingdom that "will never be brought to ruin", (Dan.2:44 NWT1984), we do not have to use much imagination to know which kingdom, city, or house will come to desolation, not through overt spiritism, but simply through an unwise use of the tongue which could serve, ultimately, the same purpose.

Isn't what the Bible condemns as spritism the initiation of communication by humans with wicked spirits (demons) who in the main actually pretend to be the spirits of past deceased humans. And of course this includes direct communications by humans with these demons that bypasses the deception stage?
Do you really think if it were possible that any resurrected members of the 144000 were to in some way communicate information to faithful Christians on earth this would properly be classed as "spiritism"? Remembering of course that these are not dead people who are still alive as spirits. They are actually live spirit creatures who at one time were humans. They were resurrected to a new form of life after they had completely died as humans.
If this would be termed as  "spiritism", how would you categorise the communication in earlier times between angels and humans, including those occasions when Jesus communicated with sprits?
And do you think it was "spiritism" when Jesus and the disciples communicated on numerous occasions after his resurrection as a spirit creature?

Just watched it. I thought Rocketman had done the dirty.....Whew!
Actually, I don't really like theocratic trinkets, except these ones. They save you having to find real money to get a supermarket cart! And if some one drives into you in the carpark and knocks you out...hopefully you're covered!
 

Just a thought that "tithing" today can refer to any % of income as a contribution to a religious organisation and may no longer be compulsory. Also, many countries still distribute tax revenues to religious organisations.
I suppose exemption from VAT is another avenue,  as is the "covenanting" of donations which exempts from income tax  and enables government rebates. It all comes from the "communal pot".
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe

Just watched it. I thought Rocketman had done the dirty.....Whew!
Actually, I don't really like theocratic trinkets, except these ones. They save you having to find real money to get a supermarket cart! And if some one drives into you in the carpark and knocks you out...hopefully you're covered!
 

Just watched it. I thought Rocketman had done the dirty.....Whew!
Actually, I don't really like theocratic trinkets, except these ones. They save you having to find real money to get a supermarket cart! And if some one drives into you in the carpark and knocks you out...hopefully you're covered!
 

Maybe there is a place for a frequent passing of a rattling plate in your neck of the woods. 

Mostly during the mid-week meetings, my head also nods up and down continuously, as does my wife's.  Sometimes I will pat her on the opposite shoulder, or she will discreetly stick me with a ball point pen

I agree with that 100% ... but it is based on the assumption that down here in the dirt streets, we are on the RIGHT street ... and the dirt has not evolved into ruts and quagmires of mud.
However, at the current time it appears that Jehovah's Witnesses are the "only game in town", but like Bethlehem, even Joseph, Mary, and Jesus had to flee to Egypt for awhile when things got to dangerous for them when the wrong people were ruling Israel.
They returned later, after the cruelty had subsided.

I think this agrees with this part of JWI's statement quoted by Anna: "It's OK for others to change their religion, because that is obviously the point of the Greek Scriptures about conversion and baptism. But it's not OK for any of us to change our religion, because it's akin to: Hebrews 6:4-6 and 2 Peter 2:20-22  So, scripturally, there appears to be no problem with the belief itself that this is only a one-way street".

I think this agrees with this part of JWI's statement quoted by Anna: "It's OK for others to change their religion, because that is obviously the point of the Greek Scriptures about conversion and baptism. But it's not OK for any of us to change our religion, because it's akin to: Hebrews 6:4-6 and 2 Peter 2:20-22  So, scripturally, there appears to be no problem with the belief itself that this is only a one-way street".

Quite right. And I suspect necessarily so. Unfortunately, human emotion is a powerful driver of action that crosses the boundaries that Jehovah sets. Jeremiah made that clear at Jer.10:23. Although it is simple to state that in a case of disfellowshipping, " blood ties remain. The marriage relationship and normal family affections and dealings continue", to what extent should this be applied? Many left to their own devices will over-restrict, or excercise too much lattitude, despite the desire of Jehovah to dignify us with principle rather than law. As an example of the latter: "In our area some disfellowshiped ones with large families have been met, as they enter the lobby of the Kingdom Hall, with a fanfare of backslapping and handshaking (even though the disfellowshiped one was known by them to be still living immorally)." WT 1981 15 Sep.
So someone has to set a bar somewhere at times. Parents have this right: Eph.6:4, and the same applies to those with shepherding responsibilty in the congregation: Heb.13:17.
For example, despite the fact that at the start of the Christian congregation when about 3000 or so joined "All those who became believers were together and had everything in common, and they were selling their possessions and properties and distributing the proceeds to all, according to what each one needed." Acts 2:41-47. They didn't need detailed directions on this matter one would have thought, not with love as a fruitage of the abundantly present holy spirit surely?.  But, a little later, with numbers growing, we find "the Greek-speaking Jews began complaining against the Hebrew-speaking Jews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution."  Acts 6:1. How could this possibly be? How could true, spirit anointed, spirit-gifted Christians be so self-centered and heartless?  
We know that the measures taken to deal with this matter would have necessitated specific directions. (Acts 6:3-6). The apostles left the logistics of this to suitably qualified representatives. Would those directions have been put in place by Jehovah? Or was it more a case of Jehovah allowing humans to make the arrangements to deal with a specific matter at that time.
I know this is different from the logistics of how we implement the scriptural requirement to "quit mixing in company" with unrepentant serious sinners to whom we are related. But the principle is that responsible shepherds in the congregation at times MUST make rules, in this case, to ensure the spritual cleanness and safety of the members of the congregation. 
Sometimes, the placing and implementation of a rule made by human representatives in Jehovah's organisation will elicit the following response:
But hasn't Jehovah put Caeser's law in place? Rom.13:1? Isn't it so that what Jehovahs allows, He has put in place?
Really, it is to Jehovah (and of course Jesus, the Head of the Christian congregation) that those charged with shepherding responsibility will answer. We surely know that, as the principle earthly shepherds today, the Governing Body are as subject to the direction of Jesus as Head of the Christian congregation as were those of the first century described in Revelation Chapters 2 and 3. And this applies to all with shepherding responsibility. And in discharging that responsibility, rules have to be made, even tightened up at times, unpopular though this might be. Otherwise, how would the words of the wise ones ever serve as oxgoads? Ecc.12:11.
Extrapolating on what is not included in the video is interesting, but we can make many alternative scenarios can't we? Obviously Sonya was set in her wrong course. She did not care at all for the hurt she caused others and obviously did not care about her status after disfellowshipping because when given the choice to alter her conduct to enable her father to continue providing her with a home, she chose to leave. To liken her to Aaron's sons might be a pointer to the extent of her bad attitude. She could always have returned to the Kingdom Hall at any time, but there is no indication she ever tried to set matters straight over the many years. Surely the visit by the elders before her return was not the only attempt made to get her to return over the years. There are many possible scenarios there. What is important is the outcome, and I am certain this drama is factual having seen many similar incidents.
But really, you know this and quite rightly you have stated that
Of your own conduct I think you mean, but is He not also Judge of those who provide the counsel we follow today? Or do not follow for that matter? Best result always comes to those who wait on Jehovah and work with what He allows.
Pro.19:21 The Living Bible