Ann O'Maly

His full name was given in some non-English editions of the Awake! Below is information from a cached webpage.

Thanks for all your comments.  
Yes, I doctored the image. It was partly fun, partly to make a point.
However, you all immediately noticed something was 'off' and you could compare with the original on the jw. org site. And yet, there is no guarantee that the spiritual food on the jw. org website hasn't been altered either. 
Consider this:
A critic of JWs may allege that there was an Awake! article on the topic of Creation and Evolution that misused a respected scientist's quote. 
A JW may retort that the magazines NEVER misuse quotations because the writers research very carefully and honestly - there was even a recent Broadcast showing us this was so. The critic must be LYING!
So the critic produces this scan with the relevant part marked in red:
:
But there is no sign of this particular quote on jw. org nor in the downloadable digital versions. Other than the red marking, has the image otherwise been doctored? Is this critic trying to pull a fast one?
It turns out that the scientist complained to the Org about the magazine's use of his quote and the Org removed the quote from the website's article and the digital download editions. The quote will still be found in the original hard copies and downloaded editions saved to people's computers.
The critic was telling the truth and, apart from the red marking, the scan was a true representation of the original page.
You see, just because the publications are reproduced on other sites, it doesn't mean that the content has been tampered with. Equally, just because a publication appears on the jw. org website, there is no guarantee that the content has not been tampered with - whether it is due to a scientist's complaint about how his work was used, or due to new understandings in doctrine. Website content is so easy to edit now.
@Anna  made the point about it not violating copyright to post links to the jw. org site. True. The article says:
But the receiver of the email-attached copy isn't getting it direct from the official website. S/he's getting it from a secondary source and we're back to this.
Which raises a question: If one plays safe and emails a link to the Org's publications page instead, would the 'link share' count as a placement on the report slip?
@Witness said about there still being Facebook pages for Lett and Morris. I guess we are to understand these are fraudulent.
And finally, the reasons for the thread title:
This is the GB's 'loving counsel' folks. Discussion of JW publications on these forums is dangerous, inappropriate, and some JW 'brothers' who have participated have made Jehovah the Org look bad. 
So, time to pack up, shut up shop and go home .... *sniff*
?
.... Bwahahaha! 
Are you kidding? It's much too late to stuff the genie of free online discussion back into its bottle! 
To quote Leah Remini:
 

From the April 2018 Watchtower, p. 30-31. This is a bona fide, unadulterated copy (honest). 

What are your thoughts on this article?
Btw, I hope the irony of posting this here is not lost on you guys, lol.

My thoughts exactly @The Librarian
So many concerning takeaways from this article.
1. It's a-okay for the org to completely restrict an entire area of preaching (social media). Social media is a huge part of human interaction nowadays, but they're telling people they can't share JW.org content on their pages or in a discussion? Huh?
2. The emphasis on copyright. Since JWs feel that their "spiritual food" comes exclusively from JW.org and the approved apps, the org has essentially claimed legal ownership of all Biblical discussion. Think about that. They're restricting JWs on where they can speak about the good news! And to suggest that JW literature based on God's word and given freely by God can be claimed by the org. 
3. Many JWs sell JW.org buttons or post covers of Kingdom melodies on the Internet. The JW buttons have been used as a method of preaching, because they invite a discussion (another method of preaching that will be negatively affected). This article states that using trademark materials is flat-out wrong and their will certainly be an army of JWs who attack these ones (even though their intentions were pure).
4. They clearly state that they are fighting "opposers" who reference JW content on their sites. That's the main point of this article. They are trying to use copyright laws as a way to suppress free discussion of the org. If the truth is truth, shouldn't it be able to stand up to criticism? Fighting criticism with threats of lawsuits is a cheap attempt to roll back the tide.

It might not seem right or fair, but when one quotes an academic, it is actually important to get the context.
(In this case it would have meant reading and understanding the point made here: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/full/10.1139/g11-046#.WkfFXN-nFPa
and then recognizing that the quote could still have been used but with an explanation that Singh himself was trying to show just how poorly people understand the theory of evolution and how poorly even biologists have explained it. For this reason, he says, not only lay people, but even a lot of academics don't believe it.
The quote, if used correctly, could still have had some impact for the point the Awake! was making, especially since the opening graphic/survey question was based upon that quote. After removing it, the opening was much weaker, relying mostly on just 'Gerard the entomologist.' And if you have read enough of our publications you know that whenever a possible expert is only given a first name, or given just a generic title without a name, that he is probably a Witness, and we don't want that fact made too obvious, out of fear that it makes the argument seem weaker. Some countries, especially in Europe, have begun to look down upon this type of quote as "yellow" so that European language Watchtowers and Awakes will often contain the last name. (And, in Europe, the likelihood of someone knowing him or trying to contact 'Gerard the entomologist' is much lower.)

Geez.... You guys are a piece of work.
If Watchtower Legal Dept. tells me to take something down that is their legal copyright I would immediately comply.
-------------------
@biddy2331@gmail.com
You do all realize that Catholic.org considers all of you apostates as well.
------------------
@The Librarian Thanks for letting me know.

No it's not lost, but I'm afraid you have misunderstood. The article is mainly concerned about websites and apps posing as genuine official JW websites or apps.  Posting links to JW.org on a website such as this is fine. There is absolutely no reason to shut this or any other website such as this down. It's obvious it's not posing as an official JW website, lol. 
But obviously what you have done (or someone else) with overwriting worldnewsmedia.org over a copyrighted WT picture is misleading therefor a misuse of copyright. 

No, it's not there of course. We would not do that. Here is the article:
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-april-2018/publications-personal-websites/
I may get sued for this!
Actually I shouldn't because by posting this link I am directing people to our website. So all is good
" Therefore, as the Terms of Use indicates, you may e-mail someone an electronic copy of a publication or share a link to material found on jw.org."

Firstly, is the naming of theworldnewsmedia.org genuine?

Aw, how awful for you, suffering this way. Why don't you de-stress by ignoring all threads on this topic and start some new engaging and thought-provoking ones of your own? 

This interesting comment indicates that the person who is doing the shunning also feels uncomfortable doing it. Many of us know how psychologically damaging it is for the 'shunnee,' but I think we forget how damaging it also is for the 'shunner.'
"If you think giving someone the cold shoulder inflicts pain only on them, beware. A new study shows that individuals who deliberately shun another person are equally distressed by the experience." - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130305080452.htm
This presupposes that the elders who chose to disfellowship saw into the sinner's heart perfectly and made a perfect decision. It also presupposes that a disfellowshipped person can never be redeemed. Somehow I don't think you really believe that. 

From the April 2018 Watchtower, p. 30-31. This is a bona fide, unadulterated copy (honest). 

What are your thoughts on this article?
Btw, I hope the irony of posting this here is not lost on you guys, lol.

From the April 2018 Watchtower, p. 30-31. This is a bona fide, unadulterated copy (honest). 

What are your thoughts on this article?
Btw, I hope the irony of posting this here is not lost on you guys, lol.

There was a JWTV broadcast last year (can't remember the month) that interviewed a lawyer who had been funded by the Org. to get his law degree. Anthony Morris (?) said Bethel wouldn't be sending Bethelites to College anymore because of the dangers.
Also last year (1/13/15), a letter was sent out to the Bodies of Elders calling for legal experts within the congregation who might be able to volunteer their services to HQ and to quietly make enquiries. The letter said:
"We trust that you will use discretion in approaching publishers regarding volunteering to
assist the organization in the above way. Please note that we are not encouraging individuals to
pursue higher education or university degrees to obtain skills related to legal matters. (w13 10/15
pp. 15-16 pars. 13-14) Thank you for your assistance."
3/6/12 BOE letter.
"Appointed men must be exemplary in heeding the warnings given by the faithful slave and
its Governing Body when it comes to education. (Matt. 24:45-47) Would an elder, a ministerial
servant, or a pioneer continue to qualify to serve as such if he, his wife, or his children pursue higher
education? Much depends on the circumstances and how he is viewed. When such a situation
arises, the body of elders should consider the following questions and scriptures:

• Does he show that he puts Kingdom interests first? (Matt. 6:33)
• Does he teach his family to put Kingdom interests first?
• Does he respect what has been published by the faithful slave on the dangers of higher
education? (3 John 9)
• Do his speech and conduct reveal that he is a spiritual person? (Ps. 1:2, 3; 1 Cor. 2:13-16)
• How is he viewed by the congregation?
• Why is he or his family pursuing higher education?
• Does the family have theocratic goals? (Phil. 3:8)
• Does the pursuit of higher education interfere with regular meeting attendance, meaningful
participation in field service, or other theocratic activities?

As the body of elders prayerfully and carefully considers the matter, it may be readily apparent
that the brother has a positive attitude about what the organization has published regarding
higher education and still retains the respect of others in the congregation. They may also observe
that he and his family are keeping Kingdom interests first if the education does not interfere with
meetings and the ministry. In such a case, the elders may determine that he could continue serving.—
1 Tim. 3:2, 4-6; Heb. 13:7.
On the other hand, if an elder or a ministerial servant is promoting higher education to others for the material advantages or the status it may bring, he is calling into question his qualifications to serve the congregation because of the effect on his and his fellow appointed brothers' freeness of speech. (1 Tim 3:13; Titus 1:9) The body of elders may therefore determine that the brother no longer qualifies to serve. In most cases, however, such a determination should be made in conjunction with the visit of the circuit overseer." 
 

Trying to stretch this to 607BCE's scriptural support but it is eluding me. Perhaps you are showing how current world disorder fits what started in 1914CE, enabling a retrofit of 2520 yrs back to 607BCE?  Please clarify to stay on topic.

I would also guess that 1914 is here to stay because 
1. WW1, which is "on the ground" evidence as Arauna calls it, (even though originally it was supposed to be Armageddon).
2. Jesu's enthronement was invisible, so can't be disproved.
3. Most Witnesses don't have a clue about how we arrived at 1914 and of those who do, have no clue how we arrive at 607, and the few of those who do, have no clue as to why historians arrive at 587....and those even fewer who do, well...they are too few to make a difference...

I don't think that's neither a fair nor true assumption at all.

This interesting comment indicates that the person who is doing the shunning also feels uncomfortable doing it. Many of us know how psychologically damaging it is for the 'shunnee,' but I think we forget how damaging it also is for the 'shunner.'
"If you think giving someone the cold shoulder inflicts pain only on them, beware. A new study shows that individuals who deliberately shun another person are equally distressed by the experience." - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130305080452.htm
This presupposes that the elders who chose to disfellowship saw into the sinner's heart perfectly and made a perfect decision. It also presupposes that a disfellowshipped person can never be redeemed. Somehow I don't think you really believe that. 

There was a JWTV broadcast last year (can't remember the month) that interviewed a lawyer who had been funded by the Org. to get his law degree. Anthony Morris (?) said Bethel wouldn't be sending Bethelites to College anymore because of the dangers.
Also last year (1/13/15), a letter was sent out to the Bodies of Elders calling for legal experts within the congregation who might be able to volunteer their services to HQ and to quietly make enquiries. The letter said:
"We trust that you will use discretion in approaching publishers regarding volunteering to
assist the organization in the above way. Please note that we are not encouraging individuals to
pursue higher education or university degrees to obtain skills related to legal matters. (w13 10/15
pp. 15-16 pars. 13-14) Thank you for your assistance."
3/6/12 BOE letter.
"Appointed men must be exemplary in heeding the warnings given by the faithful slave and
its Governing Body when it comes to education. (Matt. 24:45-47) Would an elder, a ministerial
servant, or a pioneer continue to qualify to serve as such if he, his wife, or his children pursue higher
education? Much depends on the circumstances and how he is viewed. When such a situation
arises, the body of elders should consider the following questions and scriptures:

• Does he show that he puts Kingdom interests first? (Matt. 6:33)
• Does he teach his family to put Kingdom interests first?
• Does he respect what has been published by the faithful slave on the dangers of higher
education? (3 John 9)
• Do his speech and conduct reveal that he is a spiritual person? (Ps. 1:2, 3; 1 Cor. 2:13-16)
• How is he viewed by the congregation?
• Why is he or his family pursuing higher education?
• Does the family have theocratic goals? (Phil. 3:8)
• Does the pursuit of higher education interfere with regular meeting attendance, meaningful
participation in field service, or other theocratic activities?

As the body of elders prayerfully and carefully considers the matter, it may be readily apparent
that the brother has a positive attitude about what the organization has published regarding
higher education and still retains the respect of others in the congregation. They may also observe
that he and his family are keeping Kingdom interests first if the education does not interfere with
meetings and the ministry. In such a case, the elders may determine that he could continue serving.—
1 Tim. 3:2, 4-6; Heb. 13:7.
On the other hand, if an elder or a ministerial servant is promoting higher education to others for the material advantages or the status it may bring, he is calling into question his qualifications to serve the congregation because of the effect on his and his fellow appointed brothers' freeness of speech. (1 Tim 3:13; Titus 1:9) The body of elders may therefore determine that the brother no longer qualifies to serve. In most cases, however, such a determination should be made in conjunction with the visit of the circuit overseer." 
 

Establishment of 537 BCE for what exactly? The 539 BCE year for the overthrow of Babylon by the Persians is established using Babylonian sources - the Babylonian chronicles, the Babylonian kings list, and the Babylonian astronomical tablets.
The exodus occurred many hundreds of years before our period under discussion so the alleged discrepancy is irrelevant. Egyptian chronology synchronizes with neo-Babylonian dates very well. Rohl does not have an issue with NB dates and agrees with its established timeline. I think this has been pointed out to you before.
The primary Babylonian sources are contemporaneous with the events under discussion so have more evidential weight than histories written by other nations hundreds of years later. 
This is a non-argument. The Bible manuscripts are copies written long after the events they describe. So?
The Insight book uses the Babylonian chronicles to verify Bible events all the time. The organization needs the Babylonian chronicles. I don't know why you imagine otherwise. 
Except that Watchtower takes issue with dates of Artaxerxes I's reign, but that's a whole 'nother topic. Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a reign of 8 years [Correction: Arauna was right - it was 9 years - my faulty memory]. Both neo-Babylonian and Persian dates of succession are reliable.
False. The most reliable information is NOT 'only a total eclipse.' Planetary and lunar configurations measured relative to fixed stars are reliable information also, and can be useful for dating purposes. Babylonians did properly describe some lunar eclipses so that they can be dated accurately, thereby helping to fix the NB timeline.
I see you've utilized @JW Insider's list of ad hominem's and lobbed one out.

But today becomes tomorrow and one day we may be calling this the the manna of old. So really, what you are saying is that what we have now is good enough for the present time, but it could be replaced by something else in the future. In that case, it would be more truthful to call this spiritual food speculations, ideas and conjecture rather than facts and truths. 

I think a difference of 10,000 years should not be of much consequence either. After all a day with Jehovah is 1,000 years, so in His eyes, it's only 10 days. A lot of this interest is built up because of the idea that the 7th day of creation, the day of rest from creating everything in 6 days, must take 7,000 years. Therefore, there would be 6,000 years of human existence (after Eve) and a 1,000 year reign all fitting into the 7th - 7,000 year day.
But none of that stuff about a 7,000 year day is in the Bible. When we realize that this is all conjecture and speculation, we should realize that we are trying to tread in an area that Jehovah said was only in his own jurisdiction: the times and the seasons. Even angels didn't delve into this topic, and angels know exactly when the first 6,000 years of the 7th creative day begin and end. Knowing that 90% of chronology in the Bible is determined through genealogies, we might also realize that Paul was right:
(1 Timothy 1:4-7) . . .nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies. Such things end up in nothing useful but merely give rise to speculations rather than providing anything from God in connection with faith. 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly. Verse 5, by the way, is a perfect alternative but positive statement about the objective of Christianity.

Nebuchadnezzar was a Gentile (as was Cyrus). Both were used to mete out a measure of Jehovah's punishment, from the beginning of the greatest punishment they had seen up until that time (Neb) and the means to an end of that punishment by freeing them from exile in Babylon (Cyrus).
The problem is the loose manner in which the prophecy about Nebuchadnezzar is treated. When haughty Nebuchadnezzar has been taught a lesson and recognizes his guilt, only then is he returned to his throne. Wicked Nebuchadnezzar's return to the throne represents the fact that the most righteous person ever, Jesus, can now sit on the throne of God's Messianic Kingdom in 1914. Did Jesus learn a lesson about haughtiness? Did he recognize his guilt so as to be placed on the throne? And how is it that we say that the times of Gentile kings ENDED in 1914, when it was represented by a CONTINUATION of Nebuchadnezzar's Gentile kingdom. For decades prior to 1914 (and another decade beyond 1914) we said that the Jewish nation in Palestine would be the only remaining kingdom on earth after 1914. Did God's Kingdom really crush and put an end to all the Gentile kingdoms in 1914. Is this what we want people to believe is meant by Jesus taking his great power and ruling as king?
When Greece (Antiochus Epiphanes) and Rome (under Titus/Vespasian) stood against Jehovah's center of worship in Jerusalem they were referred to as "the disgusting thing." Nebuchadnezzar starves and kills thousands of Jehovah's people, executes officials, burns Jehovah's temple to the ground and yet, somehow, this Gentile represents the non-Gentile Messianic Kingdom.

Every one of those exact quotes were copied from our own Insight book to show that we appreciate the work of scholars, even those who deal with potential errors. It could easily have gone on to twice that length from the Insight book alone, or 100 times that length if we were to look at all the corrections to the Bible text that the NWT accepts from textual critics and scholars. I was addressing a false prejudice that we should dismiss the work of all scholars who have pointed out potential errors in the text.
We can look at the evidence and call it a "rehash of old rehashes" or we can look at the flimsy lack of evidence in our repeated attempts to dismiss the evidence and see that as a "rehash of old rehashes." But it's pretty clear to me that we have barely even scratched the surface of the evidence against the Scripturalness of the 1914 theory, and yet it's always the same old flimsy ideas that get put forward as a defense, as if Ptolemy's Canon, VAT4956 were all-important, and as if Neo-Babylonian evidence is always tainted and untrustworthy -- except when we need it to cherry-pick data for a theory.
Yes. It always comes back to whether we can claim we were right about 1914, and how, decades in advance, we predicted this particular change of an epoch, and that this is proof that Jehovah's spirit must have been backing this particular theory of Bible chronology. And this idea about our own history, untrue as it is, keeps getting repeated as if repetition is going to make it true.
I'm as convinced as you are that 1914 was an important historical date. And I'm also convinced that it is both dishonest and unscriptural to pretend that we were able to delve into Jehovah's jurisdiction over the times and seasons and predict this era decades in advance. It's true that I hope that our honesty will tear down these pretensions of secular scholarship that supposedly underpin the false doctrine. But I make no claims of being a scholar. My point is about honesty and the cleanliness of the congregation. If we see someone taking a false step, we should speak up to that person, and if they don't listen, we should take it to the congregation.
We have a wonderful and powerful Bible message that has an appeal based on common sense and a desire for truth. We don't participate in divisive politics and murderous wars. We worship a God that is knowable, and we don't turn him into a mysterious multi-personalitied entity. We don't teach that he literally punishes with torture, and we can therefore properly focus on his justice, mercy, patience and love. We use the Bible's principles, examples and motivations as the highest moral guide.
And, of course, there is much more that is wonderful and appealing and valuable about our doctrines and practices. But this doesn't mean that we have ever been right about chronology, just as we were never right about the hundreds of doctrines based on turning any and all Bible narratives and Bible parables into prophecies that were (more often than not) supposedly predicting events around 1918 and 1919, and adjusted as needed to refer to events in 1922, 1931, 1935, even as late as 1942.
It's human nature to want to get accolades, be presumptuous, be prideful, and want to bask in our own egos. It's also human nature to want to enhance our resume especially if we think it will make more people follow our lead. There is evidence that this is what we have been doing with chronology since the very first Watch Tower publications, and we could become complicit in the dishonesty if we find ourselves trying to ignore it at all costs.
You don't actually recall that from me. You did claim that this is what I thought on a couple of occasions, but I always corrected you. No I don't think that Jesus is going to come back in the flesh. I believe he returns as a powerful spirit creature and the entire world will get a glimpse of the glory of unapproachable light, during the revelation of his glory, the manifestation of his parousia.
(1 Timothy 6:14-16) . . . until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . .He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, 16 the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. . . . (1 Peter 3:18-4:13) . . .He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit. . . .  through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He is at God’s right hand, for he went to heaven, and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him. . . .   But the end of all things has drawn close. Therefore, be sound in mind, and be vigilant with a view to prayers.  Above all things, have intense love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins. 9 Be hospitable to one another without grumbling. . . .  On the contrary, go on rejoicing over the extent to which you are sharers in the sufferings of the Christ, so that you may rejoice and be overjoyed also during the revelation of his glory. The Bible does speak of an invisible presence, wherever two or three are gathered in his name, and that this situation would last until the "synteleia." (Matthew 28:20) But the Bible never speaks of an invisible "parousia." In fact the Bible says that the "parousia" is like lightning that shines brightly from one end of the horizon all the way to the other. That is hardly an illustration meant to convey invisibility. I don't doubt that we are seeing signs that indicate we are in the last days, and just as Timothy and Peter say, as quoted above, that Jesus has been in kingly power since his resurrection, so we know he rules as king and will continue to rule as king of his kingdom until the last enemy death is brought to nothing.
(1 Corinthians 15:25, 26) 25 For he must rule as king [sit at God's right hand] until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing. Our basic message that we preach is still therefore intact. I am only hoping that we no longer mix the message with murky secular chronology that associates Christ's return in Kingdom power with a generation of increased wickedness and bloodshed. I am hoping that we no longer mix the message with a murky secular chronology that makes a wicked violent idol-worshiping Gentile king represent the glorious Messianic Kingdom of Christ.
(2 Corinthians 6:14-16) . . .For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness? 15 Further, what harmony is there between Christ and Beʹli·al? Or what does a believer share in common with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement does God’s temple have with idols?. . .  

Even after all this time you still appear confused about what VAT4956 is. It's a diary of some astronomical events that were observed in YEAR 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. When scholars of all kinds check these events against the year in which they must have happened they see that the year these observations were made can only match 568. Even Furuli admits that most of the readings on the tablet can only match 568.
Any amateur can also look up in an astronomy program to see what year is matched by these observations.
Now if you had a diary that observed the positions of the moon and planets for your 37th year you would also be able to look up what calendar year this must have been by using an astronomy program. But let's say you also:
got married in your 18th year and got divorced in your 28th year and your house burned down in your 30th year and your father got sick in your 35th year According to you, these other events in your life evidently didn't happen because you didn't mention them in that diary you kept in your 37th year.
You must be confused about this tablet. Almost as if you are conflating it with some portions of the Babylonian Chronicles. "As far as this tablet is concerned" Jerusalem might have never existed and Jehoiakim might have been the Pharaoh of Egypt. Neither are mentioned at all. We know nothing of Jerusalem or Jehoiakim from the diary. We only know that it provides evidence to know in what year Nebuchadnezzar must have reigned from his accession year and every year after that up to his 37th year.
I wish you didn't use superfluous question marks, partial sentences as full sentences, and superfluous commas in exactly the same way that Allen Smith does. It makes your writing just as hard to understand as his. But I agree that this tablet doesn't have the value that people give it. Furuli, for example, seems to pretend that it is the most important document in the evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 587. He apparently thinks that if you can damage its reputation that this would change a thing with respect to the date of Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year. Darren Thompson admits to thinking about it in the same way. Scholars know that VAT4956 adds to the overwhelming evidence for the Neo-Babylonian chronology, but that we can take it or leave it and we would still have the same overwhelming evidence for the same Neo-Babylonian chronology. As you say, it's not that important.
Of course you do. And if you can point out any evidence of your claim anywhere, I'm always happy to change my opinion in favor of better evidence.