Ann O'Maly

On the other hand, the "first edition" of "Faith on the March" says that this happened on Sunday, October 4th:
We realized that 1914 was upon and now we must do something about it. On the 23rd of August, 1914, Brother Russell made a trip out in the northwest, down the Pacific coast and over into the Southern States, and wound up at Saratoga Springs, New York, where we held a convention September 30 through October 4, 1914. That was an interesting time because we thought we were going to heaven that first week in October--- and were looking forward to that. That was the idea.
...
On Saturday about 500 of us took the Hudson River daylight boat, a very lovely ride from Albany to New York. Then Sunday morning we were to open up in the Tabernacle and conclude our convention. Quite a number of the conventioners stayed at Bethel. Sunday morning, October 4th, the dining room was crowded. Brother Russell's habit when he came down in the morning was to hesitate at the entrance of the dining room a moment and say, "Good morning, everyone". We would all say, "Good morning". But this morning after greeting us as to the time of day he said, "The Gentile Times have ended, their kings have had their day." Then, of course, we all applauded. We were all very excited and I wouldn't have been surprised if at that moment we all just started up, that being the signal to go up, but it wasn't.
So the same recorder of these events first wrote the circumstances to show why it was Sunday, October 4th when the announcement was made.

Good post. Good research.
The Watchtower here says it was on October 1st, and I think A. H. Macmillan was the first to say it was on October 2nd.
I have read Macmillan's "Faith on the March" and I'm now reading the typewritten first draft of Macmillan's "Faith on the March." (His edits remind me of experiences watching the editing process at Bethel.) For years, I have noticed that there are a couple of things that Macmillan either just "made up" or else he had a very poor memory, or was choosing between two or more versions of a story. But when he chose to report on specific things that Russell said or did, there is strong evidence that it's Macmillan's own fault when he reported it incorrectly. (For example, when a bunch of Watchtower readers were reported to have waited on a bridge in Pittsburgh in their white robes expecting to be raptured, he quotes Russell to exonerate him from any personal embarrassment in that incident. But he ends up claiming Russell said something that he wouldn't likely have said unless Russell also had a bad memory. The newspaper account that Macmillan claims to base the story on, actually doesn't exist, and it now appears Macmillan confused it with a report from a Philadelphia newspaper about an incident a few hundred miles away from Pittsburgh.)
On the other hand, Rutherford had also been known to make "convenient" changes in a story, which he did several times in his booklet from 1915: "Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens." As a lawyer he must have had some of the documentation in front of him, but he makes several claims in that booklet that differ from the court records, often just slightly and often in a technically ambiguous manner, and often with an obvious purpose of simplification or to avoid a distraction that might create suspicion. (The entire booklet was written for the purpose of exonerating Russell from about a dozen of the major claims made against him and/or his business practices.)
In think that in this particular case, I would choose to believe that it did happen, and that Macmillan is correct, rather than Rutherford. The reason is that Rutherford may have only wanted to give emphasis to the fact that the Gentile Times ended on October 1st, and including the fact that Russell waited until October 2nd would be a distraction that would have required a small explanation. So the slight change was just to avoid the distraction. Technically, Rutherford may have thought that "first of October" could ambiguously refer to the earliest part of October instead of a specific date. It's also possible that Rutherford incorrectly remembered it being on October 1st.
But the other reason to accept Macmillan's date is because it looks like he is working from a diary. We also know from another source document that Macmillan had worked out the travel dates for all his speeches and convention travel in 1914. We also have a letter from Macmillan explaining why he can't make a certain travel arrangement based on the dates and (un)available funds. As a Bethel administrator, he would likely have kept good documentation. Also, we know it was common for many Bible Students to use books like "Daily Heavenly Manna" as a diary. What he writes in Faith on the March appears to say that many of the Bethelites didn't even get home until late in the day or evening on October 1st.  500 persons (including Bethelites and "conventioners" who would be staying at Bethel at least until Sunday October 4th) were traveling on October 1st from Saratoga Springs to Brooklyn.including a Hudson Steamer from Albany. This is several hours of travel. Note from Macmillan's book:
Ever since 1879 The Watch Tower had been calling attention to the foretold end of the present systems as due to begin in 1914. But while we were all looking forward to 1914 and the end of wickedness and sorrow in the earth, many of us were thinking more of our own personal, individual "change" than anything else. On August 23, 1914, as I well recall, Pastor Russell started on a trip to the Northwest, down the Pacific coast and over into the Southern states, and then ending at Saratoga Springs, New York, where we held a convention September 27-30. That was a highly interesting time because a few of us seriously thought we were going to heaven during the first week of that October. At that Saratoga Springs convention quite a number were in attendance. Wednesday (September 30) I was invited to talk on the subject, "The End of All Things Is at Hand; Therefore Let Us Be Sober, Watchful and Pray." Well, as one would say, that was down my road. I believed it myself sincerely — that the church was "going home" in October. During that discourse I made this unfortunate remark: "This is probably the last public address I shall ever deliver because we shall be going home soon." Next morning (October I ) about five hundred of us began the return trip to Brooklyn, including a lovely ride on the Hudson River Day Line steamer from Albany to New York. Sunday morning we were to open services in Brooklyn, this to conclude our convention. Quite a number of the conventioners stayed at Bethel, the home of the headquarters staff members. Friday morning (October 2) we all were seated at the breakfast table when Russell came down. As he entered the room he hesitated a moment as was his custom and said cheerily, "Good morning all." But this morning, instead of proceeding to his seat as usual, he briskly clapped his hands and happily announced: "The Gentile times have ended; their kings have had their day." We all applauded.
We were highly excited and I would not have been surprised if at that moment we had just started up, that becoming the signal to begin ascending heavenward — but of course there was nothing like that, really.
[My great grand-father was with Russell on the Northwest and Pacific portion of Russell's convention tour starting August 23, 1914. He was one of speakers out of Chicago who usually joined Russell only on the "Western Tour" as they called it ]

You Cannot Have A Lessor perfection, It Either is or Is not.

We might consider just who is hiding behind a façade.  

Some of your words:  It is up to the body of Elders to use their “BEST” judgment on how to proceed with a sensitive matter. Even the ARC was blinded by ignorant opposers. Ex-witnesses that called and emailed them, by thinking…this would be the end of the WTS, they attempted to sensationalize a situation that ultimately the ARC found out it was full of “Lies” and “distortions” just like you are deceptively portraying now.

So unless you have personal knowledge on what goes on behind a judicial committee, STOP speculating. You are clueless, on what an Elders responsibility is toward the flock with such matters that require wisdom and discernment. The Governing Body can’t be everywhere. The flock book, is a general guideline book, for Elders to understand or have a basic concept on how to proceed with matters.

It seems more important to defend the GB and the elder body than to come to aid of, or feel remorse for, victims in over 1000 alleged cases not reported in one country alone. Would there be a reason to defend such failed attention to the flock if Holy Spirit was guiding the leaders?  John 16:30; 2 Pet 1:3

"If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him."  James 1:5
Whatever GB Jackson said in his deposition to his defense makes no difference in rectifying the damage already done, and still being committed.  If policy must continually be changed, what is the underlying cause if not because of a lack of Holy Spirit?  Would Jackson need any help from a government to make “mandatory reporting” if one truly followed Christ’s teachings?

“For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”  Matt 5:20

Rom 13:1 – “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.”

“Then Pilate said to Him, ‘Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?’ Jesus answered, ‘You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above.  Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.’  John 19:10,11

The WT uses 1 Cor 6:1 as one of their reasons for not reporting such a crime.  By checking the Greek word for “dispute” used here and in other scriptures, “pragma”, it’s use is concerning smaller affairs, transactions, business matters, things, deeds, and NOT something as serious as child abuse.  The GB willingly adheres to the scripture Deut 19:15, but GB Jackson refused to recognize Deut 22:25,26 as a vital one to consider.

Stewart -  “Is it not the case that had Jesus been asked about a case of sexual abuse, he may have referred back to this part of Deuteronomy and said that it’s not required to have two witnesses?”

Jackson -  “I certainly would like to ask Jesus that, and I can’t at the moment, I hope to in the future. But that’s a hypothetical question which, if we had an answer, then we could support what you said.”

If the words spoken in Deuteronomy are from God, why the hesitancy to consider them?  Why chose one verse in this book, but not consider another?  Jackson’s own stumbling over Stewart’s question shows the lack of God’s blessing in wisdom that a genuine anointed in Christ would be aware of, if they are truly still one in Christ. 1 Cor 10:6-12  To allow such evils to be committed, time and time again, shows a huge glitch in the system, and that glitch is the absence of Holy Spirit.

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.  John 14:26

 Whenever God’s people worked in harmony with his will, blessings were rich in all matters of their life.  The flock was protected by the knowledge God gave his priesthood and their leaders.  Deut 24:8; Mal 2:7; 2 Chron 35:3

“Does any one of you who has a dispute with another dare to go to court before unrighteous men, and not before the holy ones?”  1 Cor 6:1

While this scripture is given credence to the elder body in decision making, is the elder body comprised of God’s holy anointed ones – his chosen priesthood? 2 Chron 23:6; 1 Pet 2:5,9; Heb 8:5

“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.  Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.  For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.  Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.  For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.”  Rom 13:1-7

It appears, that the GB’s refusal to consider all scripture shows that the primary concern of the organization is its own worldly outward appearance and their struggle to keep up a frontage of cleanliness; caring not for what happens to God’s sheep.  Jer 23:2; Isa 1:17; Eccl 4:1

“Woe to those who decree unrighteous decrees,
Who write misfortune,
Which they have prescribed

To rob the needy of justice,
And to take what is right from the poor of My people,
That widows may be their prey,
And that they may rob the fatherless. Isa 10:1,2

He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just,
Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.  Prov 17:15

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
And prudent in their own sight!

 Woe to men mighty at drinking wine,
Woe to men valiant for mixing intoxicating drink,
 Who justify the wicked for a bribe,
And take away justice from the righteous man!  Isa 5:20-23

Christ’s commandments are based on love, love expressed toward his sheep. 1 Thess 4:9; 1 Pet 4:8; John 13:35  Through the blessing of Holy Spirit, love is made manifest in one’s heart.  If the leaders of the organization  worked in harmony with Christ and his love, there would be no question on how to deal with such offenses.  Did Jesus ever hesitate?

“But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?”  1 John 3:17


 
http://4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/2014/08/who-really-is-matt2445.html


 

 

 

 

 

That's a little like claiming that the verb "to say" isn't in the following sentence: "Whenever he says something, others begin saying the same thing that he said."
In Greek, there are many more forms of verb tense conjugations than there are in English. So verbs are simply referenced by the first form: first person singular.
Therefore, for reference purposes, proskunesatosan is proskuneo. 
 

Urban myth.
http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

Urban myth.
http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

The first pcture is a explanation for: "How woman think".
A+
 

The video was shown at Bethel to the entire family, and I don't think it would have been shown if those who made that decision to show it, thought that it definitely showed him in a drunken condition. However, there are at least two other pictures of Rutherford that show him in a condition that is almost the definition of what we would expect a drunk to look like.
But Brother Rutherford evidently did [allegedly] suffer from alcoholism, and it was not always apparent when he was under the influence. Hayden Covington, the Society's attorney, has admitted this to others, and even to relatives of mine. Of course, Hayden Covington, was himself an admitted alcoholic, who was disfellowshipped for related behavior. So his claims might be biased. On the other hand, the elder who was my own table head at Bethel said the same about Rutherford, and much more. Another friend of mine from Bethel, Arthur Worsley, Brother Swingle's roommate before Lyman married Crystal, has admitted that he lied under oath to protect Rutherford out of fear of being kicked out of Bethel at the Olin Moyle trial.
(The previous Society attorney before Covington was Olin Moyle, who felt it necessary to write a letter to Rutherford about abusive behavior, and even complained that Rutherford had been making arrangements to illegally bring in liquor from Canada during Prohibition. When Rutherford went public about Moyle in the pages of the Watchtower, where Rutherford railed against Moyle as an "evil slave," the case finally went to court, where Rutherford lost and had to pay Moyle $30,000 - reduced to $15,000 in an appeal in 1944. An anti-Moyle resolution was even adopted at the 1941 St. Louis assembly naming Olin Moyle as an "evil slave.")
Don't know if the booklet from the 1930's is related to Rutherford's alleged alcoholism, but it is titled "Prohibition and the League of Nations - Born of God or the Devil, Which?" Rutherford had spoken out against liquor prohibition as "born from the Devil" as far back as 1924 or earlier. 

4440 Braeburn Road, residence complete January 13, 1930. Two months later, the public was introduced to Beth-Sarim in a front-page article in the San Diego Sun titled, “San Diego Mansion — With All Modern Improvements — Awaits Earthly Return of Prophets.” It opened by reporting: “In one of the strangest deeds ever filed in the nation, Rutherford, president of the International Bible Students Association and of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, has put the huge tile-roofed home in fashionable Kensington Heights in perpetual trust for the ancient kings and prophets of Palestine” (emphasis added). The article went on to observe that “Judge Rutherford is intensely proud of the house he has planned and built for David, king of Israel; Samson…Joseph…and others equally as famous in the Bible.” .

The following January, the San Diego Sun carried another article on Beth-Sarim, “David’s House Waits for Owner.” When the reporter asked Rutherford how he thought the returned princes would look, Rutherford responded: “‘As perfect men. I interpret that to mean…that David, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jepthae, Joseph and Samuel will be sent here to wrench the world from Satan’s grasp, clothed in modern garb as we are, and able, with little effort to speak our tongue.’ Rutherford pictured the arrival of the biblical delegation perhaps in frock coats, high hats, canes and spats.” Rutherford’s booklet, What You Need(1932), depicted the seven “Ancient Worthies,” identified as “Earth’s new rulers,” in more traditional biblical garb. . San Diego, 1930's, is a pivotal time for the JW's. The following year the JW'S got the official name ot "Jehovah's Witnesses",Watchtower bible tract Society. Then began the growth of the vast Jehovah's Witness population in San Diego County.
 
Watchtower President Joseph Franklin Rutherford & Beth Sarim   
 
 

A good soldier always follows his regimental flag. The Watch Tower Bible And Tract Society is our flag. w 1917 p318

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
 

Zip, as far I can tell. The last mention of Babylon's 'hanging gardens' in the Org's literature was 2011 - 2 years before Stephanie Dalley published her research.

Do we have any changed info regarding this subject?
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/may/05/babylon-hanging-garden-wonder-nineveh
From w00 5/15 pp. 10-14 - The Watchtower—2000
Pay Attention to God’s Prophetic Word for Our Day (‎10 occurrences) 15, 16. What did Nebuchadnezzar do for Babylon, and what happened when he boasted about its greatness?
15 By completing Babylon’s massive double walls that his father had started to build, Nebuchadnezzar made the capital city seemingly impregnable.
... To satisfy his Median queen, who longed for the hills and forests of her homeland, Nebuchadnezzar reportedly built the hanging gardens—one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.
w00 5/15 pp. 10-14 - The Watchtower—2000

No, that's not it. As I posted before,
"...  he concludes that there is a disconnect between the Organization's doctrines, with its claims about itself, and the Bible and known facts. Therefore, the Organization doesn't have a special relationship with God after all, and is just another Christian-based group among many with their various strengths and weaknesses. Subsequently, there is no reason to regard the Organization's human leaders in any higher esteem than one would a clergyman. This person would also be praying to God for strength to endure the situation he was in and to find a way through. "
For a believer, absolutely. Organizations come and go and can become corrupt. God's word and Jesus are the Truth.
A child can be pressured or coerced to become baptized as was shown in the other thread.
As already explained, a dissenting JW is presented with a dreadful dilemma - keep the status quo along with his family and friends, or voice his disagreement, leave (or get kicked out), and face losing everyone he holds dear to his heart. I know it's hard to imagine how agonizing it is if you haven't been through it.
The scenario Jesus presents in Matt. 10 is where a family is ripped apart because some wanted to follow Jesus whereas others didn't. He was addressing an audience of Jews, remember? However, why should families be ripped apart when everyone is following Jesus according to their Bible-trained consciences and beliefs? Jesus wasn't talking about Christian family members becoming enemies of other Christian family members. I'm sure he'd be horrified.
And again, if a dissenting JW concludes that Jesus is long dead, following someone that doesn't exist would not figure in his available choices, nor would he ask for a mythical diety's help in making his choice. Nevertheless, the basic choice is the same: keep the status quo along with his family and friends, or voice his disagreement, leave (or get kicked out), and face losing everyone he holds dear to his heart.

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
 

Evidently you've forgotten that the WTS teaches that even after a thousand years of studying their publications to finally become perfect and meet God's standards physically, mentally, morally, and spiritually, JWs will still be persuaded to go to war against other JWs.  Being perfect at that time, what's their excuse?!

This Statement By You Is Very telling. You have no idea of the facts, only what the wt has told you. For you to call these cases a money grab and that they are "shysters", when you know nothing of the abuse. The wt has admitted to the fact that these were substantiated claims and that they also have the proof and in some cases confessions. But you can't accept this. So you put your fingers in your ears and scream la la la la I can't hear you.
 
Also by liking your own posts to puff up your "status" is par for the course with the wt too.

David, trying to save his life by hiding who he was and pretending to be somebody he wasn't, was not cowardly. We agree. It's extremely brave to be among those who would turn hostile toward him (even kill him!) in a heartbeat. It's similar with the situation a doubting or unbelieving JW often finds himself in. His family and friends may not go so far as to kill him, but it can lead to them cutting off all contact with him which can be a kind of living death - for both parties.
That assumes that the JW organization is specially chosen by God and that the leaders are God's anointed. A questioning JW who thoroughly researches his religion and concludes it doesn't stand up to scrutiny will broadly fall into one of two camps:

1. Someone who remains a Christian believer and takes the Bible as God's Word. In this case, he concludes that there is a disconnect between the Organization's doctrines, with its claims about itself, and the Bible and known facts. Therefore, the Organization doesn't have a special relationship with God after all, and is just another Christian-based group among many with their various strengths and weaknesses. Subsequently, there is no reason to regard the Organization's human leaders in any higher esteem than one would a clergyman. This person would also be praying to God for strength to endure the situation he was in and to find a way through.

2.  Someone who believes the Bible originated with man. The Judeo-Christian God does not exist. All bets are off. The Organization is human construct with irrational, mumbo-jumbo ideas.

Either way, your point about speaking against God's anointed or organization would be considered moot by a JW dissenter.
Assuming the person is still a Bible-believer, he'll find himself in an impossible situation. Despite the Awake's comment a few years ago ...

"No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family." - g 7/09, p. 29, Is It Wrong to Change Your Religion?
... he'll have to choose between his beliefs (and expressing them) and his family. He can seek out a Christian church and join with them in praise and worship ... but he'll lose his JW family and friends. Or he can keep his beliefs to himself, continue with his JW family and the JW community with its 'unacceptable' worship, but struggle with his godly conscience and personal integrity. He may end up in a spiritual no-man's land. It's not an easy choice and it often takes some time to make.
A person has a better idea of what they were doing if they get baptized as an adult. Not necessarily so with a minor. Eoin and I have had a couple of discussions on the ethics of minors getting baptised as JWs. Rather than repeat myself here, you might like to take a look.

You make it sound like 'no choice' is a good thing. It's one matter for a child to be born subject to a country's laws, but death for not following your parent's religion? Doesn't society criticize fundamentalist Muslim groups/authorities for having a similar mindset? What about tolerance and freedom of religion that JWs often fight for - even going to Caesar's courts to do so? Is it fair to demand those freedoms for oneself while denying the same for one's own children or others?
That depends on your point of view. Losing faith in what? Falling away from what? 

For the still-Christian-but-doubting-JW God, not Satan, is leading them out of the Organization. For the atheist or agnostic JW, the biblical God and Satan don't exist; they survive without expectations of divine help or fears of devilish temptation.

As for your comments about what a person should and shouldn't do, everyone's circumstances are different and the individual has to carefully weigh up his options and their wider ramifications. 

"Don't judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes."
 

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
 

Great post, Ann.
There's also this in 1 Corinthians 9:19  For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under[i]the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law,as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. 23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

From https://www.jw.org/en/news/releases/by-region/world/jehovahs-witnesses-receive-telly-awards/:
 “The Telly Awards has a mission to honor the very best in film and video,” said Linda Day, executive director of the Telly Awards. “The Witnesses’ accomplishment in the jw.org Newsroom illustrates their creativity, skill, and dedication to their craft and serves as a testament to great film and video production.”
Seen this quote before?
“The Telly Awards has a mission to honor the very best in film and video,” said Linda Day, executive director of the Telly Awards. “JIST Career Solution’s accomplishment illustrates their creativity, skill and dedication to their craft and serves as a testament to great film and video production.”  - http://jist.emcp.com/telly-awards
“The Telly Awards has a mission to honor the very best in film and video,” said Linda Day, Executive Director of the Telly Awards. “Impact Communications’ accomplishment illustrates their creativity, skill, and dedication to their craft and serves as a testament to great video production.” - http://impactcommunications.com/news_item/impact-receives-eight-telly-awards/
“The Telly Awards has a mission to honor the very best in film and video,” said Linda Day, Executive Director of the Telly Awards. “Red Circle’s accomplishment illustrates their creativity, skill, and dedication to their craft and serves as a testament to great film and video production.” - http://redcircleagency.com/red-circle-wins-11-telly-awards/
The Telly Awards has a mission to honor the very best in film and video, said Linda Day, Executive Director of the Telly Awards. Quest Groups accomplishment illustrates their creativity, skill, and dedication to their craft and serves as a testament to great film and video production. - http://wbecsouth.org/quest-group-lands-win-at-annual-telly-awards/
So it's one of those stock quotes where you [insert company name here]. Totally fake. 

Was David a coward when he hid and feigned insanity among the Philistines and later pretended to be their ally when he was really working against them? Or was he working for the greater good?
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 - There is an appointed time for everything, A time for every activity under the heavens:  2 A time for birth and a time to die; A time to plant and a time to uproot what was planted;  3 A time to kill and a time to heal; A time to tear down and a time to build up;  4 A time to weep and a time to laugh; A time to wail and a time to dance;  5 A time to throw stones away and a time to gather stones together; A time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing;  6 A time to search and a time to give up as lost; A time to keep and a time to throw away;  7 A time to rip apart and a time to sew together; A time to be silent and a time to speak;  8 A time to love and a time to hate; A time for war and a time for peace.
Oftentimes it is better to gently coax loved ones into truth by maintaining relationships with them rather than by hitting them with a giant mallet, causing injury and alienation that never fully heals. It takes greater psychological fortitude to use the soft approach - often at the expense of your own mental and spiritual well-being.
When a JW is alone in his unbelief and there is nobody among his family and friends to share his concerns or frustrations with for fear of becoming an outcast (which may cause extreme practical, economic and emotional problems - not just for himself but for others too), online forums are the places to safely vent and get the needed validation and support.
This 'Jordan' guy is going through a process and that is what 'Tears of Oberon' is seeing. 'Jordan' will eventually leave, but it will be when he is ready. How many times have you heard experiences where people have dilly-dallied and taken years to officially convert to the JWs? There is no cookie-cutter method of disengaging from a high-control religious group ... or converting to become a member of one ... and 'Tears of Oberon' will do well to be mindful of the individuality of a person's spiritual journey.

Finally, I've had time to read through this thread. Some observations:
I see that no scriptural support has yet been given for the idea that there will be a resurrection during the 1000 years. Where does the idea come from, then? 
It appears to be based on assumptions, i.e.,
1. that 'Judgment Day' isn't a specific point in time but a long period lasting 1000 years;
2. that there are two groups of Christian believers;
3. that the 'deeds' people will be judged on are those done during the 1000 years and not those done before they died ...
... which comes from the interpretation of Rom. 6:7 that once a person dies, they have been 'acquitted' from their sin ...
... in which case, the resurrected start with a clean slate but are still raised in imperfect bodies that can sin again, and it's really during the 1000 years that they are able to avail themselves of the merit of Christ's sacrifice (paradoxically by working toward perfection) ...
... which means that Christ's sacrifice doesn't atone for their sins committed before death in this present age, as their own deaths paid for their sins ...
... which goes against the gospel message (Rom. 3:21-26).
If Jesus' death does atone for sins committed before a believer's death, then why isn't that individual 'declared righteous for life' like the 'anointed' are? 
And yet, even with regard to the 'anointed' who are regarded as being 'declared righteous for life,' there is judgment based on what they did 'while in the body':
2 Corinthians 5:10 - For we must all appear before the judgment seat of the Christ, so that each one may be repaid according to the things he has practiced while in the body, whether good or bad.
This judgment for the 'anointed' doesn't last for 1000 years, does it? And they are judged according to what they did before they died and were raised as spirit beings, right?
Why the different standards between two groups?
This raises another conundrum because, if Adam died, he was acquitted of his sin too. So why do JWs insist that in his case, his 'Adamic death' doesn't acquit him of his sin? Where is the scriptural support for the idea that he has fast-tracked, without passing 'Go' and collecting $200, straight to the 'second death'?
Melinda mentioned 'willful sin.' Isn't much of our 'sin' 'willful' in some way or another? What about David? Was his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband involuntary, accidental? Manasseh's offenses against God with his child sacrifices and false worship - were those lesser sins than Adam accepting his wife's offer of forbidden fruit to eat? 
Eoin talked about there being a difference between 'immortality' and 'everlasting life,' and that humans cannot be immortal due to their nature. But then, wasn't it argued that angels are not immortal either (one of Melinda's posts)? So what does a being's human nature have to do with it?
And does 'immortality' mean 'cannot die' or simply 'does not die' because the person has been granted a spirit-generated body - whatever the nature? If an immortal person 'cannot die,' doesn't this limit God's power or make the immortal person as indestructible as the Creator? On the other hand, if immortality means one doesn't die, and that life continues indefinitely, forever, or everlastingly, no matter what body the rewarded believer is given, it will always be dependent on God's life-giving spirit, would it not?

The medical services weren't inadequate here. They were prevented from using the best treatment available for giving the boy optimal chance of survival. They did all they could under the circumstances.
It's a sad story for all concerned.