JW Insider

Thanks for sharing this, Jack. I have a friend who has been involved with the setting up of jw.org from the beginning and he knows that they have spared no expense to make sure the site is never hacked. Internally, the WTS and related corporations also distribute multiple versions of documents with hidden identifying tracking information buried in them so that if one is leaked it will be easy to narrow down the department or even the person, hopefully, from whom it was leaked. It's a shame that the WTS needs to put so much time and resources into tracking leakers, but it is the right of any corporation to take any measures deemed necessary to protect corporate interests.

The shame, in my opinion, is that the WTS and related corporations have produced any documents or videos that would be embarrassing to have distributed, or even critiqued. If one is humble, critique should be welcomed, requested and even promoted. Distribution of any WTS content by any means (e.g., news channels, social media channels, apostate channels, underground channels, and official channels) should all be encouraged. This assumes, of course, that nothing embarrassing or secret or underhanded is ever produced. As a corporation that can take pride in the message being given to the world, any and all means of allowing that content to be freely shared should be appreciated. And, as stated, if the producers of the content are humble, they will appreciate any type of questions and criticism, too.

3 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Sounds like a slight misinterpretation of the TJ position. What is the source?

Found it from the other link: https://www.elsoldetlaxcala.com.mx/local/los-testigos-de-jehova-contra-muro-fronterizo-3102305.html

26 minutes ago, Indiana said:

The border wall that the government of the United States of America plans to build is not viable, said the community of Jehovah's Witnesses in Tlaxcala.

Sounds like a slight misinterpretation of the TJ position. What is the source?

Also Tlaxcala is about as far away from a U.S. border wall as you can get in Mexico.

7 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

The problem with everything legal, people don’t see the downside of the government’s action. It’s always the victim and the perpetrator.

It's very true that government (police, investigators, prosecutors, judges, child protection services, etc.) often fails to do their job correctly. 

15 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Then, vultures disguised as lawyer’s go after an institution without giving the failures of the government, and the responsibility they had to a certain situation any thought of their role and accountability.

True again. It's so typical of lawyers to go after an institution when it's not even the fault of an institution, just because that's where the money is. As you know, this goes for a lot of legal issues, even those unrelated to child sexual abuse. Of course, if it can be shown that an institution had hidden the abuse to protect their own assets (coach, priest, cardinal, bank account) or to protect their institution's reputation (a college, a football team, a diocese, a religion) then there should be culpability. In some few cases these vultures swoop in to exact a kind of punishment where the "system" failed, but there is no real justice for all, because this very much a 'hit and miss' process. 

There are cases against the Watchtower that really have absolutely nothing to do with the Watchtower, and should focus just on getting justice for the victim from the abuser. And there may be cases where congregation elders have made a mistake that has nothing to do with their training as elders and they should have known better. Some of these cases should have nothing to do with the Watchtower Society or the organization.

37 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Although Penn State police and the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare had investigated the claim in 1998, as in 2002 nothing of consequence was done about it.

True. Powerful and monied interests can be leveraged on behalf of both persons and institutions, and that can make even good police investigative work meaningless. Victims are typically poorer and abusers can use their own power and influence to buy attorneys that can bully those victims. Victims can be talked into exonerating the abuser, or settling cases with a sack of money and a gag order.  I have a feeling that the HBO documentary on Michael Jackson which may be aired next month will show how money can buy the kind of lawyers and threats that protect abusers. Acosta/Epstein is another case in point.

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

You know, you could be right

Thanks.

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I believe the theme here is also consistent, that the Watchtower has NEVER made any recommendations toward child abuse.

That's certainly not a theme I would agree with. It's inconsistent with the facts. One of the earliest mentions of child sexual abuse was in a 5/15/1970 Watchtower, and there was a previous mention in the 1960's, I forget just where it was now.

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

On May 6, 1970, the congregation committee of the ___Unit, New York N.Y. , congregation, met to review the charges and the admittance of ____to indecent exposure of his sexual parts before____, the 15 year old daughter of his wife, ___. After hearing this matter in the presence of_____, the decision of the committee was as follows:

I had a feeling that this was case you intended. If you read it carefully, of course, you can see that this was not the case that Brother Knorr got involved with.

During his tenure as president, Brother Knorr became involved in every case where a Bethelite had to be dismissed. The rest of the Bethel family would often hear the reasons why at breakfast, no matter how distasteful. But it was a good reminder that the organization should be kept clean, and that it was good to stay alert to the fact that persons at all levels of responsibility within the organization could become involved in immoral, illegal, and even criminal behavior. This indecent exposure case, however, was not about a Bethelite and we read nothing about N.H.Knorr getting involved.

On 2/24/2019 at 2:09 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

And I keep coming back to that November 20th, 2011 Democratic and Chronicle article (which unfortunately is now behind a paywall - if anyone has access, I would appreciate if a pertinent line or two was fair-use quoted) that two thirds of all professionals who ARE mandated by law to report child sexual abuse fail to do it.

A research package I have through a university alumni account only provides the basic subscription to NEWSPAPERS.COM but does not include the "Publisher Extra Newspapers" unless I travel a couple hundred miles and access it from on the premises. But it does tell me that it's here: https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/137512481/ and that this is page 19 of the 11/20/2011 Democrat and Chronicle (Rochester, NY).

I can't get all the text from it without paying, but I can tell you that you will also find the identical quote you are looking for below, where anyone can access it for free. (It matches the quote as found in your book.)

http://www.naasca.org/2011-CrimeNews/110111-5-RecentCrime.htm

Reporting abuse

It is a mistake to think that the failure of Penn State authorities to report abuse is a rarity, child abuse educators, prosecutors and investigators say.

Studies across the country over the past two decades have consistently shown that nearly two-thirds of professionals required to report all cases of suspected abuse fail to do so. That is because they are uncertain of whether abuse occurred, are fearful of making false accusations or are unsure of their obligation.

"Mandated reporting of abuse only works as well as the people it's reported to," said Dan Gleason, a retired Rochester Police Department investigator who is now a private investigator.

"People sometimes try to be judge and jury when the victim discloses. If they don't believe it, they don't report it."

Every state has a law that requires professionals to report all suspected cases of child abuse or maltreatment they encounter professionally.

Under New York's law, enacted in 1973, mandatory reporters include physicians, nurses, teachers and school officials, social workers, police officers, daycare and social service workers, and therapists.

Lawmakers in Albany have proposed closing what they see as a loophole in the state's mandated reporting statute that, unlike the law in Pennsylvania, excludes college coaches and administrators in the belief that colleges have little contact with children.

Meanwhile, watching what has been happening at Penn State and Syracuse leaves Scuteri angry and exasperated.

"Who's in charge, and who's doing what?" he said. "What's going on?"

On 2/23/2019 at 3:33 AM, BillyTheKid46 said:

Back then, secular authority was dismissive of many things that they take into account now. This person remained an Elder until 2006 when the girls were able to speak with the local judicial committee where this person resided. They came to the conclusion the girls were credible enough to remove this person as Elder and never hold a position of congregational responsibility ever, within the organization.

So sorry for the abuse and extended trauma of your relatives.

Quite true that secular authority was much more dismissive in the past. Some secular authorities are still dismissive today. Even US Attorney Acosta broke the law by hiding the plea deal with Jeffrey Epstein (wealthy hedge fund manager) after at least 30 underage female victims came forward. There are indications that the actual number of victims may have been in the hundreds along with rumors that he escaped prosecution for years by flying recruited underage girls to a private island Epstein owns.

Acosta claims that his actions, although obviously illegal, were signed off by 'all levels of government.' That's an odd or even loaded expression when there are pictures of Trump and Clinton with Epstein. I don't think either of them ever denied flying to his personal island with him. Trump even made Acosta his Labor Secretary after the Epstein cover-up. Of course, this doesn't mean criminal behavior by Trump or Clinton. It could just be a coincidence.

But this is just a high-level case. I've heard of high school students molesting younger students and schools trying to hide the case from police, even recently. When it's a teacher, or coach, there is often a network of their peers and administrators who will cover for them. I know of a local case where police declined to arrest/investigate a coach when the crimes seemed obvious. Hopefully this is changing for the better everywhere.

I'd have to agree that sometimes in the past, this dismissive attitude by secular authorities has limited how far a congregation felt they could reasonably investigate a case, too.

19 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

That is far from the truth. Even Bro. Knorr got to weigh in on a case about child abuse. A case, your good friend and confidante should be well aware of. Why has he kept silent? What is his motive?

Just in case this supposed "good friend and confidante" was me, I'll weigh in. The truth is I had no idea what you were talking about with Knorr weighing in on a case about child abuse. It seemed quite possible, so I don't doubt that he may have involved himself in one one or more such cases.

But I googled some of the content you included about that case and only found it on watchtowerdocuments.org which is a site run by ex-JW Barbara Anderson. I looked at the particular case and see that you are mistaken about it.

This is not a case about child abuse. It's a case where the Astoria, Queens, NY congregation had a Bethelite (Brooklyn) assigned to it who had broken off an engagement with a sister there, and admitted to loose (brazen) conduct during the engagement. He had evidently done something similar (broken 'promises' to a sister along with loose conduct) back in his 'home' congregation before being invited to Bethel. He was dismissed from Bethel as of September 19th 1970 (and replaced as Book Study servant by a 19 year old brand new Bethelite in the next couple of months). The Astoria, NY congregation had announced his "probation" and quoted the direction they got from Knorr to the South Carolina congregation where the brother had just moved, letting them know about the case and that it would be OK to announce that he had been dismissed from the Bethel family (per Knorr's letter).

Disgusting.

5 hours ago, Outta Here said:

So, the problem here is compiling a list of medical professionals sympathetic to bloodless surgery without the individual's  permission for their inclusion on the list?

It looked to me like there was more to the government's case. Apparently the brothers assigned to do the HLC work in Spain were creating a database of doctors sympathetic to bloodless surgery. But it was done by compiling information gathered from questioning doctors, questioning staff, and questioning the experience of Witness patients with those doctors. The amount of cooperation in the way they answered questions, and the patient experiences were all used to produce a list of those assumed to respond well in situations listed. The data from both patients and doctors was used to make assumptions about how those doctors would treat cases assumed similar by the the HLC. It was being shared without permission. This had come up before and the HLC had been called out for this in 2014 and 2017. So the HLC promised to destroy the database. A followup shows that the HLC is still making use of the database that they never destroyed, and they are still collecting data.

I think the penalty is especially for lying about the destruction and (dis)continued use of the database.

17 minutes ago, Guest salem said:

No filter, no flavor, just cotton-pickin paper.

Funny how the words of old commercials were repeated so many times in front of us who are now 60-plus. I can rattle off the slogans from about 10 different cigarette commercials (and ten old beer commercials) even though I never smoked and never drank. There was no restriction on TV or radio or magazines to plaster the commercials constantly.

I take it that your name "salem" is just coincidental to your interest in Winston. Or perhaps you are from Winston-Salem, NC.

Also, this particular little take-off on "Winston Tastes Good" strikes me as a match to a very old 'parody' of their slogan. It makes fun, not of cigarettes and cigarette smoking in general, but specifically of the Winston brand, as if Salems, or Marlboros taste better, and that's the reason to make fun of the bad taste of Winston. (Of course, the term "cotton pickin" is a bit dated, too, as most people now recognize the racist elements in the term.)

On 2/13/2019 at 12:29 PM, FelixCA said:

I can enter an apostate website like JWfacts, or AD1914 and copy that garbage of what these people think the Watchtower is conveying.

There should be no reason for you to do that, nor I. There are plenty of things wrong or misleading on both of those sites. In fact, I see that AD1914 has merely taken a lot of articles from JWFacts and Hatton, and AlanF, and just re-posted them verbatim.

On 2/13/2019 at 12:29 PM, FelixCA said:

I, however, do diligent research.

That's what you should do. And you appear to have access to a lot of research materials, so that's great.

On 2/13/2019 at 12:29 PM, FelixCA said:

So, excuse me if I don’t buy into your understanding.

No one is asking you or anyone else to buy into anything, but at least I see that we agree on the topic of the earth's creation. The Watchtower says that the creative days were of unknown length, and that these days didn't begin counting until perhaps many millions or even billions of years after which time the earth was "formless and waste." There is nothing wrong with this perspective we learn from the Watchtower. It is perfectly fine from a Biblical view, as a "day" can have a variety of meaning. I don't remember reading anything different in R.Franz perspective, so I'm guessing that he would have agreed with us, too.

On 2/13/2019 at 12:29 PM, FelixCA said:

Why would the watchtower find it a need to publish the book's creation (ce) and “life-how did it get here? By evolution or by creation” in 1985 after the 1967 book, did man get here by evolution or by creation?

I'm sure there are always new and better ways to explain things. Certain questions come in that show a need for focusing on something that was only mentioned briefly before. New books and new quotes are available that weren't available in 1967. I'm sure you already knew all this, so I'm not even sure why you are asking.

On 2/13/2019 at 12:29 PM, FelixCA said:

Perhaps you need to reacquaint yourself with the Watchtower publications in order to find other avenues to criticize the Org, by your personal perception on how you think the Org is wrong and only you are right.

Why? Why should I find other avenues to criticize the Org? I'm only going to question areas where prayer and study and meditation and Bible reading have led me to think that certain strongly entrenched doctrines ought to be questioned. The Watchtower has often said that it welcomes such questioning. The Bible makes it our Christian duty to make sure of all things. 

It's for the same reason that I welcome your own questions and criticisms of those areas that I have brought up. But I often wish that you would actually offer Scriptures, reasoning, or even counter-arguments. Instead, you seem to have an obsession with making false statements about things I've said. Perhaps you just have trouble understanding me. But if that's the case, don't just jump to conclusions about what I said, or what I think Russell said, or the Watchtower said, etc. Just ask! I'd be happy to discuss any of these things.

But instead you seem bent on making claims like the one above that says that I think the Org is wrong and only I am right. It's completely false, of course, and I'm sure you know that. But why waste your time on such things even if it were true. If a person says something you disagree with, it's better to discuss the thing, not whether the person always thinks he is right. 

On 2/13/2019 at 12:29 PM, FelixCA said:

So, far, you have TTH, comfortmypeople, JTR, Butler, Srecko, Anna holding on to every fiber of your words and false demonstrations.

Here again, why be so obsessed with persons who have agreed with something I've said, here and there? I think a lot of people have noticed this absurd obsession you appear to have with up-votes, down-votes, and such things. I'm not here for any of their up-votes or to get anyone to hang on every fiber of my words. There have been people here in the past, Alan [Allen] Smith for one, who was so obsessed with up-votes and down-votes that he created multiple accounts just to practice vote-spamming, where he targeted a few people with literally hundreds of down-votes and employed those same multiple accounts to create hundreds of up-votes for himself. It was a funny quirk of his, and the Librarian or admin pointed it out publicly. But I'm not concerned about it myself. I'd point out the exact same scriptural concerns even if I never got an upvote. And there are others who probably would point out some of the exact same concerns if I weren't even here.

The thing I would appreciate is having someone respond to the reasons my "false demonstrations" are false rather than going after me for bringing them up.

21 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

So, was Pastor Russell “really” saying creation was made in 6000 years? Was he referring, each creative day was 7000 years, which would mean, Genesis creation took 42,000 years or was he emphasizing man’s existence.

The New Creation, Studies in the Scriptures, is not so different than what was continued until the 1970's and proposed again in the 1980's:

We believe our readers will agree that although the length of these epoch-days is not indicated, we will be justified in assuming that they were uniform periods, because of their close identity as members of the one creative week. Hence, if we can gain reasonable proof of the length of one of these days, we will be fully justified in assuming that the others were of the same duration. We do, then, find satisfactory evidence that one of these creative "days" was a period of seven thousand years and, hence, that the entire creative week would be 7,000 x 7 equals 49,000 years. And although this period is infinitesimal when compared with some geological guesses, it is, we believe, quite reasonably ample for the work represented as being accomplished therein—the ordering and filling of the earth, which already "was" in existence, but "without form [order], and void [empty]." . . .  Evening and morning, Day Six, at its close, 42,000 years after "work" began, found the earth ready for man to subdue. . . .

Edited to add that the December 1912 Watch Tower also explained it similarly:

Six great Thousand-Year Periods or Days have passed since Adam was created, according to Bible chronology. We are now in the dawning of the great Seventh Day or Sabbath Day of human experience. God has promised that this Seventh Day of a thousand years will be very different from the preceding Six Days, in which mankind has experienced a reign of Sin and Death. The Seventh Day of a thousand years is Scripturally called the "Day of Christ," and by many it is styled the Millennium. In it Satan and Sin are to be overthrown, righteousness is to be established by the Redeemer, and mankind, purchased by the precious blood at Calvary; are all to have full opportunity for arising from present degradation to re-attainment of the image and likeness of God, lost in Eden by Adam's disobedience.

The Seventh Day of the Creative Week began with Adam's creation and has already lasted six thousand years, and is to be completed with the thousand years of Christ's Reign. The Seventh Creative Day will be seven thousand years long. Whoever sees this to be a reasonable deduction can easily suppose that the six preceding Days of the Genesis account were, likewise, seven thousand years each. Reckoned thus, the total period from the time that Divine Energy began to operate upon the waste Earth down to the time when the whole work of creation and Restitution will be fully completed, would be 7 times 7,000 years, or 49,000 years.

According to the Bible, that time will be a thousand years hence, when The Christ shall have accomplished His work for mankind to the full and shall deliver up the Kingdom to God, even the Father. At that moment the fiftieth thousand-year period will begin, with every creature in Heaven and on earth ascribing praise to Him that sitteth upon the Throne, and to the Lamb, forever. How appropriate this will be, especially when we recall that in God's arrangement fifty is the greatest climax of numbers! In Bible usage the number seven is symbolical of perfection, and 7 times 7 represents a completeness of perfection; and the fiftieth or Jubilee following is climacteric.

11 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Are you two still going on ?

It's my impression that we both enjoy the back and forth. I hope it's not just me.

52 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

You are definitely showing signs of a mental breakdown.

LOL. I got so confused when both TTH and I used the word "shrill" within a couple days of each other. I started thinking maybe Allen Smith was right after all when he used to say I was the same person as TTH, among several others. I think Allen could have tried to convince me that it was just him and me running the entire forum.

52 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

Especially when you first suggest it doesn’t matter, then it does matter.

I never said it doesn't matter. You either forgot what I said, or made it up, or I forgot what I said. Or I could have said something you misunderstood. Even so, I accept that it matters very much to me that we don't "do dates." But I would only impose this on myself, I don't think it matters so much that I should impose my view on others in the congregation. But I'm happy to present how much it matters to me if called upon to do so.

52 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

The Watchtower published a book of errors to appease those harden critics that believe as you do. It is demonstrating how a publication can be taken out of context, as it's done here with the many distortions.     The “Clarification of Our Beliefs” Does not constitute what you are offering.

The "Clarification of Our Beliefs" does not have anything to do with what I was referring to. I was referring to specific admissions of past errors about dates in several other specific places in the Watch Tower publications. In addition, I was also referring to specific things that the Watchtower admitted can be dangerous and un-Christian, including 'serving with a date in mind.'

1 hour ago, FelixCA said:

They don’t specifically state anyone given time. The most they will do is in keeping with “readiness at any hour” by Mark 13:33, and Matthew 24:42.    No different from the “the parables of the ten virgins” described by the Bible Student era with Matthew 25:13

FelixCA, Just in case anyone gets the impression that this is true, it might be interesting to look at what the Watch Tower publications said, which makes me question your claim. It sounds like you are claiming that the Watch Tower publications do not state any one given time, and this is no different from the way the "parable of the ten virgins" was described in the Bible Student era. Feel free to correct me if it is wrong. It's not too far off topic. It even references the 6,000 years from Adam and its relationship to the beginning of the Millennium, etc.

As I understand it, the Watch Tower publications initially thought that the difference between the foolish virgins and the wise virgins was based on the criteria that the foolish virgins had foolishly given up on chronology after the Great Disappointment of 1844. A "Midnight Cry" went out at some point in the "night" between 1844 and 1874, initially thought to be at the midpoint, around 1859, when Nelson Barbour first recognized and thereafter declared that William Miller had been off by 30 years. The lamps of the virgins had to burn for another 30 years. But the foolish virgins who gave up on chronology had let their lamps run out of oil, which was obvious because they wouldn't believe in 1874.

It seems to me that the parable was considerd to be all about the time period from 1874 to 1881, the seven years period before the "door was shut" on October 3rd, 1881. (A door of "mercy" could still be open, even if the full number of Christ's Bride would have been chosen by October 3rd 1881.)

I'll quote from one of a few articles on the topic from the Bible Student era Watch Tower magazines. The following, until the end of the post, is from the October 1881 Watch Tower (ZWT), beginning on page 288:

"AND THE DOOR WAS SHUT."

. . . The parable of "The Ten Virgins" (Matt. 25) . . .  "Then shall the kingdom of heaven (church) be likened unto ten virgins which took their lamps (Bibles) and went forth to meet the Bridegroom" (i.e.,) they went forth or separated themselves because of their belief that the Bridegroom, Jesus, was about to come.

While we are neither "Millerites" nor "Adventists," yet we believe that this much of this parable met its fulfillment in 1843 and 1844, when William Miller and others, Bible in hand, walked out by faith on its statements, expecting Jesus at that time. . . .

The disappointment of that company of Christians (which was composed of many of the best Christians from all denominations) all are well aware of, but it was foretold in the parable: "While the Bridegroom tarried they all slumbered and slept." As a general arousing of the church to the investigation of God's Word had attended the preaching of Mr. Miller, and the Word was more studied than ever before, especially the Prophecies, so when his calculations seemed to end in such bitter disappointment, a spirit of drowsiness followed; some slumbered, some slept . . . .

The next important step of the parable (verse 6) is the midnight cry. The night of the parable was the time during which the disappointment lasted and the sleeping occurred, and was to end with joy in the morning, when, the tarrying being ended, the Bridegroom would be present.

As the former movement in the parable had been represented by Miller and others, so to this second movement we give a similar application. A brother,  B[arbour]_ of Rochester, was, we believe, the chosen vessel of God through whom the "Midnight Cry" issued to the sleeping virgins of Christ, announcing a discrepancy of thirty years in some of Miller's calculations, and giving a rearrangement of the same argument (and some additional), proving that the night of the parable was thirty years long, and that the morning was in 1873, and the Bridegroom due in that morning in 1874.

We do not here give the time, arguments or proofs. They are familiar to many, and can be had in more convenient shape. We merely notice here that the Bible chronology, first dug from Scripture by Bowen, of England, which shows clearly and positively that the 6,000 years from Adam ended in 1873, and consequently that there the morning of the Millennial day (the seventh thousand) began, in which a variety of things are due. The establishment of the kingdom of Christ, the binding of Satan, the restitution of all things, and the blessing of all the families of the earth, are all due. And if all these things are due during this thousand years which commenced in 1873, surely one of the first things due and on which the others all depend, is the coming of the Bridegroom, who must first exalt his church [establish his kingdom] before it can bless, restore or bind.

Bro. B[arbour]_____ first began to preach the message, and soon started a paper, which he appropriately called "The Midnight Cry," the circulation of which soon ran up to 15,000 copies a month, and served to arouse many of the drowsy to a fresh examination and trimming of their lamps. These began again to search the Scriptures for the time of the Bridegroom's coming.

But the disappointment had served an intended purpose in casting a reproach on the subject of "time," and the prudent ones had reached the worldly-wise conclusion that having been disappointed once and consequently had the finger of scorn pointed at them, they would be more prudent in future, and not expose themselves to contempt; so there was a division of the company; some could see it and others could not. ("Thou hast hid these things from the (worldly) wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.") Some rejoiced in the midnight message that the Bridegroom was due in 1874, and were able to find the evidences in the light of their lamps; others admitted that though Scripture contained a great deal of "time," yet they were so fearful and prudent that their lamps would give no light. Thus they said: "Our lamps are gone out." Thus one separation took place.

When 1874 came and there was no outward sign of Jesus in the literal clouds and in a fleshly form, there was a general re-examination of all the arguments upon which the "Midnight Cry" was made. And when no fault or flaw could be found, it led to the critical examination of the Scriptures which seem to bear on the manner of Christ's coming, and it was soon discovered that the expectation of Jesus in the flesh at the second advent was the mistake; that the human nature had been taken for the purpose of giving a ransom for humanity, and that the human nature remains a sacrifice forever; that Jesus, though put to death in the flesh, was quickened or made alive in spirit—Sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body, &c., and that all spiritual bodies can be present unseen. . . .

It was evident, then, that though the manner in which they had expected Jesus was in error, yet the time, as indicated by the "Midnight Cry," was correct, and that the Bridegroom came in the Autumn of 1874, and he appeared to the eyes of faith—seen by the light of the lamp—the Word. Afterward it was seen that the thirty years of tarrying between 1844 and 1874 was the exact parallel to the thirty years of tarrying at the first advent, from the time the wise men visited the babe until Jesus stood on Jordan and was anointed with the Holy Ghost for his work, at thirty years of age. (Acts 10:38.) . . .

To return to the parable. If these movements were of God, and if Bros. Miller and B__________ were his instruments, then that "Midnight Cry," based on the prophetic and other statements and evidences, was correct, and the "Bridegroom came" in 1874. We believe that Midnight Cry was of God, and was fulfilled by the Bridegroom's coming, not because Bros. Miller and B__________ claimed it, but because the Word of God supports it.

"How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in His excellent Word."

. . . The going in, like all other features of the parable, is a work of time, and we understand that it has been in progress during the seven years from 1874. . . .

The seven years which ended October 3d, 1881, were years of favor during the presence, that of the living generation all of readiness of heart might become members of the little flock and enter into the joys of our Lord's presence. If our application of Scripture be correct, the favor has now ended, and in the language of the parable, "the door was shut"; and to those who have never fully consecrated and sacrificed self to God, we cannot any longer hold out the great prize of our high calling, viz.: to be members of the Bride of Christ, joint heirs of Glory, Honor and Immortality.

46 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

I believe JWinsider is Bible Student bashing. How is that not part of the discussion, when the inference is there? Can I be more specific?

I certainly hope you can be more specific. Otherwise, your accusation is just another empty claim.

2 hours ago, FelixCA said:

You keep saying it doesn’t matter. Yet you’re a creature of habit to keep bringing up the past as though it has somehow been a mistake.

I gave two reasons why it does matter. Like TTH I don't do dates. There have been several persons who came on the forum to advertise their predictive prowess with prophecy. I think the same thing about all of them. I think it's both dangerous and un-Christian to do dates.

2 hours ago, FelixCA said:

It’s your personal opinion that the Watchtower has erred.

It's not my personal opinion. It's a fact. The Watchtower has claimed that they erred on this matter. So if they didn't err, then they erred in claiming that they had erred.

2 hours ago, FelixCA said:

You have made yourself a “messiah” to proclaim your false understanding and your false teaching with anything related to the Watchtower.

You have a much overblown opinion of my opinions.

2 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Therefore, with the presentation offered by JWinsider proves one thing, distortion of facts, just like Raymond, since he is offering no scriptural proof, just overdrawn conclusions on what he personally thinks the Watchtower publications are conveying.

There could be some truth in that. This is why I am always happy to have any supposed "facts" checked. It's a good reminder that even when I quote the Bible or the Watchtower publications or any reference work, I am still presenting an opinion overall as I might not understand the actual meaning of what I'm quoting. This is true no matter how much it might look like facts, and no matter that it makes use of actual facts. Based on the nature of many of the topics that I choose to discuss, I should probably remind everyone, again, that I only consider my posts to be my opinion about things. And often it's just an opinion about someone else's opinion. I might express my opinions strongly when I have no doubt about it for myself, but this doesn't mean that anyone else needs to take my opinion so seriously.

So, yes, these are conclusions on what I personally think the Watchtower publications are conveying. You are correct.

I can't say that I know exactly what an "overdrawn" conclusion is. It's an expression I had never heard until a conversation with Allen Smith, but I never asked him what it meant. Perhaps you can tell me. If not, perhaps BillyTheKid could tell me, since he just used the expression less than two months ago.

On 12/19/2018 at 3:02 PM, BillyTheKid46 said:

So, the library card being scrutinized by opposers is a failed attempt to justify an overdrawn conclusion.

On 2/11/2019 at 6:22 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

I don't care who denies it, but that is what was taught. Creative days =7,000 years. Rest day 6,000 years then Armageddon, then 1,000 years of Christ's rule. Then Christ hands it all back to God ( possibly for a Jubilee year ? or some such).. 

Yes. This goes all the way back to Russell's "Photo-Drama of Creation" which emphasized the 49,000 years of creative days. I don't think anyone here has denied that this is what we taught. But in the 1970's, the cracks in this view were already beginning to be seen. It had become a way to put more emphasis on 1975. But it was also realized that 1975 could become an embarrassment. And the Aid book, produced by a team led by R.Franz, had provided evidence that the very foundation for all this emphasis was built on sand.

5 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

What a load of tosh and rabble !       None of this really matters does it ?

It's becoming a hate and judgement page !

Sorry that I added so much evidence for that assessment in my last few posts, especially. But I do take issue with the idea that "none of this really matters."

Witnesses have long moved on from being too concerned about the personalities of R.Franz and F.Franz. But for some persons, dredging it up again can immediately bring up feelings of hate and judgment. For me, everyone is imperfect and liable to mistakes, including me of course. But I'm concerned when a Biblical principle gets violated and we feel that facts no longer matter:

• (Exodus 23:7) . . .“Have nothing to do with a false accusation . . .  for I will not declare the wicked one righteous.

• (Proverbs 17:15) . . .Anyone who acquits the wicked one and anyone who condemns the righteous one —Both of them are detestable to Jehovah.

The point is exaggerated, but the principle remains. We don't want to let our feelings get in the way of facts when it comes to how strongly we condemn or praise the lives of imperfect men. This includes R.Franz and F.Franz. Sure, it's comforting for some to see one as a devil and one as an angel; it fits a "world view" that some can use to bring a hammer down on others. This goes for ex-JWs who want to see R.Franz as a kind of "angel" and Witnesses who want to see R.Franz as a devil, for example. But there are cracks in these "world views" that anyone can see. Seeing those cracks reduces the comfort level of some and threatens to reduce the power of the hammer for others.

The Bible says to let our reasonableness become known to all, and yet reasonableness from one person will often trigger unreasonable responses. And I can see how I have been unreasonable here a few times, but it's always good to have someone else point it out too, as you have. We can't always see our own faults very well. 

But there is another way in which I think it's wrong to dismiss all of this saying, "None of this really matters does it?"

It's because our very Christianity should be focused on the sort of persons we ought to be every day, precisely because we know that the end could come at any time within our lifetimes. And precisely because we know that it might come, in effect, 1,000 years from now, after we die, for example. Jesus had a good reason for emphasizing why dates and times and seasons were not in our jurisdiction, but in the jurisdiction of the Father. The time was none of our concern. Yet, as a group, we have put so much energy into dates and chronology, and even used this "urgency" as a motivator instead of love as a motivator. To me, I "harp on it" because Jesus and the rest of the Bible made it clear that this really did matter.

17 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

He has picked up on the aeons and epochs of that recent Watchtower that JWI may have misattributed to someone else. At any rate, I refered to it, too, and I take both words to mean long periods of indeterminate length

JWI may have misattributed? Them's fighting words! Snarl. Hiss. 😉

Yes, You had referred to it, too. My response to something Outta Here said was based on him saying the same thing last year, because he seemed to tie it to the old thinking about the timing of Adam and Eve's creation and the potential obsolescence of the once all-important gap between them. Here was the context of his words:

33 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

Peter however was speaking of the period between the day of creation and the day of the Lord; his language can fully apply, only to that period; and is without doubt very strong inferential proof of the theory that the period from the dominion of the first Adam to that of the second will be six thousand years, to be followed by the "Millennium" or the seventh thousand as the antitype of the Jewish Sabbath."

The latter part of your theory is still based on trying to defend a chronology system that attempts to put the times and the seasons in our own jurisdiction. It could be dangerous to our Christianity besides being presumptuous. Also, the premise that Peter was speaking about the period between the day of creation and the day of the Lord is without foundation.

30 minutes ago, FelixCA said:

By the way, God rested after creation as cited in Genesis. That doesn't mean God would rest within Man's existence.

The same 2011 Watchtower article, pointed out earlier, makes some good points on this topic, note how the footnote can also be appied:

*** w11 7/15 p. 24 par. 3 God’s Rest—What Is It? ***
First, consider Jesus’ words to opposers who criticized him for healing on the Sabbath, which they construed as a form of work. The Lord said to them: “My Father has kept working until now, and I keep working.” (John 5:16, 17) What was the point? Jesus was being accused of working on the Sabbath. His reply: “My Father has kept working” answered that charge. In effect, Jesus was saying to his critics: ‘My Father and I are engaged in the same type of work. Since my Father has kept working during his millenniums-long Sabbath, it is quite permissible for me to keep working, even on the Sabbath.’ Thus, Jesus implied that as regards the earth, God’s great Sabbath day of rest, the seventh day, had not ended in his day.

[Footnotes]
The priests and Levites performed work on the Sabbath in connection with the temple and ‘remained guiltless.’ As the high priest of God’s great spiritual temple, Jesus could also carry out his spiritual assignment without fear of violating the Sabbath.—Matt. 12:5, 6.

9 hours ago, FelixCA said:

It appears this person is saying the Watchtower somehow believes the 6 creative days is the same as the 1000 years, is like a day to God in 2 Peter 3:8.

As I believe I made clear, the Watchtower has never presented anything like a belief that the 6 creative days are the same as the 1000 years. So this idea should cause you no worries, since no one said it, and no one implied it. So hopefully you can rest a little better now. 

9 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Since it’s a totally different understanding. This person JWinsider has gone beyond what the Watchtower is actually saying.

This reminds me of some of the logical problems we just looked at, where something is admitted to be probable or possible in some of our prior publications, but then within the space of a sentence or two, what initially "appeared" to be true, actually becomes "totally" true, and a supposedly solid conclusion is drawn from the false premise. 

You have made several other mistakes just like this, so that a reasonable person would likely have already dismissed many of those conclusions you drew about R.Franz, too. And if you really thought that what 'this person' was saying was the false idea that only you had brought up, then I think that a reasonable people would also not be able to automatically trust conclusions you derived elsewhere from reading the Watchtower, reading anything written by R.Franz, or perhaps even other people on this forum. When a person needs to resort to making up things out of thin air as you apparently just did above, then you also lose credibility when it comes to your stories and anecdotes that reveal supposedly hidden personality traits that no one else who knew these people for years has ever reported before today.

9 hours ago, FelixCA said:

That is another way of attempting to disprove 1975.

To disprove what about 1975? 1975 could still be the end of 6,000 years of man's existence, and since the Bible puts no particular significance on 6,000 years, it could also have been the same year Eve was created, just as the Watchtower once said (that Eve too had also been created that same year in 4026 B.C.E.). I fail to see what this might DISPROVE about 1975, that wasn't already disproved by the Watchtower articles.

9 hours ago, FelixCA said:

An erred perception but understandable. Since number 7 is a pivotal number in Biblical determination. Anyone with sense would surmise Peter was symbolically referring to what he meant with a 1000 years.

Anyone should realize what Peter was saying from the very context of these words: that Jehovah's thoughts are higher than our thoughts and his ways are higher than our ways, and that his determination of the times and seasons will always be in his own jurisdiction, not ours. We shouldn't be toying with chronology if we think it can somehow be the key to becoming prepared for something that will come as a thief in the night. Chronology will never be the key to helping us become the kind of persons we ought to be while we await the end of this system. If anything, it would much more likely be a detriment to our true Christian conduct. We might be motivated by a time or season instead of by love for Jehovah, his patience, and of love for our neighbor.

9 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Therefore, the Watchtower used that same symbolism to interject the date 1975 as being the end of the 6^th day of man's existence, not creation.

That's absolutely correct. The Watchtower said there might be up to a two-year gap between the end of the 6,000 years of "man's creation" and the end of 6,000 years of "creation." (Both Adam and Eve.) Of course, at one point the Watchtower did actually slip up and say that Eve was also created in 4026, the same year as Adam. That was another example of the premise being built up with words like "apparently," "evidently," and "possibly" and then, within a few sentences, what was possible became supposedly demonstrable, declarative and dogmatic.

But even this slip-up that said Eve was also born in 4026, was never given as a guarantee that the Millennium would begin that same year. At that point, we only taught that it would be "appropriate" for God to act that year. The time period for the beginning of the Millennium was still relegated to the:

• entire decade of the 1970's,
• then by the end of the 20th century,
• then by the end of the lifespans of currently anointed persons whose anointing overlapped with persons in an earlier group of anointed persons who saw the sign in 1914 and understood what it meant. 

9 hours ago, FelixCA said:

However, I do find it fascinating and funny how people want to distort the Watchtower’s understanding to coincide with apostate views.

Rather than distort, we should want to see the truth and make sure that it keeps us humble enough to avoid further error. Israel was humbled by failures, too. That didn't automatically mean they were no longer God's people. It just meant that what befell them should be used as examples to learn from. The people that make up spiritual Israel are also human, and will also fail many times. We can learn from these examples to improve, and not make the same mistakes over and over again. We can also show all potentially interested persons that we are not so cult-like that we would defend what is wrong. We would not want to hang onto false reasoning that might blind us to what is right. This is one way that even apostate views might help us to improve:

• (1 Corinthians 11:19) 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident.

9 hours ago, FelixCA said:

For this reason, I will no longer interact with certain people here anymore.

In all seriousness, I saw that reaction coming as soon as I pointed out some of the more obvious errors you had recently made here.  For some reason, I have never seen you simply acknowledge an error, or even try to address one. Instead, you seem to repeatedly just "lash out" with new diversions you appear to just make up. I still hope to show that most Witnesses have much credibility and honesty. It's true I point out errors from our past, and some of these still effect traditional doctrines of the present, but more and more of these have been humbly acknowledged. From those taking the lead, to those of us in the "rank and file" we have made great strides in humility and made great improvements over those days of so much illogical dogmatism. We should be able to compare the brighter present with some of the actual darkness of the past. This exercise will highlight the ways in which the "dross" is filtered to keep making the gold more and more refined. I'm not trying to make fun of the dross, but I'm surprised and find it disappointing when someone thinks it necessary to keep defending the dross.

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

She, covered with snow, and in single digit temperatures, just happens to be a firm believer in man caused "Global Warming"

Trump made the same mistake in implying (a tweet) that snow and cold temperatures somehow contradict the idea of global warming. Global warming is currently a fact of life. The question, as you indicate, is how much of the global warming is man-made and how much we could do about it at this point, even if it is.

There are some silly beliefs about global warming. Some ignore the typical cycles the earth is still expected to go through over the next millennia and further, assuming there are no catastrophic interventions of any kind. Others ignore the massive increases in "greenhouse" gases that are produced by corporations, and act like regulating the the rate of reduction in some areas and regulating the rate of growth in some areas (of environmental damage) is the answer. Others try to put all the guilt on the aggregate total of private consumers and automobile owners as the problem, when this is so minor compared to effects of business manufacturing and distribution.  But another kind of silliness is the denial that greenhouse gases can produce a now-predictable influence on climate, and that the current excess of man-made greenhouse gases provides the most likely explanation for the average yearly rises in global temperature.

On 2/9/2019 at 3:45 PM, Outta Here said:

Without getting too bogged down in this matter, I presume the discussion is around the length of the creative epoch/age/day we now find ourselves in?

I recalled a comment from last year where you commented positively on the new way of referring to these days as aeons or epochs, rather than literal days, and then added the following comment:

On 8/12/2018 at 11:37 AM, Outta Here said:

By that old reckoning it appears that we are 43 years in to Adam's settlement/cultivation/animal naming/no helper period and still counting.

1975+43=2018 (last year). This old reckoning might seem ridiculous now, especially after the Watchtower once argued that this period could be a matter of weeks or months, but could not go beyond 2 years. But there are still some Witnesses who haven't kept up and believe there must be some validity to the 6,000 year theory. (A partial salvage of the theory, without any reference to 6,000 or 7,000 years, was rewritten in a much better way in a 2011 Watchtower:

*** w11 7/15 p. 24 God’s Rest—What Is It? ***
God’s Rest—What Is It?

During the time that Fred Franz was still alive and still working on his last prophetic book "Revelation -- Its Grand Climax at Hand" an article was written dealing with the Jubilee year and how the 49th year was related to the 50th:

*** w87 1/1 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***
Second, a study of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy and of our location in the stream of time strongly indicate that each of the creative days (Genesis, chapter 1) is 7,000 years long. It is understood that Christ’s reign of a thousand years will bring to a close God’s 7,000-year ‘rest day,’ the last ‘day’ of the creative week. (Revelation 20:6; Genesis 2:2, 3) Based on this reasoning, the entire creative week would be 49,000 years long. . . . According to Romans 8:20, 21, Jehovah God purposes to liberate believing mankind from this slavery. As a result, true worshipers on earth “will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God.”—See also Romans 6:23. . . . While the small group selected to be taken to heaven have had their sins forgiven from Pentecost 33 C.E. onward and thus already enjoy the Jubilee, the Scriptures show that the liberation for believing mankind will occur during Christ’s Millennial Reign. That will be when he applies to mankind the benefits of his ransom sacrifice. By the end of the Millennium, mankind will have been raised to human perfection, completely free from inherited sin and death. Having thus brought to an end the last enemy (death passed on from Adam), Christ will hand the Kingdom back to his Father at the end of the 49,000-year creative week.—1 Corinthians 15:24-26.

So although the 1969/1971 Aid Book, as you pointed out, had said that we don't know the length of the creative days, this probably came from the idea that a Bible Dictionary should not contain esoteric beliefs that are not actually based on the Bible, but are just a traditional interpretation. R.Franz must have recognized this fact, while preparing the Aid Book, but apparently there was a faction that thought this "reasonable" approach was very dangerous. It admits that we don't know everything. I have personal anecdote that let me know that this is exactly what at least two brothers (Greenlees and Schroeder) thought would, initially, be the way to get R.Franz removed, by exposing the non-dogmatic approach in the Aid Book style that tends to erode dogma. I'll save the anecdote for another time, but I think it is easy to recognize that this kind of approach to the Bible takes a lot of power away from the interpreters. (The anecdote did not concern the length of the creative days.)

Even in the lead-up to 1975, there was a need, probably influenced by the Aid Book, to start using words like "evidently" rather than just speaking dogmatically:

*** w73 2/1 p. 82 Will Your Days Be “Like the Days of a Tree”? ***
Since each of the creative “days” or periods was evidently seven thousand years long, the whole creative “week” takes in 49,000 years.

Compare that with the dogmatism in the previous decades:

*** w51 1/1 pp. 27-28 The Christian’s Sabbath ***
Since the sabbath was a part of the law and the “Law has a shadow of the good things to come”, of what was the sabbath a shadow? Of the grand rest day for all mankind, the 1,000-year reign of Christ, the seventh 1,000 years of God’s rest day. For six thousand years mankind has been toiling and suffering under “the god of this world”, Satan the Devil. In that antitypical sabbath Christ will free men from the bondage of Satan and his demons . . .

*** w63 8/1 p. 460 par. 14 Religion and the Nuclear Age ***
We could continue verse by verse through the entire period of the six creative days, periods of time that other Bible passages show to have been each 7,000 years in length.

Of course, no other Bible passages were shown to indicate this, just a footnote to see the book by F.Franz, Let God Be True, 1943.

Hebrews 3 & 4 does connect Psalm 95:11 to Genesis 2:2, but without any connection to a certain number of years and without any reference to the millennium of Christ's reign.