James Thomas Rook Jr.

Words are the tools with which we think. 
If we use poorly crafted tools, we will have poorly crafted thinking.
Perhaps a better set of words would be "consecrate" and "un-consecrate".
 

I agree.
In the circa 1968 movie "Alice's Restaurant" Arlo Guthrie, a Hippie, goes to Stockbridge, Massachusetts to visit some old friends, and they have bought an old large church, possibly Presbyterian, and are going to turn it in to a free love and sex Hippie Commune, and the scene opens with a high angle shot of the inside of the church showing perhaps ten old congregants, and two  Presbyterian Clergy UN-DEDICATING the church and property in a ceremony, with the new owners, Alice and Ray, standing at the outside of the church, waiting for the un-consecration...
The movie also accurately represents the hippie movement in the United States during the time of the Vietnam War, and the movie was created to follow the real life experiences of Arlo Guthrie exactly as stated in his guitar 18 minute riff by the same name "Alice's Restaurant" (Alice's Restaurant Massacre).
The entire one hour and 51 minute movie is available on Youtube.  You may not be able to get it in your country, so I downloaded it, and pasted it HERE.  It's 400 MB, and this site says it has a 500 MB limit for uploads.
The part about the church un-consecration starts at 15:30  minutes.
 

1969... Alice's Restaurant.mp4

Excellent article with some clear detail on the matter for those wanting to be informed on the composition and purpose of human breast milk:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3586783/pdf/nihms-413874.pdf

Well, I suppose we have moved on from the rather outdated notion that in some way the dedication of a building would somehow sanctify or change the nature of the bricks and mortar of the construction in the same way that some in the 1st century felt could occur with regard to meat used in some sort of  idolatrous ritual.
The dedication of a building for a particular purpose is really an act of the users, making that dedication for the time that they find that building suitable for that particular purpose. Once the building no longer suits that purpose and is no longer required by those making the dedication, then it seems quite reasonable that it should be disposed of and any funds obtained as a result should then be used for that same dedicated purpose.  Thinking that the fabric of a building should be used in perpetuity for that same purpose as if it was somehow made "holy" by that dedication is unreasonable . If that notion was applied literally, then no refurbishment could ever take place. No rented or leased building could ever be returned to it owner.
Nice to see more pretentious hooey biting the dust. (However sincerely it was originally meant of course).

It's good to admit your part of a team, and that team are fakers that don't speak for the Org. But instead against it. I'm hopeful people can now experience the truth about your team here. Thank you for your honesty. It was a long time coming.

There are legitimate concerns that someone can misunderstand, or concerns that many people tend to walk by sight, not by faith. But the expression has been common for years, both inside and outside the Witnesses, that when you approach a house of worship, it becomes a "house of God." I don't believe for a minute that the average JW feels any reverence towards the bricks and mortar of a building. There is sometimes a natural feeling of nostalgia or sentimentality over a place or object that brings back a lot of good memories. So I heard about many Bethelites in Brooklyn who felt really bad about leaving their historical New York buildings. But did any of them actually think that there was something about the physical aspects of the buildings that made them somehow more spiritual? I think that even the brothers who used to give talks about "dedicating" a place "from now until the new world" were probably seeing an opportunity to emphasize the closeness of the end, and the stability and growth of the organization. Even if they perhaps considered the assumption that Jehovah might even protect these buildings as a means of protecting his people, they would definitely have not claimed or felt that there were any such guarantees.
Earlier this month, I was reading a diary of a woman in the early 19th century, 1830's, who takes religion very seriously, even taking her children to up to three different church buildings on a Sunday. It sounds like she was Episcopalian, but attended the Episcopalian, the Methodist and the Baptist sermons and perhaps even their Sunday schools, too, if she could manage it in the day's schedule. She complains about some of the sermons and lessons, and she loves some of the others. But in each case, in each different building, she seems to identity all of them as "the house of God." She even reminds her child that Moses took off his shoes before entering holy ground, so he must remember to take off his hat. In spite of the words, "house of God" I'm sure this woman didn't consider anything special about the actual building. Sometimes when one of the preachers was called away, the preacher from one of the other churches would preach as a substitute, or they would share buildings in an emergency. People can understand the gist of the idea without taking everything so literally.

This is good explanation :)))))  Than i have suggestion.
Ceremony of "dedication" building to God after Construction team  had finished job have to be done again but in reversible meaning.  After real estate agent made new contract, Congregants will be gathered  in KH for the last time "TO UNDEDICATE" buillding, bricks, roof, grass etc, especially if new buyer is someone from false religion church.  It would not be a good thing to remain even the smallest part of God’s blessing to a new owner.     :))))

What problem?

My evil plan is almost complete .. ( squints eyes and rubs hand together as if putting on aloe vera lotion ...) . I have fakers accusing the regulars of being in control, meanwhile from behind the curtain, like a little grey mouse in the laboratory, I CONTROL THEM ALL!
BROUHAHAHAHAAAAAA !!
 
Best of Pinky.mp4

Who grants legitimacy?
You?
If the Governing Body can self appoint themselves as God's spokesmen ... which they have done ... who grants THEM legitimacy?

jw.org evidence for gods kingdom not based on faith but scientific evidence.mp4

As it turns out, of the twenty chickens my wife bought, 12 are roosters, and they fight all day, chasing all the hens around, and each other. I have an indoor chicken hospital for the injured.
I could really use a 175 pound old hen, to make them behave, but alas, the chickens cannot read, and know NOTHING about the Dewey Decimal System.

As it turns out, of the twenty chickens my wife bought, 12 are roosters, and they fight all day, chasing all the hens around, and each other. I have an indoor chicken hospital for the injured.
I could really use a 175 pound old hen, to make them behave, but alas, the chickens cannot read, and know NOTHING about the Dewey Decimal System.

Oh boy. A chicken coup!

Fellow team members:
As our first order of business, I recommend that we banish Mr. @admin and @The Librarian  (that old hen)! Only then will our coup be complete!

Thank you for this research. To some extent. One of Mr. Orwell’s prediction was fashioned in 1944 that Russia and Japan would gang up on the USA ending with a Russo-Japan treaty.

Of course that didn’t happen with the super powers. But it didn’t exclude Russia from being part of that power.

The other part. I mentioned to Mr. Rook. The Old George Almanac placed a comic-spin to those prediction.

Orwell’s predictions for 1946, which included economic disaster, resurgent fascism, “civil wars, bomb outrages, public executions, famines, epidemics and religious revivals.”

 

I compare that with authors such as Harold Bloom, Albert A. Berg

 

PAUL R. EHRLICH AND ANNE H. EHRLICH

ON POPULATION

The analysis of the environmental aspects of Nineteen Eighty-Four that follows is in several respects unfair to George Orwell. Anyone who writes about the future knows that precise

Prediction is impossible. One can forecast the implications of current trends on the assumption that they will continue; but the forecaster is always aware that many trends are unlikely to

Continue. We would view Nineteen Eighty-Four as a scenario, a device used to stimulate thinking about the future implications of the present course of society. In that context it was an

enormous success, for, whether it was intended as a forecast or a warning, Nineteen Eighty-Four alerted people to certain dehumanizing trends—some of which still seem very threatening today—flowing partly from technological advances.

 

Then I reflect on the parallels with what is considered predictions. The opinions then become substantive, not as a prophet but with vision.

Yes please, do post some examples. Although all this is hugely off topic, who cares.

Sounds like Allen Smith is in a tizzy for having to create multiple new accounts........AGAIN!
Allen, you can come out now, we know it's you!

Can you tell me how that is possible in practice? How can someone cause a division among the brothers if no one hears of it because it's in private?

Yes. I am warning all you miscreants. Any more shenanigans and I will kick your sorry cans to the curb. Especially you, @James Thomas Rook Jr.

To fully understand what has been going on, you need to read George Orwell's famous book "1984" and pay particular attention to the "new light" that the main character Winston Smith was charged with archiving.
It might even be a good idea to see the movie, also, which is not as good as the book, but it is a terrific movie.
The chilling conclusion to the book is a goal that most Witnesses have been taught to seek, to have peace in the Congregations, and harmonious unity of thought.
One of the most serious and heartbreaking paragraphs in all of human literature.
" He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
 

Yes. That works for many Witnesses. I personally don't think it's honest to simply redefine all types of changes as "refinements." But I'm more concerned with the fact that it can reflect a lack of humility that expects us to merely accept false doctrines as doctrines that simply needed refinement. The teaching might be a complete turnaround or rejection of a former teaching, or it might just be a minor adjustment, but even in the latter case it does not mean that the previous teaching is still true.
For example, there was a change that happened in 1943 that changed the time for Christ's presence from 1874 to 1914. In the long run that is just a minor adjustment of 40 years. But it doesn't mean that 1874 is still a true doctrine. 536 BCE for the destruction of Babylon was changed to 539 BCE, even a smaller change, but this doesn't mean that 536 BCE is still a true teaching. Yes it's a type of "refinement," but a "refinement" that must still admit that the previous teaching is false. 
For example, the Watch Tower publications once taught, under Russell, that the "superior authorities" were not the secular authorities, but were God and Christ. Then, in Rutherford's time, the WT changed the view to just the opposite. Then, in Knorr's/Franz' time, the WT changed the view to the opposite again, so that it was right back to what Russell had taught. The Watchtower treated this as an adjustment, a refinement, and even claimed that there were advantages to having been wrong (without using the word "wrong" of course). This is clearly a matter of just not wanting to admit that a false doctrine was ever "false." Haughty people don't like admitting they are wrong, so this gives the impression of haughtiness.
So was Naboth a prophetic type of Jesus or the anointed? Is it the case that this is true, and that the only reason we don't teach it that way is because it's too complicated to tell the whole truth? If it's still true, then someone should say that it's still true and we won't hold back from telling you "all the truth"? Of course, if it's actually a change in "understanding" then we are admitting that the former understanding is wrong, therefore it is no longer true. As you tacitly admitted, as Witnesses, we can never admit to having had a false doctrine. So we use different words. False doctrines must be re-worded as "refinements" "improvements" "clarifications" etc.
We see this type of explanation in the very articles that explained the changes to "types" and "antitypes" which had no Biblical basis to be treated as prophecies. The article appeared not to admit that these had ever been wrong. Only that the:
"faithful and discreet slave" was becoming steadily more discreet. discretion was leading to "greater caution" these older explanation were unduly difficult to grasp the details can be hard to remember and apply the former explanation tended to obscure more important moral lessons None of those points actually admits that the former explanations were wrong, only that we were now being more careful, more cautious, more discreet, more simple and clear. Watch very carefully how this was done:
*** w15 3/15 pp. 9-10 pars. 10-11 “This Is the Way You Approved” ***
As we might expect, over the years Jehovah has helped “the faithful and discreet slave” to become steadily more discreet. Discretion has led to greater caution when it comes to calling a Bible account a prophetic drama unless there is a clear Scriptural basis for doing so. Additionally, it has been found that some of the older explanations about types and antitypes are unduly difficult for many to grasp. The details of such teachings—who pictures whom and why—can be hard to keep straight, to remember, and to apply. Of even greater concern, though, is that the moral and practical lessons of the Bible accounts under examination may be obscured or lost in all the scrutiny of possible antitypical fulfillments. Thus, we find that our literature today focuses more on the simple, practical lessons about faith, endurance, godly devotion, and other vital qualities that we learn about from Bible accounts.
11 How, then, do we now understand the account about Naboth? In much clearer, simpler terms. That righteous man died, not because he was a prophetic type of Jesus or of the anointed, but because he was an integrity keeper.
Notice how even the idea that we no longer understand it the same way is worded in such a way as to be very ambiguous about whether the previous understanding was actually wrong. This is one of dozens of such ambiguous wordings, and I can show you cases where this exact kind of wording apparently "fooled" the translator into creating inconsistent (less ambiguous) results in Simplified English, French, German and Greek. And I'm sure there are several other examples I don't even know about.

Oh my.  It would be life threatening to think like the GB; to walk in their shoes, taking their twisted path of continually seeking "new light", and prominence over their spiritual brothers.  Matt 24:48-51  That would be glorifying men; and you've taken it up another notch by suggesting our thinking should not only be like God, but like the GB.   Simply,  blasphemy.  
We should think like Christ.  We should walk only his path.  1 Cor 2:16; 1 Pet 2:21
 
A voice of one calling:
“In the wilderness prepare
    the way for the Lord;
make straight in the desert
    a highway for our God.
4 Every valley shall be raised up,
    every mountain and hill made low;
the rough ground shall become level,
    the rugged places a plain.
5 And the glory of the Lord will be revealed,
    and all people will see it together.
For the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”  Isa 40:3-5
 
 
 
 
 
 

If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, it should have been understood as doctrinal refinement. The organization makes critical refinements when something new is learned. Witnesses understand such logic. What is unacceptable is a concise view of doctrinal error when a revision is made as an error, much more than a new approach and understanding. 
Hebrews 6:1-4
“Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.  And this we will do if God permits.”
 
There are no detrimental changes other than a different approach to Bible understanding
 
*** w15 3/15 p. 9 “This Is the Way You Approved” ***
A SIMPLER, CLEARER APPROACH TO BIBLE NARRATIVES
7 If you have been serving Jehovah for decades, you may have noticed a gradual shift in the way our literature explains many of the narratives recorded in the Bible. How so? In times past, it was more common for our literature to take what might be called a type-antitype approach to Scriptural accounts. The Bible narrative was considered the type, and any prophetic fulfillment of the story was the antitype. Is there a Scriptural basis for prophetic pictures? Yes. For instance, Jesus spoke of “the sign of Jonah the prophet.” (Read Matthew 12:39, 40.) Jesus explained that Jonah’s sojourn in the belly of the fish—which would have been Jonah’s grave had Jehovah not preserved him alive—was prophetic of Jesus’ own time in the grave.
 
This is what Jehovah's witnesses should be familiar with. Just as Scripture stipulates to think like God, we should think like the Governing Body. Walk a mile. 
I will stick with the understanding provided by the GB. I cannot in good conscience submit to such conjecture from past understanding, with a modern view that removes the value of past generations.  Each generation is unique. 
 

For me, this was a matter of prayerfully considering and meditating on the full meaning of the 2014 talk by Brother Splane when he admitted that many teachings were all being dropped at once because they were based on an old extra-Biblical tradition of creating types and antitypes when there was no specific scriptural basis for doing so.
This actually turned out to refer to literally over ONE HUNDRED teachings that we were now admitting had no scriptural basis. All at once, we were DROPPING at least ONE HUNDRED TWENTY teachings.

Then there were 80 more of these types of teachings, which were reviewed in a 1981 Watchtower
*** w81 3/1 p. 27 Do You Appreciate the “Faithful and Discreet Slave”? ***
OVERWHELMING CREDENTIALS
The “faithful and discreet slave” has abundant credentials. Following is a partial list of Scriptural and prophetic designations applying to or being represented in the remnant of Jesus Christ’s anointed followers since the notable year 1919:
(1) Noah’s wife, Gen. 7:7; (2) angels sent to Lot, Gen. 19:15; (3) Rebekah, Gen. 24:64; (4) Joseph and Benjamin, Gen. 45:14; (5) gleanings left behind, Lev. 19:9; (6) two spies to Rahab, Josh. 2:4; (7) Barak, Judg. 4:14; (8) Jephthah, Judg. 11:34; (9) Naomi and Ruth, Ruth 2:2; (10) David’s Israelite warriors, 2 Sam. 18:1; (11) Jehu, 2 Ki. 10:11, 15; (12) Mordecai and Esther, Esther 4:13; (13) Job, Job 42:10, 13; (14) King’s daughter, Ps. 45:13; (15) men of loving-kindness, Ps. 50:5; (16) intimate group, Ps. 89:7; (17) Shear-jashub, Isa. 7:3; (18) light of the nations, Isa. 60:3; (19) big trees of righteousness, Isa. 61:3; (20) ministers of our God, Isa. 61:6; (21) cluster preserved, Isa. 65:8; (22) servants called by another name, Isa. 65:15; (23) men trembling at God’s word, Isa. 66:5; (24) new nation born, Isa. 66:8; (25) Jeremiah, Jer. 1:10; (26) Jehovah’s people in the new covenant, Jer. 31:33; (27) enduring watchman, Ezek. 3:16-27; (28) man in linen, Ezek. 9:2; (29) cleansed people, Ezek. 36:29-32; (30) dwellers in center of earth, Ezek. 38:12; (31) the host of heaven, Dan. 8:10; (32) sanctuary restored (cleansed), Dan. 8:14; (33) they that are wise, Dan. 11:33; (34) the happy one who is keeping in expectation, Dan. 12:12; (35) all flesh receiving the spirit, Joel 2:28; (36) Jonah, Jon. 3:1-3; (37) apple of Jehovah’s eye, Zech. 2:8; (38) liberated remnant, Zech. 2:7; (39) a Jew, Zech. 8:23; (40) sons of Levi, Mal. 3:3; (41) wheat, Matt. 13:25; (42) sons of the kingdom, Matt. 13:38; (43) workers for the vineyard, Matt. 20:1; (44) those invited to marriage feast, Matt. 22:3-14; (45) chosen ones, Matt. 24:22; (46) eagles, Matt. 24:28; (47) faithful and discreet slave, Matt. 24:45; (48) discreet virgins, Matt. 25:2; (49) brothers of the king, Matt. 25:40; (50) little flock of sheep, Luke 12:32; (51) beggar Lazarus, Luke 16:20; (52) sheep in “this fold,” John 10:1-16; (53) branches of the vine, John 15:4; (54) royal palace of David, Acts 15:16; (55) heirs with Christ, Rom. 8:17; (56) the remnant, Rom. 11:5; (57) branches in the olive tree, Rom. 11:24; (58) holy ones or saints, 1 Cor. 6:2; Rev. 16:6; (59) temple, 1 Cor. 6:19; (60) new creation, 2 Cor. 5:17; (61) ambassadors for Christ, 2 Cor. 5:20; (62) congregation of God, Gal. 1:13; (63) part of Abraham’s seed, Gal. 3:29; (64) Israel of God, Gal. 6:16; (65) body of Christ, Eph. 1:22, 23; (66) soldiers of Christ Jesus, 2 Tim. 2:3; (67) house under Christ, Heb. 3:6; (68) holy priesthood, 1 Pet. 2:5; (69) holy nation, 1 Pet. 2:9; (70) association of brothers, 1 Pet. 2:17; (71) seven congregations, Rev. 1:20; (72) twenty-four persons of advanced age, Rev. 4:4; (73) spiritual Israel, Rev. 7:4; (74) locusts, Rev. 9:3; (75) two witnesses, Rev. 11:3; (76) two olive trees, Rev. 11:4; (77) seed of the woman, Rev. 12:17; (78) New Jerusalem, Rev. 21:2; (79) the bride of Christ, Rev. 22:17; 19:7; (80) Jehovah’s witnesses, Isa. 43:10.
I knew that we had spent hundreds of hours studying these in Congregation Book Studies from the time I can remember my very first Tuesday night meetings. Then, at Bethel, in 1980, I became a study partner with a Gilead student who lived next door to me on the third floor of the 107 building. My own set of Gilead Notes (I have 2 full sets) contained MONTHS worth of study of these specific kinds of teachings, and some students fretted that they could not keep track of them all.
But what caught my attention in Brother Splane's talk is that they were being compared to the Pyramid doctrines under Russell and Rutherford. Brother Splane admitted that Brother Bert Schroeder (died 2006) had already come up with this change and had provided the current definition now being published in the 2015 Watchtower.
*** w15 3/15 p. 9 par. 7 “This Is the Way You Approved” ***
In times past, it was more common for our literature to take what might be called a type-antitype approach to Scriptural accounts. The Bible narrative was considered the type, and any prophetic fulfillment of the story was the antitype.
*** w15 3/15 p. 18 par. 3 Questions From Readers ***
If such interpretations seem far-fetched, you can understand the dilemma. Humans cannot know which Bible accounts are shadows of things to come and which are not. The clearest course is this: Where the Scriptures teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so.
The questionableness of such doctrines had already been discussed in a Watchtower from back in 1972, where even though it came very close to admitting just how questionable such teachings were, the decision was made to keep teaching them.
*** w72 8/15 pp. 502-503 God Readjusts the Thinking of His People ***
Another thing that has given rise to questions is the use by Jehovah’s witnesses of parallels or prophetic types, applying these to circumstances and to groups or classes of people today. Many people who read the Bible view its accounts all as simply history, but when they begin to study with Jehovah’s witnesses a readjustment of viewpoint takes place as they see that there is more to the accounts than history. For example,. . . .[long example skipped]
The question that is sometimes asked is, Did Jehovah stage that ‘dramatic’ event, so that we would have a warning now? Well, would he cause such bad things to happen? Would he maneuver them himself? No.
The real answer was obvious, but before that article was complete, the writers had found some twisted reasoning to be able to keep these dozens and dozens of false teachings that we had come to accept from old traditions. Brother Splane gave the example of the brother(s) who really loved the Pyramid doctrines and how they had to have the humility to suddenly change their viewpoint when Rutherford dropped it. (Rutherford said these teachings were ultimately from Satan.) It almost sounded as if Brother Splane was saying that these "antitype" doctrines could not be changed until certain people who still loved them had dropped off the scene. When he mentioned that this "new" way of looking at it had already been stated so well many years earlier by Brother Schroeder, this was another hint that this change had been in the works for quite a while.