Ann O'Maly

You sure sound like Allen Smith, he suggested something similar. However, no matter how you wish to turn it, the responsibility rested with the GB, who themselves admitted that the way they conveyed the idea became more a probability rather than a possibility at convention talks. Some still have tapes, or remember these talks where GB members spoke about 1975 as a probability.  Not only that, but as others on this forum have pointed out, WT publications assured its readers that we would not see the end of the 20th century before Armaggedon came. That is a fact because you can check these publications yourself.

You must be new here. Most things JTR says has to be taken with a pinch of salt, and definitely not personally. And this is how those who reacted probably took it too, just JTR black humour. 

Even before C.T.Russell was born, commentaries on Bible prophecy included  dozens of potential dates. Nearly 200 years ago, a couple of them even included 1914 as potentially significant time period. The "1914 presence" doctrine, however, is only about 75 years old.
All the ideas behind the Watch Tower's version of the 1914 doctrine have already been discussed for decades now, and all of them, so far, have been shown to be problematic from a Scriptural point of view. Since the time that the doctrine generally took its current shape in 1943, the meanings and applications of various portions of Matthew 24 and 25 have already been changed, and the timing of various prophesied events and illustrations have changed. Most recently, the meaning and identification of the "faithful and discreet slave" has changed. And the definition of "generation" has changed about half-a-dozen times. This doesn't mean that the current understandings are impossible, of course, only that it has become less likely from the point of view of reason and reasonableness.
Besides, for most of the years of teaching this doctrine, we have had the flexibility of extending the "1914 generation" from a possible 40 years, up to 70, then 75, then 80 years. And this has been applied to teenagers who saw 1914, 10-year-olds who saw 1914, then even newborns who saw 1914. With every one of these options already tried and stretched to their limits, we finally were forced to convert the meaning of generation from its most common meanings and give it a new "strained" meaning that has no other Biblical parallel. (See Exodus 1:6; Matthew 1:17; 16:4; 23:36; Luke 11:50)
But that flexibility is still seen as the last reason for hope that the Watch Tower Society might have still been correct in hanging on to 1914. Since the Bible says that a lifespan is 70 or 80 years and 1914 + 80 = 1994, the "generation" doctrine in its original form (1943) could remain stable until about 1994. Of course, a lifespan could technically reach to 120 years or more, and Gen 6:3 even gives vague support to the idea that the "1914 generation" could last 120 years, until 2034.
The current alternative solution is to make the generation out of the length of two lifespans, which technically could be double 120 years, or nearly 240 years from 1914. That would have had the potential to reach to the year 2154 (1914+240) except for the caveat that it can, by its new definition, only refer to anointed persons who discerned the sign in 1914 and whose lives overlapped (technically, by as little as one second) with the lifespan of another anointed person representing the second group. If persons from each group don't really discern their own "anointing" until age 20, for example, this would effectively remove 40 years from the overall maximum. 1914+120-20+120-20 = 2114. We could also assume a possible lifespan of more than 120 years, but otherwise, the new two-lifespan generation could potentially make the generation last 200 years. This "technical maximum" is not promoted currently, because for now we look at examples like Fred Franz who was part of that original generation already anointed and who saw the sign, and the typical example of an anointed brother who was apparently "anointed" prior to Franz' death in 1992 would be someone like Governing Body member, Brother Sanderson, who was born in 1965, baptized in 1975, and was already a "special pioneer" in 1991. His is currently 52.
However, the generation problem is just one more problem now which we can add onto the list of all the other points that make up the 1914 doctrine. Here are several points related to 1914 that appear problematic from a Scriptural point of view:
All evidence shows the 1914 date is wrong when trying to base it on the destruction of Jerusalem. (Daniel 1:1; 2 Chron 36:1-22; Jer 25:8-12; Zech 1:12, 7:4; Ezra 3:10-13) Paul said that Jesus sat at God's right hand in the first century and that he already began ruling as king at that time. (1 Cor 15:25) Jesus said not to be fooled by the idea that wars and rumors of wars would be the start of a "sign" (Matt 24:4,5) Jesus said that the "parousia" would be as visible as lightning (Matt 24:27). He spoke against people who might say he had returned but was currently not visible. (Matt 24:23-26) Jesus said that his "parousia" would come as a surprise to the faithful, not that they would discern the time of the parousia decades in advance. (Matt 24:36-42) Jesus said that the kingdom would not be indicated by "signs" (Luke 17:20, almost any translation except NWT in this case) The "synteleia" (end of all things together) refers to a concluding event, not an extended period of time (Matt 28:20) Jesus was already called ruler, King and even "King of Kings" in the first century. (1 Tim 6:15, Heb 7:2,17; Rev 1:5; 17:14) Wicked, beastly King Nebuchadnezzar's insanity and humiliation does not represent Jesus as the "lowliest one of mankind." (Heb 1:5,6; 2:10,11; Daniel 4:23-25; cf. Heb 2:7; 1 Pet 3:17,18) The demise of a Gentile kingdom cannot rightly represent the time of the rise of the Gentile kingdoms (Daniel 4:26,27) The Gentile kings did not meet their demise in 1914. (Rev 2:25,26) The time assigned to the Gentile Times that Jesus spoke about in Luke 21:24 is already given as 3.5 times, not 7 times (Revelation 11:2,3) The Devil was already brought down from "heaven" in the first century. (1 John 2:14,15; 1 Pet 5:8; Luke 10:18; Heb 2:14) The Bible says that the "last days" began in the first century. (Acts 2:14-20; 2 Tim 3:1-17; 1 Peter 3:3-5; Heb 1:2, almost any translation except NWT in this case.)

Liking JAMMY's post for containing the phrase, "wet noodle spanking." 

Just a quick FYI and for your additional research due to it being off topic.
Bible Students also bought Liberty Bonds from the government during WWI and Watchtower officially approved of it, although it emphasized it was a conscience matter for individual BSs. This position contributed to the 'Stand Fasts' splinter group being formed 
Sources:
https://ia601406.us.archive.org/23/items/WatchtowerLibrary/magazines/w/w1918_E.pdf - See May 15, p. 152-153 [R6257] and June 1, top of p. 168-169 [R6268].
Prior view of breaking neutrality:
w64 2/1 p. 80 par. 8 The Comely Feet of the Messengers 
"Because of not then properly understanding a Christian’s strict neutrality toward political conflicts of earth and not understanding the matter of relative subjection to the earthly “higher powers,” the remnant was brought into bondage to Great Babylon."
Present view (links with @HollyW's earlier WT quote):
w16 November pp. 26-30
"Not everything the Bible Students did during the period between 1914 and 1919 was in harmony with Scriptural principles. Although they were sincere, the brothers did not always have a proper view of subjection to the secular governments. (Rom. 13:1) Therefore, as a group, they were not always neutral with regard to the war effort. For example, when the president of the United States decreed that May 30, 1918, would be set aside as a day of prayer for peace, The Watch Tower urged the Bible Students to join in the observance. Some brothers purchased bonds to provide financial assistance to the war effort, and a few even went into the trenches with guns and bayonets. However, it would be a mistake to conclude that the Bible Students were first taken into captivity to Babylon the Great because they needed correction and discipline. On the contrary, they understood their obligation to separate themselves from false religion, and during World War I, the break with that world empire was almost complete. - Read Luke 12:47, 48." - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2016844
 

However, the context and wording of the passage in the other letter - the second one to the Corinthians - strongly suggests Paul was addressing Jesus. Let's take another look:
Three times I begged the Lord [which Lord?] about this, that it would depart from me.  But he said to me: “My undeserved kindness [which Lord's 'undeserved kindness'? But cp. Acts 15:11; Rom. 1:7; 16:20; 2 Cor. 8:9; etc. - 'undeserved kindness' can derive from Jesus as well as from God]  is sufficient for you, for my power [which Lord's power?] is being made perfect in weakness.” Most gladly, then, I will boast about my weaknesses, in order that the power of the Christ [ahh, Paul clarifies that he means the Lord Christ] may remain over me like a tent.  So I take pleasure in weaknesses, in insults, in times of need, in persecutions and difficulties, for Christ. For when I am weak, then I am powerful.
Well, I'm of the opinion that it's the translator's job to translate what's there - not to interpolate. Yes, the NWT should have put the replacement 'Jehovah' as a footnote rather than into the main text. 
Regarding the parallel phrasing Stephen used:
Jesus cried out, "Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit." (Luke 23:46) Stephen similarly cried out, "“Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Seeing as Stephen was clearly addressing Jesus here, it's most natural that he'd continue addressing him when, a moment later, he says, "Lord, do not charge this sin against them."
 

The book has been discontinued. There was a congregation notice back in November 2015 which said it was among those that "will no longer be available once stock has been depleted at the branch."

I've heard devout JWs use the expression. 
Some say the phrase comes from an old Scottish poem; others say it originates from the 99th 'The Nines' Wiltshire Regiment who were known for being very smartly presented. There are other hypotheses, but Its origin is unclear.
I've not come across the 'nine gods' idea before. Given that no support has been provided, I'm guessing it's been made up.
 
 

I saved those deleted posts, most of them at least, and I can assure you that you were not deleted for presenting any facts. Perhaps you do not remember, but you were attacking and insulting other posters with a vengeance! In a post above, you say:
Calling people fools and saying that their God is Satan is really quite mild compared to the type of slander, name-calling, attacks and insults you were putting people through. Fortunately, you seem to reserve a good percentage of your venom on me, instead of many of the others, here. Also, you have changed your tone much of the time, so that you now tend more toward a kind of sarcasm and snide comments instead of going right after the person directly. Either way, I hope you stick around (under one of more of your aliases) at least, because the kind of people who are interested in truth and facts can usually figure out why anyone would resort to these diversionary tactics. In that way, the ad hominem attacks actually help. They don't help everyone, of course, but at least such tactics provide a kind of a "touchstone" by which to measure a good rational idea from another kind of idea.

This "News" was absolutely true, not fake.
But even though we counted the Mexican brothers and sisters as publishers in the Yearbook, we treated Mexico as a different kind of organization. The Watch Tower Society  had set up as an educational cultural "charity" instead of a religious organization so that we (WTS) could have property in Mexico.
When we visited congregations in Baja and Tijuana as a family when we were younger, while living in California, there was no song and prayer at the meetings, nothing could come too close to looking like "religious worship." The publications were used as if it was just a reading lesson, and the questions determined if readers and listeners got the point of what was just read.
So, the rumor was that the bribes were offered so that the WTS didn't create any wave of religious persecution, because, well . . . How can you have "religious persecution" if we were pretending we were not a religion? Also, we would have lost our charitable/cultural status and lost our property, and it would have interfered with the goal of waiting for a better political and religious climate in the country, to finally accept religious status when circumstances were more favorable.

Yes, but they have to hold it at arm's length straight out, with the other arm bent and hand on hip, and the head covering has to be a large Mexican Sombrero, with tassels.

Hello Mr Joyce,
 
Your response from the viewpoint of the Watchtower Society has to now be “no” (another flip flop), although they do agree that Stephen did; but in so answering they make some interesting claims that are not altogether true.
 
First they make a statement that:
“Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament makes this honest admission: ‘The word God is not in the original, and should not have been in the translation. It is in none of the ancient [manuscripts] or versions.'”
 
True, but not the whole truth, because the full quote from Barnes is as follows:
“The word God is not in the original, and should not have been in the translation. It is in none of the ancient mss. or versions. It should have been rendered, “They stoned Stephen, invoking, or calling upon, and saying, Lord Jesus,” etc. That is, he was engaged “in prayer” to the Lord Jesus. The word is used to express “prayer” in the following, among other places: 2Co_1:23, “I call God to witness”; 1Pe_1:17, “And if ye call on the Father,” etc.; Act_2:21, “whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord,” etc.; Act_9:14; Act_22:16; Rom_10:12-14. This was, therefore, an act of worship; a solemn invocation of the Lord Jesus, in the most interesting circumstances in which a man can be placed – in his dying moments. And this shows that it is right to worship the Lord Jesus, and to pray to him.” (emphasis mine)
 
If they accept Barnes on the fact that God should not be in the text they should also accept Barnes when he informs us that Stephen is praying to the Lord Jesus and that Scripture indicates we can do it too. But no, they simply take the first part and ignore the rest. They then talk about the Greek word used:

“Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words explains that in this setting the original Greek word, epikaleo, means: ‘To call upon, invoke; … to appeal to a authority.”
 
But words have been missed out from the Vine’s quote which put a different light on the issue:
 
“in the Middle Voice, to call upon for oneself (i.e., on one’s behalf), Acts 7:59”
 
Clearly Stephen called upon, invoked, prayed to the Lord Jesus. The Society, albeit seemingly reluctantly admit this was happening but want to show that you cannot do it today.
 
“Does Stephen’s brief utterance set a precedent for praying to Jesus? Not at all. For one thing, Stephen clearly distinguished Jesus from Jehovah, for the account says that he saw Jesus “standing at God’s right hand.'”
 
What this has to do with praying to Jesus I am not sure. We Christians make a distinction between  God the Son and God the Father but we can still pray to Jesus in His own right.
 
Next they say:
“Also, these circumstances were exceptional. The only other case of such an utterance being directed to Jesus is that of the apostle John, who similarly addressed Jesus directly when he saw Him in vision. – Revelation 22:16,20”
 
No clear reason is given as to why, if Stephen prayed to Jesus and it was accepted, and John prayed to Jesus and it was accepted, you and I cannot pray to Jesus and it will be accepted!
 
They end the article with this:
“Although Christians today direct, all their prayers to Jehovah God, they too have unshakable faith that Jesus is “the resurrection and the life.”
 
This refers back to an earlier paragraph where they stated:
“He therefore asked Jesus to safeguard his spirit, or life force, until the day when Jesus would raise him to immortal life in the heavens.”
 
Not according to other parts of the New Testament where the same Greek word, δέχομαι, is used.
 
"whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time." (Acts 3:21)
 
Heaven actually received Him and Jesus was in heaven.
 
"So when He came to Galilee, the Galileans received Him, having seen all the things that He did in Jerusalem at the feast; for they themselves also went to the feast." (John 4:45)
 
The Galileans actually received Jesus and He was in Galilee.
 
"Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet." (Matt 10:14)
 
They were literally received into the home and stayed there.
 
"By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed (literally received) the spies in peace." (Heb 11:31)
 
Rahab actually received the spies into her home.
 
"They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!'" (Acts 7:59)
 
Stephen was asking Jesus to actually receive his spirit and so he would be with Jesus in heaven; nothing to do with safeguarding for a future day.
 
There is nothing to stop us praying to Jesus, indeed the teaching is that we should be praying just as Stephen did. <><

I know they alluded to it. Your quote brings that out very well. I'd forgotten that one. Good to see you here again 

Just a quick FYI and for your additional research due to it being off topic.
Bible Students also bought Liberty Bonds from the government during WWI and Watchtower officially approved of it, although it emphasized it was a conscience matter for individual BSs. This position contributed to the 'Stand Fasts' splinter group being formed 
Sources:
https://ia601406.us.archive.org/23/items/WatchtowerLibrary/magazines/w/w1918_E.pdf - See May 15, p. 152-153 [R6257] and June 1, top of p. 168-169 [R6268].
Prior view of breaking neutrality:
w64 2/1 p. 80 par. 8 The Comely Feet of the Messengers 
"Because of not then properly understanding a Christian’s strict neutrality toward political conflicts of earth and not understanding the matter of relative subjection to the earthly “higher powers,” the remnant was brought into bondage to Great Babylon."
Present view (links with @HollyW's earlier WT quote):
w16 November pp. 26-30
"Not everything the Bible Students did during the period between 1914 and 1919 was in harmony with Scriptural principles. Although they were sincere, the brothers did not always have a proper view of subjection to the secular governments. (Rom. 13:1) Therefore, as a group, they were not always neutral with regard to the war effort. For example, when the president of the United States decreed that May 30, 1918, would be set aside as a day of prayer for peace, The Watch Tower urged the Bible Students to join in the observance. Some brothers purchased bonds to provide financial assistance to the war effort, and a few even went into the trenches with guns and bayonets. However, it would be a mistake to conclude that the Bible Students were first taken into captivity to Babylon the Great because they needed correction and discipline. On the contrary, they understood their obligation to separate themselves from false religion, and during World War I, the break with that world empire was almost complete. - Read Luke 12:47, 48." - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2016844
 

The winning side, of course.  During WWI whose side did your church pray for?
"In accordance with the resolution of Congress of April 2nd, and with the proclamation of the president of the United States of May 11, it is suggested that the Lord's people everywhere make May 30th a day of prayer and supplication. ... As says the spirit through the Apostle Paul: "I exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour." (I Timothy 2:1-3) Let there be praise and thanks-giving to God for the promised glorious outcome of the war, the breaking of the shackles of autocracy, the freeing of the captives (Isaiah 61:1) and the making of the world safe for the common people--blessings all assured by the Word of God to the people of this country and of the whole world of mankind." Watchtower 1918 Jun 1 p.174

So the point remains, @Eoin Joyce, that two deities are being 'worshipped.' Therefore, those who take an Arian-esque position have to explain away why proskuneo has one connotation when applied to the Father and another one when applied to the Son.
This illustrates the kinds of difficulties the early Christian 'guardians of doctrine' had to thrash out and come to a consensus on. @bruceq's overly simplistic 'black and white' approach doesn't help.

I missed this part of your earlier post. You do realize that 5 of the books you list ......  
Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation  Jesus God or the Son of God Trinitys Weak Links Revealed Concepts of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit  Chronicles of the Unholy Fathers ... were written by JWs?
As a general point about your list, I suggest you go through each book and each of your favorite claims in those books and consider:
"Before trusting it, ask: (1) Who published this material? What are the author’s credentials? (2) Why was this published? What motivated the writer? Is there any bias? (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?" - Watchtower, 8/15/2011, p.4
Many of the older works which allege various pagan connections to Christian beliefs and practices (especially if targeting the Catholic church), are derived from Hislop's book.
You may find this thread helpful as a case in point of how poor sources and ideas can be recycled and perpetuated so that one thinks a piece of information has been independently verified by lots of different people, when actually it traces back to just one author.
Then you'll be able to weed out the dodgy research and use that which is more solidly grounded.  

It was never proved in the first place. The connection between the pope's mitre and Dagon was a figment of Hislop's wild imagination. Nineveh was destroyed in 612 BCE so the pictures of characters wearing Fish costumes remained buried until the 19th century. The pope started wearing a mitre in medieval times, its design and shape having developed over time. Dagon wasn't even a fish-god.
http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/knpp/peoplegodsplaces/index.html#letter_D
@TrueTomHarley said:
No. Not in any way, shape or fishy form 'close.'  
Anyway, this thread has so many red herrings, we could start our own kipper industry.
 

Uh oh!
Hislop Hokum Alert triggered!

You do know that the 'Dagon Fish' hat thing is a Hislopian fantasy, don't you?
You also do realize that concepts about triad groupings of gods are not the same as the Trinity idea, don't you?

Sainsbury's apologises after a customer was told he could not have black pudding in his Full English breakfast because the Jehovah's Witness chef would not prepare it
Alan MacKay told he could not enjoy black pudding at Nottingham store He was offered a full refund and instead made his own breakfast at home Supermarket giant said its chef had no issue serving bloodied sausage  Chef took object to dish as Jehovah's Witness believe blood is sacrosanct  By Alex Matthews For Mailonline
Published: 09:16, 24 March 2016 | Updated: 15:56, 24 March 2016
 
Sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its Jehovah's Witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his Full English breakfast.
Alan MacKay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in Arnold, Nottingham.
 
After receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so.
  Missing: This is the Full English Alan MacKay should have received while dining at Sainsbury's in Nottingham
Jehovah’s Witness regard blood as sacrosanct and if an animal hasn’t been bled to their standards they won’t eat it. 
 
Mr MacKay, who had popped into the store after dropping his wife off at work at 9am, said:  'I know it sounds trivial, but it's the principal behind it that's ridiculous.
'If she refuses to cook black pudding because of her religion, what is she doing working in a kitchen that sells it? She shouldn't be employed if she won't cook the menu.
  'I was really looking forward to my black pudding. You get a good breakfast in there.
'But when I went into the cafe to order my black pudding, like as I have done before, I went away hungry. I was really cheesed off.
'I came home and had my breakfast at 11.30am. I had crumpets, a poached egg and beans. I didn't buy black pudding because it's quite fatty so I only have it once a week or so.
'Sainsbury's does a wonderful black pudding, so that's why I was so disappointed. It's one of the few big stores that sells black pudding. Morrison's doesn't.'
   Mistake: A spokeswoman said Mr MacKay was forced to go without due to a mix up between the kitchen team
Mr MacKay said he was 'cheesed off' when he was not served his full meal at this Sainsbury's cafe because it usually serves up 'wonderful black pudding'
Mr MacKay was offered a refund by Sainsbury's who explained the error was down to a mix up between the kitchen team on duty.
A spokeswoman said a member of staff had misunderstood that the chef had asked them to prepare the black pudding, not that black pudding could not be served.
'We have apologised to the customer for the misunderstanding.' she added. 
JEHOVAH'S WITNESS BELIEFS: APART FROM MAINSTREAM CHRISTIANITY
Jehovah's Witnesses are a worldwide brotherhood amounting to over eight million members.
Jehovah's say that as Jesus Christ did not limit his kingdom to a certain part of the world, they do not allow themselves to be attached to a country, ethnicity or political belief system.
Members believe that the bible was inspired by God or 'Jehovah' and is completely historically accurate. As a result, if a theory clashes with the bible they believe it to be wrong.
Jehovah's do believe in Jesus, but they think he died on a stake rather than a cross. This is because of the Greek word used for cross in the bible which translates to 'stake' or 'tree'.
Members say that when someone dies their existence stops completely and as a result they do not believe in Hell. Their other reasoning for this is that God would not want to punish humans for eternity.
Members do not accept blood transfusions because they believe God has forbidden this in the bible (In particular making reference Genesis 9:3-4 and Acts 15:19-21).
Jehovah's say that God believes blood represents life, so out of respect and obedience they do not tamper with it.
Source: Jehovah’s Witnesses

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3507433/Sainsbury-s-apologises-customer-told-not-black-pudding-English-breakfast-Jehovah-s-Witness-chef-not-prepare-it.html#ixzz43qzjk9F2 
 

Thank you for responding intelligently. (You usually do anyway.) But this is why I specified the Greek word involved. 
So, on the one hand ... and I don't need to cite reams of scripture texts - you'll know them already - so these are quick examples:
Luke 4:7, 8 - If you, therefore, do an act of worship (proskuneo) before me, it will all be yours.”  In reply Jesus said to him: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship (proskuneo), and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”
Revelation 22:9 - But he tells me: “Be careful! Do not do that! I am only a fellow slave of you and of your brothers the prophets and of those observing the words of this scroll. Worship (proskuneo) God.”
But on the other hand:
Hebrews 1:6 - But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to (KJV, worship; Gk. proskuneo) him.”
Revelation 5:13, 14 - And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and all the things in them, saying: “To the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.” 14 The four living creatures were saying: “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshipped (proskuneo).
Although proskuneo is applied to man and G/god(s) of all types, the fact remains that it's the 'worship' or proskuneo-ing of two true G/gods that presents theological difficulties for a monotheistic religion.
Was it? Was that a 'no,' then - you don't see any conundrums with the JW view? Hm.
I assumed you knew the relevant scripture texts already and, as a JW (I presume you are?), you would already hold those basic tenets.
Regarding the Bible being written by Jews so 'no Trinity,' well, as you know, the Jewish religion was established before the 'only-begotten god' (Jn. 1:18) arrived on the earthly scene, so of course the idea of 3 divine personages in one God-Being wouldn't have entered their heads. Trinitarians would argue, however, that the seeds of this new concept about God were sown in the NT, after the 'only-begotten god' (Jn. 1:18) made his appearance, did what he did, leaving the new Christian followers to make sense of it all within the thought categories of the time.

16) Three blind mice
17) The Three Degrees
18) Moe, Larry and Curly
19) Emerson, Lake and Palmer
20)  Kepler's three laws of planetary motion
21) Earth, Wind and Fire
22) Tom, Dick and Harry
23) Shake, Rattle and Roll
24) Three Billy Goats Gruff
25) Lies, damn lies and statistics
 

16) Three blind mice
17) The Three Degrees
18) Moe, Larry and Curly
19) Emerson, Lake and Palmer
20)  Kepler's three laws of planetary motion
21) Earth, Wind and Fire
22) Tom, Dick and Harry
23) Shake, Rattle and Roll
24) Three Billy Goats Gruff
25) Lies, damn lies and statistics
 

16) Three blind mice
17) The Three Degrees
18) Moe, Larry and Curly
19) Emerson, Lake and Palmer
20)  Kepler's three laws of planetary motion
21) Earth, Wind and Fire
22) Tom, Dick and Harry
23) Shake, Rattle and Roll
24) Three Billy Goats Gruff
25) Lies, damn lies and statistics
 

There will likely be more prosecutions in the aftermath of the ARC, @Barbara Snook. This is a good thing. This former JW may have been targeting 'worldly' children since he left the Org. Other unreported molesters may still be active members of congregations. Former JW or current JW, what has been hidden is coming to light and, if convicted, the community should be that little bit safer.
Also, if you really don't like these kinds of news stories - and the thread title was sufficiently clear on what it was about - then choose not to read them!