Ann O'Maly

You are right. Of course they didn't do the calculations. It was up to the priests to declare the holidays. The peasants, farmers, fishermen, traders, etc., paid attention to the priests because they needed to know when at least 3 of the holidays occurred. Turns out it was surprisingly easy to second guess the priests, though. You could almost always get the calendar right in Jewish society even without a priest, and you'd probably never have to check with a priest but once every two or three years. But that wasn't a problem either because heads of households, sometimes with family members, traveled to Jerusalem up to three times a year to celebrate the major holidays in Jerusalem. The priests would already know if a leap year was going to be declared at the end of that particular year, and probably knew years in advance which years would require it. 
It was easy for everyone to tell when the new month started. You could never be more than one day off, and could usually guess it right even with a strong cloud cover for two or three days.
But I can tell you missed a couple of important points, if you really thought that anything said above meant that the farmer would need to do calculations.
No. This isn't true. Jehovah is the one who gives us the average 29.5 days in a month, and it has always been exactly the same for thousands of years. So the new moon showed up every 29.5 days and they had to "round it off" based on whether they could see the new moon after sundown at the end of the month. This means that when they saw the new moon show up after the sun went down, they started counting that night until the next sundown as DAY 1. Then they could count off 29 days and know (by how small the sliver was getting) whether the new moon was going to occur the next sundown or if it might take until the day after. 
(1 Samuel 20:18) . . .Jonʹa·than then said to him: “Tomorrow is the new moon,. . .
If it was obvious it was going to happen the next evening, then they wouldn't even have to watch, because that next evening started DAY 1 of the following month, and the month they were in just had 29 days. Because the current month had 29 days, the next month was going to have 30 days. Because that next month would have 30 days then the month after was clearly going to have 29 days. The new moons are going to be seen like that for many months in a row. The pattern could go on almost forever:
29+30+29+30+29+30+29+30+29+30+29+30
That's why you can say that the year had 254 days, and that the average month was 29.5 days.
Because the pattern was so obvious, the highest priest in charge of such things, could declare that a certain 29 day month was going to have 30 days, but this would force an extra 29 day month into that same year. If they wanted to force a regular 30 day month to have only 29, then they would have to force an extra 30 day month into the year. Because the average is not precisely 29.5 they had another reason to declare an extra 30 day month after several years, without a 29 day month. This is one reason that the month added every leap year (Adar) could always be a 30 day month. Instead of the "plain" month of Adar, they would add a 30 day Adar I and call the next month Adar II.
The above quote is from "Judaism 101" on http://www.jewfaq.org/calendar.htm
But the pattern was so easily learned that anyone, even a completely illiterate farmer, could know the next 12 months just by knowing the day that the New Year was declared. He would never be more than one day off from Jerusalem's count for the entire 12 months.
Two ideas from this sentence are wrong:
It was not an extra short month, in fact it was almost always a 30 day month, rather than a 29 day month. It was not every fourth year. The year of 12 lunar months had 354 days which was about 11.25 days shy of a solar year. So after only 3 of these years, they would already be nearly 34 days behind the sun, more than a full month off. So they needed to add a full month, every 3 years, and even this left them short by 4 days to make up a whole solar year. So a couple times every 19 years they even needed to add a full, long month every 2 years. A typical solution that developed was to add the extra month every 3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 19th year of every 19 year cycle. That's 7 times every 19 years, or every 2.7 years on average. It was a full, long month in every case. Since you asked. The motive is truth and accuracy and defense of the Bible. Also it's out of love for people, and the fact that a lot of people don't understand this and begin to believe that if you try to tell the truth then you must not be accepting the Bible. This results in unnecessary judgmentalism and sometimes even rejection of obvious truth. We should always be aware of this when we can, and always tell the truth about such things. Also, I believe you will find that the Watchtower accepts every bit of what I just said above as true. You may even find that the same persons who down-vote these posts where they do not LIKE the facts, already understand that these are still the facts. A down-vote without a defense is evidence to me that the point was probably made clearly enough.

You may find these two sources helpful.
Sacha Stern, Calendars in Antiquity: Empires, States, and Societies, p. 193 f.
Jonathan Ben-Dov, The 364-day Year in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Jewish Pseudepigrapha
The earliest manuscripts of Daniel date to the 2nd century BCE, btw, as you probably already know.
The tl;dr version is that, when using the 360-day schematic year in calculating anything, you have to always remember to add on the 4 epagomenal days - i.e. the 2 solstices and 2 equinoxes - thereby making the year 364 days, which was the calendar the Jews used at the time.
So with 42 months (of 30 days each), you'd have to add on 3 x 4 epagomenal days = 12 days + another 2 epagomenal days for the 6 months left over which in total = 14 days to add to that schematic 1,260-day period, which comes to 1,274 days in those 42 months or 3.5 years.
Daniel certainly spoke of 7 periods. He did not, however, apply the fall and regrowth of the tree to the throne of Judah. He applied it solely to King Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:22, 24, 28, 33).

You may find these two sources helpful.
Sacha Stern, Calendars in Antiquity: Empires, States, and Societies, p. 193 f.
Jonathan Ben-Dov, The 364-day Year in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Jewish Pseudepigrapha
The earliest manuscripts of Daniel date to the 2nd century BCE, btw, as you probably already know.
The tl;dr version is that, when using the 360-day schematic year in calculating anything, you have to always remember to add on the 4 epagomenal days - i.e. the 2 solstices and 2 equinoxes - thereby making the year 364 days, which was the calendar the Jews used at the time.
So with 42 months (of 30 days each), you'd have to add on 3 x 4 epagomenal days = 12 days + another 2 epagomenal days for the 6 months left over which in total = 14 days to add to that schematic 1,260-day period, which comes to 1,274 days in those 42 months or 3.5 years.
Daniel certainly spoke of 7 periods. He did not, however, apply the fall and regrowth of the tree to the throne of Judah. He applied it solely to King Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:22, 24, 28, 33).

You may find these two sources helpful.
Sacha Stern, Calendars in Antiquity: Empires, States, and Societies, p. 193 f.
Jonathan Ben-Dov, The 364-day Year in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Jewish Pseudepigrapha
The earliest manuscripts of Daniel date to the 2nd century BCE, btw, as you probably already know.
The tl;dr version is that, when using the 360-day schematic year in calculating anything, you have to always remember to add on the 4 epagomenal days - i.e. the 2 solstices and 2 equinoxes - thereby making the year 364 days, which was the calendar the Jews used at the time.
So with 42 months (of 30 days each), you'd have to add on 3 x 4 epagomenal days = 12 days + another 2 epagomenal days for the 6 months left over which in total = 14 days to add to that schematic 1,260-day period, which comes to 1,274 days in those 42 months or 3.5 years.
Daniel certainly spoke of 7 periods. He did not, however, apply the fall and regrowth of the tree to the throne of Judah. He applied it solely to King Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:22, 24, 28, 33).

Now who's going back to Russell?
The Bible might be consistent, but we aren't. We don't believe the 1,260 days means exactly 1,260 days in the fulfillment of any prophecy about the 1,260 days. (in either Daniel or Revelation). Also we don't teach that 1,260 days means 1,260 years in either of of those prophecies.
Also, a Biblical Jewish month was not thirty days. A Biblical Jewish month was always based on the "new moon." So that it was really 29.5 days long. This means that in practice there were six 30-day months, and six 29-day months every year. A 30-day month was only used as a way to give a close approximation to a range of months, a calculation from a starting point to an ending point. For example, the distance from the 17th of the 2nd month to the 17th of the 7th month was sometimes 146, sometimes 147, and sometimes 148 days. But because it is a multi-month span, the Bible rounds it off to 150 days. The distance from the 17th of the ninth month to the 17th of the 2nd month (of the following year) was sometimes 146, sometimes 147, sometimes 148, and sometimes 176, sometimes 177, and sometimes 178 days. The longer time periods over came up every 3 years or so, so if they are averaged in, then the average for a 4-year period using the ideal number of months in 4 years (48) would give often give you a 30.15 day month. So you can see why the 30 day month was useful for a quick approximate calculation of date ranges. 
That 30.15 day month average over 4 years, was still actually made up of months, where half of them were 29 days and half were 30 days. Here's a specific example that often happened. Each year was typically 354 days and every 2 to 3 years it could be 384 days, when an entire month was added for a leap year. So:
354+384+354+354 equals 1,446 days Assuming 12 months a year, that's 48 months Divide 1446 by 48 = 30.15 But it was really 49 months because there was one leap year in the mix: 1446 divided by 49 = 29.51, which is the distance from one new moon to the next new moon. So it should be clear why the Bible would use an average of 30 days to approximate a time span of 42 months as 42 x 30 = 1,260. In real life a real 42 month period was always  1,239 or 1,240 days. It was NEVER 1,260 days. But a 3.5 year period that was called 42 months, was actually a 43-month period (very rarely it was 44 months). Which means that the 3.5 year period was 1,269 days.
If you have worked in banking or finance, you probably know that we still use the 30 day month, and therefore the 360 day year in some financial calculations. It's one of the built in functions in Microsoft Excel. There is evidence, I'm told, that the Babylonians used it, too.
The DAYS360 function in Microsoft® Excel is used to calculate the number of days between two dates based on a 360-day year ...

This type of thinking is very appealing. I have used the same ideas in my own discussions at the door and with Bible studies for several  years. So I understand the temptation to apply everything to 1914 whether it was developed in 1844, 1914, or 1944. The strong temptation to see a great world war as a "sign" is probably the very reason that Jesus repeated the point so many times -- that those who look for a sign should not be misled by wars or rumors of wars. 
A great earthquake would also sound like a sign of the end, or perhaps a perceived increase in earthquakes. The same could go for an increase in great pestilences, or great famines and food shortages. These things cause a lot of fear and concern, and often devastating loss of life. So it was natural that the disciples would have looked to such things as "the SIGN."
The Watch Tower Society, for many years, stated that that such things (wars, earthquakes, etc) were NOT signs of the "presence" or "parousia." From the 1890's up until about 1931, the Watch Tower Society promoted books that made this point. These books evidently sold in the millions of copies. The WTS reported that 100,000 "Studies in the Scriptures" sold in 1931 alone. (This was no longer the teaching in 1931, of course, but it had been the teaching for decades, and the WTS still had a lot of these books left to sell, after most of the doctrines changed between 1927 and 1929.)
Russell thought Jesus was saying that we should not be misled about wars, earthquakes, pestilence, etc., because this was not the sign. These were just the things that would continue to happen throughout history.  A Bible paraphrase, called the Message, evidently understands it similarly by rendering Matthew 23:4-8 like this:
Jesus said, "Watch out for doomsday deceivers. Many leaders are going to show up with forged identities, claiming, 'I am Christ, the Messiah.' They will deceive a lot of people. When reports come in of wars and rumored wars, keep your head and don't panic. This is routine history; this is no sign of the end. Nation will fight nation and ruler fight ruler, over and over. Famines and earthquakes will occur in various places. This is nothing compared to what is coming.
Russell also said that these so-called signs, just referred to the routine history of mankind for the last 18 centuries. Not even the changes brought about by World War I made Russell think to change this idea.

Blood was only to be poured out on the ground if a life was taken. It was to ensure the animal was properly dead and, when used as part of ritual sacrifice, was symbolic of atonement for sins.
Seeing as no life is being taken when blood for transfusion is being donated, and that it is not being used for religious purposes or for food, but it is being used for what God originally designed it for, those Scripture texts and the intent behind them do not apply.

I love the fact that the jw.org site is the most translated, too. But I don't really understand the logic of this. Are you saying that during all the time when we were NOT the most translated, that we were NOT the true religion?

Good points.
Also, some terminology is more common or even unique to JWs, so if we punch in those terms (e.g. 'God's kingdom' or 'ransom sacrifice'), we are going to get jw.org at the top of the list. Punch in 'Kingdom of God' or 'atonement doctrine' and jw.org will be way down the list if it appears at all on the first page.

If 'Johnny the Bethelite' reported this (from his Bethel hidey-hole (more likely) Rick Fearon's closet ) then it must be legit.
Having said that, the mental distress of suddenly being cast out and shunned by family and friends is no laughing matter and, tragically, there have been suicides or suicide attempts by those who have suffered this treatment.
 
 
 

Make them say "Shiboleth" to be sure.

If 'Johnny the Bethelite' reported this (from his Bethel hidey-hole (more likely) Rick Fearon's closet ) then it must be legit.
Having said that, the mental distress of suddenly being cast out and shunned by family and friends is no laughing matter and, tragically, there have been suicides or suicide attempts by those who have suffered this treatment.
 
 
 

You are just wrapped too tight, TTH .... and you are going to have a self induced stroke caused by massive irrelevancy. 
The people of Rio Linda are NOT offended .. especially since because of the publicity their property values have gone up ... and there is MUCH more to the story than what you superficially gleaned from skimming the low hanging fruit.
You need to get a grip, TTH ... lighten up .... take a break... get drunk ( for medicinal purposes only, you understand...) ... get a grip with BOTH  hands! 
Lay down in the floor and pour a box of puppies on your chest.
..and quit trying to defend the indefensible ... that will give you a HEART ATTACK., or in an anxious fit spend all your days counting your ear lobes!
Lighten up ... you will live a lot longer ... and be a LOT happier!
 

I have to admit I didn't read all of the info that Anna and Ann plus others have submitted, but the article (submitted above) about what a child molester looks like :
 http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/tell_others_the_facts.html#georges_story    
rang true with my step-father (of 50+years - not a JW, married, good income, white) who abused my daughter and youngest son.  Back in the late 70s my daughter was about 3yo, I caught him picking her up by putting one hand between her legs and the other under her armpit.  I immediately went to him, firmly told him not to do that anymore.  My daughter who is now in her 40s claims she can still remember the feeling. 18 yrs later, I relied on my parents for childcare since I had become a single mother and couldn't afford daycare when my son was small.   (Both parents were retired at this time.) The abuse began at about 4-5yrs old thru teen yrs.   The abuser was so clever, I had no idea for which I have felt deeply guilty.  We would sit at family meals (the 4 of us) and the abuser could act like nothing was wrong.  My son was weighed down with threats and so remained silent.  I thought he was just moody.  I didn't find out until my son was 23yrs old when he finally told me.  By this time his abuser was dead.  My son has left the Truth since he claims he is now Gay.  What the abuser takes freely for selfish reasons has a huge cost to others.  They are clever and cunning.   Good people just don't think the same way perverts do.  You just don't want to accuse someone of such serious crime.  Education is important and it's unfortunate we can't trust anyone.   Children (under 10yo) are now abusing younger children and the government can't do a darn thing about it because of their age.  This whole thing is such a mess.  They need to castrate the B______ds (crude, I know).  
I have a RV with an ex-member of the FLDS polygamist group (their leader is in jail for life for sex abuse) and I fear doing an internet search will put them off from learning more from the Bible.   I have stopped donating for the ww work because so much money is going to these settlements.  I donate to the KH and if they send money to the HQ, that's their business.  I feel I should write to the HQ and let them know, maybe that will get them to be more transparent.  I came across a quote from the Dali Lama the other day:  "A lack of transparency results in distrust and a deep sense of insecurity."  I would send that but I think they would disregard it given the source.  I pray to Jehovah that he will direct Jesus to handle this matter quickly and with great wisdom.   I pray for the victims and for protection for all children, JW or not.  May we all maintain our joy and peace in these troubled times.  Love to all.  
 

I have to agree with you there. Just the other day a sister brought up the subject of the convention and the talk about protecting our children. She is now the third person who absolutely did not think the counsel could apply to anyone being a threat in the congregation. It didn't even cross her mind. Those very few who are aware of this problem, and those who know about the Australia Royal Commission's findings, know exactly why this particular program was included at the convention. It was a response to the problem. However, not many are actually aware of that. I have yet to see a candid admission that we do have this problem among our ranks.
That is the scary part and has been suggested by many an opposer or ex-jw. I do not think much of the public is aware of this problem, as I have yet to meet someone in the ministry who brings it up. However this could change. I think that if this becomes a problem in the ministry, and brothers start reporting it, the GB might do something about it. In the mean time, have you perhaps thought of writing a letter to them, similar in content of what you wrote here? It's possible that if they receive many letters complaining about the lack of transparency regarding this issue it might hurry things along.
P.S. We had hospitality lat month and the brother was telling us about one of his Bible studies, who left the catholic faith because of pedophilia. I thought, oh no, what's he going to do when he finds out we have a similar problem! I know one sister who left the truth because she said she left the Catholics because of this.....

I'm not really a fan this new era of 'alternative facts' so I'll just say this: 
The case was tried in court; the case was appealed in court; both Watchtower and Conti decided not to appeal the Appeal Court's decision. There has been no 'out of court settlement' because the entire case was settled in court.
Have you forgotten the Appeal Court's judgment? Here it is again:
"We therefore conclude that defendants had a duty to use reasonable care to restrict and supervise Kendrick's field service to prevent him from harming children in the community and in the Congregation." - p. 23

Oh, 10, 20 years ago, authorities and institutions knew enough to handle abuse allegations properly. Much of the mishandling from this time is often due to bad policy. Seeing as elders are lay-people, all that is needed, rather than handle it in-house, is to report an allegation to the police or child protection bodies - i.e. to those professionally trained to investigate and protect. 
The appeal court upheld the order that Watchtower produce their key documents relating to this case, but they did set aside the amount for monetary sanctions against them for non-compliance. But Watchtower will face sanctions if they still do not produce.
I wonder: Do you feel the same about lawyers who have litigated against the Catholic Church for their child abuse cover-ups and crimes? What about those lawyers who have brought child abuse cases against the Boy Scouts of America, foster/care homes, schools? Are these lawyers self-centered, attention-seeking, money-grubbers too? When Zalkin has gone after all those non-JW sexual abusers and abuse-enabling institutions, was he doing it purely for self interest? Or do you feel differently - that other institutions are getting their just deserts and that the lawyers are trying to gain some much needed redress for the victims?
 

Yep, that's my question. What changed? Where, when ... and how ... if the inspired biblical canon closed nearly 2000 years ago?
But how does a figurative 12 times a figurative 12,000 equal a literal 144,000?
But contextually, if John was seeing everything in vision unfold from the perspective of heaven - the 'God's eye' view (Rev. 4f.), the 'great crowd' are in the same location as the Lamb, 4 living creatures, 24 elders and angels. To illustrate:  
I'm in bed asleep. I'm dreaming. In my dream I'm standing on a tropical beach. I see the palms swaying in the breeze and feel the warm sun on my face. Hearing excited shrieks, I turn and see my grandchildren ... in reality I don't yet have grandchildren so I sense this is an idealized representation of a desired future ... I see my grandchildren splashing about in the ocean, laughing because some fishes are tickling their legs. Further in the background, I see dolphins frantically racing each other.

Am I really on a tropical beach? No, I'm sleeping in my bed.

In reality, where are my grandchildren? In reality, they don't exist.

But in my dream, where am I? On a tropical beach.

In my dream, where are the fishes and dolphins? In the ocean.

In my dream, where are my grandkids? At New York Aquarium.

Huh? 

No that's incorrect. In my dream my grandkids are in the ocean with the fishes and dolphins.

Applying this to Rev. 7 now:

In vision, where is John? In heaven.

In vision, where are the 24 elders, angels and four living creatures? They are around the throne which is in heaven (Rev. 4:2,4,6; 7:11).

In vision, where is the great crowd? On earth.

Huh?

No that's incorrect. In vision, the great crowd is where the elders, angels and four living creatures are - before the throne and in front of the Lamb who is also in heaven (Rev. 7:9; 5:6).

The point. Within the confines of the vision, there is no warrant to say the 'great crowd' is anywhere else - just like there is no warrant to say my grandchildren are anywhere other than where my dream put them. 

Hm. You do realize that Google remembers your computer's search history, your likes and interests, don't you? Therefore, if you are a frequent visitor to jw.org, Google will bias your searches toward the sites you've shown past interest in.
When I opened a Chrome incognito window and searched "the kingdom of God," my first result was a wikipedia article, my second was the gotquestions site, third was the lifehopeandtruth site, and JW.org came fourth.

Pretty much. There has to be evidence that the departing spouse has committed adultery thereby 'scripturally' releasing the abandoned one from the marriage. If not, then, pfft, stuck forever.
However, I saw this in the Branch Correspondence Guidelines (2007, revised 2008):
"What if a mate is long missing and
presumed dead? The law may allow
that after a set time and a diligent but
unsuccessful search for the person, he
or she may be declared legally dead. If
that occurs and the 'survivor' truly believes
the absentee to be dead, he or
she may remarry but should be willing
to bear responsibility before God.—w69
7/15 447-8." - p. 75

Why banning the Jehovah’s Witnesses won’t work for Russia
BY EMILY B. BARAN APRIL 20TH 2017 The Supreme Court of Russia has a decision to make this week about whether to label the Jehovah’s Witnesses an extremist organization and liquidate its assets. This act would transform the religious community into a criminal network, and make individual Witnesses vulnerable to arrest simply for speaking about their faith with others. While the court case has attracted recent media attention, this move is the culmination of two decades of increasing state hostility to Witnesses. In the late 1990s, Moscow took the Witnesses to court to deny them legal standing in the city limits. After several years of court hearings, the city banned the organization. In more recent years, anti-extremism laws drafted in the wake of domestic terrorism have been turned against Witness magazines and books. Currently, over eighty publications have been placed on the federal list of extremist materials. Even their website is now illegal. So is My Book of Bible Stories, an illustrated book for children, listed alongside publications by terrorist organizations.
If the state criminalizes the Witnesses, it will represent a major deterioration in religious toleration in post-Soviet Russia. It will also put Russia at odds with the European Court of Human Rights, which has repeatedly ruled in favor of the Witnesses in the past two decades. It may make other minority faiths vulnerable to similar legal challenges. In the 1990s, scholars spoke of a newly opened religious marketplace, in which post-Soviet citizens, freed from the constraints of state-enforced atheism, shopped around among the faith traditions. It is fair to say that these days, this marketplace has fewer customers, fewer stalls, and more regulations.
If history is any guide, Russia will find it nearly impossible to eliminate Jehovah’s Witnesses. Soviet dissident author Vladimir Bukovsky once admiringly wrote of the Witnesses’ legendary persistence under ban. When the Soviet Union barred religious literature from crossing its borders, Witnesses set up underground bunkers to print illegal magazines for their congregations. When Soviet officials prohibited Witnesses from hosting religious services, they gathered in small groups in their apartments, often in the middle of the night. Sometimes they snuck away to nearby woods or out onto the vast steppe, where they could meet with less scrutiny. When the state told believers that they could not evangelize their faith to others, Witnesses chatted up their neighbors, coworkers, and friends. When these actions landed them in labor camps, Witnesses sought out converts among their fellow prisoners. Witnesses are certain to revive many of these tactics if placed in similar circumstances in the future.
Moreover, technology makes it far more difficult for Russia to control the religious practices of its citizens. Although the Witnesses’ official website is no longer available in Russia, individual members can easily share religious literature through email or dozens of other social media platforms and apps. While Soviet Witnesses had to write coded reports and hand-deliver them through an underground courier network, Witnesses today can text this information in seconds. Technology will also facilitate meeting times for religious services in private homes.
The Russian government simply does not have the manpower to enforce its own ban. It is hard to imagine that local officials could effectively prevent over 170,000 people across more than 2,000 congregations from gathering together multiple times per week, as Witnesses do worldwide. The case of Taganrog is instructive. Several hundred Witnesses lived there in 2009, when the city declared the organization illegal. A few years later, it convicted sixteen Witnesses for ignoring the ban and continuing to gather their congregations for services. The state spent over a year in investigations and court hearings for sixteen people, a tiny fraction of the total congregation, and then suspended the sentences and fines rather than waste more resources in following through on its punishment guidelines. There are not enough police officers in Russia to monitor the daily activities of each and every Witness, and the Witnesses know it. Under a ban, everyone will face more scrutiny, a few will be dealt more serious consequences, and most will continue practicing their faith regardless.
Russia may nonetheless decide that all of this conflict is worth it. After all, Soviet officials were fairly successful in relegating Witnesses to the margins of society. Few Russians will complain if Witnesses no longer come to knock on their door. After all, even Americans rarely have kind words for religious missionaries at their own doorsteps. In my own research, I have never heard a single Russian, other than a scholar, say anything positive about Witnesses. For the record, my experience with Americans has been similar. On a more basic level, Russian citizens may not even notice the Witnesses’ absence from public life. While the post-Soviet period saw a religious revival for all faiths, far fewer joined the Witnesses than the Russian Orthodox Church. For all their recent growth in membership, the Witnesses remain a tiny minority in a largely secular society.
The vocal determination of Witnesses not to acquiesce to state demands should not cause observers to overlook the very real damage a ban would do to this community. Yes, Witnesses have faced similar challenges before and have dealt with them. For decades, they held their baptisms in local rivers and lakes under cover of night. In the post-Soviet period, new members were finally able to celebrate their baptisms in full view of their fellow believers at public conventions. A long-time Witness who attended one of these events in the early 1990s recalled, “What happiness, what freedom!” A new ban would mean a return to this underground life, to a hushed ceremony in cold waters. This is not what freedom of conscience looks like in modern states.
Emily B. Baran is the author of Dissent on the Margins: How Jehovah’s Witnesses Defied Communism and Lived to Preach About It. Her work explores the shifting contours of dissent and freedom in the Soviet Union and its successor states. She is Assistant Professor of History at Middle Tennessee State University.

Sa'fyre response leaves 'a good feeling about mankind'
Volunteers needed to help sort million letters, packages for young burn victim
By Paul Nelson
Updated 8:55 pm, Wednesday, January 13, 2016

 
 

Hm. You do realize that Google remembers your computer's search history, your likes and interests, don't you? Therefore, if you are a frequent visitor to jw.org, Google will bias your searches toward the sites you've shown past interest in.
When I opened a Chrome incognito window and searched "the kingdom of God," my first result was a wikipedia article, my second was the gotquestions site, third was the lifehopeandtruth site, and JW.org came fourth.

@Gnosis Pithos within reason.
The @admin is more liberal than I am.... you can see his guidelines section above.
..... I personally will act in this section when I feel someone is acting as a bully. 
Also humor has a way of making tough comments somehow more palatable. Try it sometime.

@Gnosis Pithos being offended is not the criteria for removal. He is not attacking you or another specific person.