On 11/18/2017 at 6:29 PM, Bible Speaks said:

900 Attened  his funeral.

I found spiritual value in this little piece of information just quoted: 900 attended his funeral. I haven't taken the time to try to verify it, but it's still a piece of information that makes sense to me and whether the number is 100% accurate, I think it very likely reflects the truth. And it makes me feel just a bit better about the way we can handle such tragedies.

4 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:

The curious use of the word "Tartarus" and the rich man and Lazarus parable being other prime examples of this (to me).

I think at least a part of the explanation is that many literal readers of the Bible are unable to grasp the "poetry" and symbolism of the Bible. Poetry (often through lyrics) once captured the imagination of many readers and hearers of the Bible and almost every other story and history that was handed down from generation to generation. Poetry puts the mind of the hearer in a state that was ready to immediately see meaning in ideas that were not necessarily true in a literal way.

Jesus (and James) more often taught with the symbolism of rural life. (i.e., sheep, goats, farms, fields, grain, harvest, weeds, trees, fruit, rain, sun, rocks.) Paul more often used the symbols of urban, city life, and rarely used the pastoral symbols Jesus used. These symbols seem so natural to their methods of teaching.

There was also the ability to use symbols from Jewish (or even Greek/Roman) literature and folklore that was not necessarily true in a total literal sense but which added depth and meaning to the Christian teachings. Satan as a dragon was one of these. Ideas about the Greek Tartarus, and perhaps even the Greek Hades, on occasion, could make a point through analogy. Reference to books like Enoch, The Assumption of Moses, "Jannes and Jambres," etc.,  would more easily adapt to the poetic mind than the literalist, fundamentalist mind. Perhaps this applies:

• (1 Corinthians 2:14-16) 14 But a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually. 15 However, the spiritual man examines all things, but he himself is not examined by any man. 16 For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, so that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ.

5 hours ago, Anna said:

20 What is the lesson for us?

There is no direct statement in the publications that we must "hide." You have included some bigger questions about timing and survival and obedience, and those are worth discussing. However, the logic of the two paragraphs indicates nothing about "hiding" in any modern-day fulfillment of Isaiah 26:20. The point was only that, in this past example, survival depended on obedience to "commands" and the same will be true in the near future.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Nice conclusion. But is it  not "logical" to have such immature thinking among JW members? And how would "sounds" if Bethel image would not have that little "possibility" to making people who get in, to be better person after they go out of Bethel? :))

I wasn't saying it couldn't happen that a person would come out better after leaving Bethel. (I am exactly 18.3% better than I was.) Also, a person who has a specific issue to work on, if he takes advantage of the new circumstances at Bethel and learns from the experiences, can probably accomplish his goal, or overcome his issue. I was concerned about the idea that being in a certain place will impose some kind of predetermined effect on that person. 

1 minute ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I mean, some viewpoints are too stupid to countenance.

Some would think, that by purposefully misunderstanding the summary of the study JTR quoted, that you are setting up your own sidekick routine, with the punchline prepared in the part I just requoted.

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

This study shows that JWs have about a THIRD of the mental illness rate of the general population, and I would suspect that that would equate to about a THIRD of the suicides of the general population.    Just a guess ... NO MORE.

I think that you are right in that the purpose of this study by Furuli was intended to show that JWs have only a third the mental illness based on the rate of the general population, and extrapolating, only approximately only a third of the suicide rate of the generation population. From what I know about Furuli, however, I wouldn't trust his numbers in the slightest. Also, Norway has privacy laws and practices that would only allow a health care professional to access data about medications and psychological treatment. Furuli is not a health care professional. If Bergen claims that such health issues are only 10% to 16% higher in JWs than the general population, I would not think this is so surprising in the time period that he tried to measure. Mental illness is more of a stigma among those who place a lower value on secular education. Those who place a higher value on secular education begin to understand that mental illness should carry no more stigma than intestinal illness. If there is a stigma, then it supposedly reflects badly on the reputation of the organization to admit it and therefore many JWs have gone untreated. I dare say that most of us are aware of such cases.

18 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

@JW Insider can top your experience any day with one he knows about. I half fear that he will.

I know of only about 7 suicides that provide some kind of instruction or lesson, in some way:

• (Judges 9:54) He [Abimelech] quickly called the attendant bearing his weapons and said to him: “Draw your sword and put me to death, so that they may not say about me, ‘A woman killed him.’” So his attendant ran him through, and he died.

• (Judges 16:30) Samson called out: “Let me die with the Phi·lisʹtines!” Then he pushed with all his might, and the house fell on the lords and all the people in it. So he killed more at his death than he had killed during his life.

• (1 Samuel 31:4) Then Saul said to his armor-bearer: “Draw your sword and run me through with it, so that these uncircumcised men may not come and run me through and deal ruthlessly with me.” But his armor-bearer was unwilling, because he was very much afraid. So Saul took the sword and fell on it.

• (1 Samuel 31:5) When his armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he too fell on his own sword and died with him.

• (2 Samuel 17:23) When A·hithʹo·phel saw that his advice had not been acted on, he saddled a donkey and went to his house in his hometown. After he gave instructions to his household, he hanged himself. . . .

• (1 Kings 16:18) When Zimʹri saw that the city had been captured, he went into the fortified tower of the king’s house and burned the house down over himself, and he died.

• (Acts 1:18) This very man, therefore, purchased a field with the wages for unrighteousness, and falling headfirst, his body burst open and all his insides spilled out.  (Matthew 27:5) . . .Then he went off and hanged himself.

18 hours ago, Matthew9969 said:

Just curious and please forgive me if this is a morbid question to some, did anyone ever commit suicide while working at Bethel?

I'm not sure what lesson could be learned from knowing. I knew about two persons who committed suicide while I was there and a couple other suicides just before and after. The long-time factory overseer, Brother Wheelock, was the most well-known. I have not tried to track whether there were others, or even whether the suicide mentioned in the original post is true.

However, even if rates had been higher than usual, and I don't know that they were, it would not mean that we have a dangerous spiritual paradise as @Srecko Sostar posited. Brother Couch once suggested that too many congregations were purposely sending their emotionally disturbed young brothers in the hopes that Bethel would cure them.  I have heard an elder recommend that we encourage a young brother who was considered to be homosexual to apply to Bethel because, supposedly, he would be "cured" just by being that close to the center of Jehovah's holy spirit. I cringed, but said that Bethel was not likely the right environment for such a brother.

I see patriotism to the United States couched in semi-religious language. For most people this is not a bad thing. For many Christians it is a misplaced patriotism, because Christians --in solidarity with other Christians scattered throughout the world--do not identify with a single earthly nation:

• (James 1:1) 1 James, a slave of God and of [the] Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes that are scattered about:. . .

• (James 1:26, 27) . . .. 27 The form of worship that is clean and undefiled from the standpoint of our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation, and to keep oneself without spot from the world.

• (Psalm 39:11, 12) . . .Surely every earthling man is an exhalation. Seʹlah. 12 Do hear my prayer, O Jehovah, . . .  For I am but an alien resident with you, A settler the same as all my forefathers.

• (Hebrews 11:13-16) 13 In faith all these died, although they did not get the [fulfillment of the] promises, but they saw them afar off and welcomed them and publicly declared that they were strangers and temporary residents in the land. 14 For those who say such things give evidence that they are earnestly seeking a place of their own. 15 And yet, if they had indeed kept remembering that [place] from which they had gone forth, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But now they are reaching out for a better [place], that is, one belonging to heaven. Hence God is not ashamed of them, to be called upon as their God, for he has made a city ready for them.

• (1 Peter 1:1) 1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the temporary residents scattered about in Ponʹtus, Ga·laʹti·a, Cap·pa·doʹci·a, Asia, and Bi·thynʹi·a, to the ones chosen

• (1 Peter 2:11, 12) 11 Beloved, I exhort YOU as aliens and temporary residents to keep abstaining from fleshly desires, which are the very ones that carry on a conflict against the soul. 12 Maintain YOUR conduct fine among the nations, that, in the thing in which they are speaking against YOU as evildoers, they may as a result of YOUR fine works of which they are eyewitnesses glorify God in the day for [his] inspection.

In spite of all that, Fred Franz, at Bethel, from around 1976 to 1979, would make sure we had the American standard Thanksgiving meal (turkey, stuffing, gravy, cranberries, pumpkin pie) on the exact day of Thanksgiving, and he would make a point of saying that while the United States of America is celebrating its Thanksgiving, we have even more reasons to celebrate. I think most of us thought about it as a kind of inside joke that only Fred Franz would try to get away with, and which might stumble those on the outside if they knew about it. Fred Franz was known for saying things specifically to be provocative or make others uncomfortable. But this could also have been a trial balloon for a change, who knows?

I just got off the plane (from Vancouver) and saw the above when my wi-fi came back on.

It's a fake story, of course. You can still see the picture as it was used in a newspaper article about 2 years ago.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/1/donald-trump-touts-lifestyle-without-alcohol-drugs/

The earliest appearance of the picture that I found is from December 1, 2015, when Trump was campaigning in New Hampshire. Someone might have thought that the girl looked Vietnamese, so the picture was used again to create "news" about his visit to Hanoi.

2 hours ago, Anna said:

Family members decide according to their conscience the extent to which they will continue family discourse"

We're back to that problem again of trying to use the idea of conscience in a court of law as an obfuscation. You are right that very few Witnesses leave anything up to conscience. It's "spiritual" peer pressure to conform, where not conforming can result in anything from being looked down upon by peers, or a loss of privileges all the way up to being disfellowshipped yourself. I don't have a good solution, but I have seen the type of shunning of young family members that just seems childish on the part of the supposedly mature Witnesses who have to conform to the rule. 

I note that we no longer claim in court that corporeal punishment of minors is acceptable, and yet it obviously has Biblical precedent. I wonder if there's a way we would begin to conform to more modern norms of conduct, in obedience to the superior authorities in shunning cases, too.

17 hours ago, Michael Krewson said:

Texas Church Shooter Was Antifa Member Who Vowed To Start Civil War

 

The gunman who opened fire inside a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, has been identified as Devin Kelley, an Antifa member who vowed to start a civil war by “targeting white conservative churches” and causing anarchy in the United States.

Wilson County Commissioner Albert Gamez Jr said that at least 27 people have been killed in the shooting, according to reports by the CNN and the BBC, with the confirmed death toll expected to climb in the coming hours.

Witnesses report they saw Devin Kelley walk into the Baptist Church in the small town 30 miles from San Antonio at 11:30am local time Sunday, according to KSAT-12.

Devin Kelley, who killed at least 27 people and injured many more, was one of two shooters in the church, according to eyewitnesses, who also report Kelley carried an Antifa flag and told the churchgoers “this is a communist revolution” before unloading on the congregation, reloading several times.

I just did a quick search on this and the first thing that came up was a video:

After listening to the video I'm convinced that this person at "The Patriotic Beast" -- i.e., the person who made the video and claimed that he was the one who discovered the Antifa connection -- is lying through his teeth. Doesn't mean this guy isn't Antifa, but I doubt it seriously. The way this man at TPB manipulated the data and lied about it, so that he could claim "you heard it hear first," makes me think that almost everyone else who makes or focuses on this claim is also being disingenuous -- going for the obvious attempt to get this idea out there early to blunt the post-Trumpian reputational trends that sully the right wing of his party. 

16 hours ago, Michael Krewson said:

Texas Church Shooter Was Antifa Member

Wow!! One of the first things I said to my wife upon seeing a picture of him was that, if it didn't turn out to be a terrorist or immigrant, Trump would desperately need this person to somehow balance the Carolina church shooting and more recent Carolina racist truck attack, and the only way he could do this now is to claim that he was Antifa. There was nothing about Antifa in any of the reports I had heard, and then I see this.

38 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Today this is the news.

There must be a few other ways to gain protection from gunmen, other than just saying we will allow people to come into a church with guns. This is terrible news, but it was by allowing someone to come into the church with a gun that the tragedy began. People trained to use guns correctly can also end up misusing guns. Perhaps it's just as good to look into what is different in countries that have never had a mass shooting tragedy outside a military circumstance. If we can't follow those examples, then every public place may need to hire an armed guard or two, and put in gun/metal detectors at each entrance.

Just started looking at the past news from this area, and looking at the satellite images and photos of this town. Looks like it's possible that upwards of 10% of this town were killed or injured.

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

A new definition to a longtime grudge!!!!

LOL! I should start a new site called the "Grudge Report."

Which reminds me, during the renovation of the Towers Hotel, brothers with a certain amount of seniority, measured by pioneer service or any other full-time service, plus their current years at Bethel, were allowed to get one of the beautiful antique, brass and copper fire extinguishers which had once been installed throughout the building. When these were shined up they were very nice souvenirs of the Towers Hotel. They looked a lot like the ones going for about $250 to $300 on e Ba y, etc.

There weren't that many, but I managed to get one even though I was too low on the seniority list to be guaranteed one. (I had about 7-8 years of seniority at the time.) I left mine in a personal locker for a couple years, and when I left Bethel, it was the only thing that had been stolen.

Hopefully, I can think of something for next month's issue of the "Grudge Report" or I'll have to cease publication.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

But I got even with him though. He left $200 lying right out there in the open!

First time I saw this I decided to just let it slide. But if it is going to become fixed in the firmament of my stellar past, I might as well correct it.  The brother I was asked to room with (upon my arrival there) was a brother who was just leaving Bethel. It was in the room right next door to Brother and Sister Merton Campbell's, a very dear old couple who put a lot of effort into making "Family Night" entertaining, and who had a long career and many great upbuilding stories from the past. I have a picture of him from about 1957 in an old shoebox somewhere (the picture is in the shoebox, not Merton). He's out on the roof of 124 Columbia Heights.

But I digress. The brother I roomed with for a few days didn't steal the money in the typical manner. He asked to borrow about $200 to get home by bus, with the promise that he would send me the money the instant he got back which would have been two days from the time I loaned the money, and I would expect to receive it within a week or so, assuming cooperation from the postal gods. Well 4 weeks went by, and no money. I didn't even know where he had gone, and I wanted to check to make sure the post office didn't lose it, or it wasn't stuck somewhere in the cracks of Bethel's bureaucracy.

I asked brother Campbell if there was any way to check up on the mail. He got the story, and told me that this brother was bad news, and that I was not the first to complain of the same issue. He was in the Service Department, and said he could get the money back for me if I would first write the brother then a month later, his congregation's presiding overseer. My money appeared, via Campbell, and I started thinking of the Service Department as a kind of "secret service."

11 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

 in all seriousness, is there any clear, scriptural evidence for a two-part presence?

As IBA has just indicated, you can get such evidence through interpretation, and interpretations may be wide-ranging . . . and therefore more often wrong than right, even when serious, sensible and sincerely held. But interpretations are not the same as clear evidence.

My first impulsive answer to the specific question would be, "Yes, there is evidence for a two-part presence, but not a two-part parousia. There are no scriptures that would indicate a two-part parousia. But Jesus said that he would be present with us from the time of his resurrection, right up until the synteleia.

• (Matthew 28:20) . . .And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion [synteleia]  of the system of things.”

Technically, using Watchtower definitions, this would mean that Jesus would be present right up until 1914, the start of the synteleia.

We know from Matthew 24 that the disciples understood the synteleia to be the same as the parousia. (Probably, synteleia meant "end of all things" and parousia meant "the royal visitation judgment event.") So their question had to do with how they could identify the time period just before the parousia/synteleia so they could have an advance warning, and Jesus gave them an answer that says, basically,

• "Sorry, there will be no warning signs, because the parousia/synteleia will come as a thief. You might think that wars and earthquakes and famines will be the signs you are asking about, because these things will definitely take place, but don't be misled, these are not true signs of the end. So you will just have to expect trouble all throughout this generation until the parousia/synteleia is upon you, and use the time to prepare to preach and to be ready for anything."

But even if you agree that this is what Jesus was saying, this is still just an interpretation of what Jesus said. There are a lot of things in Matthew 24 and elsewhere that support the interpretation, but there are many religions, not just Witnesses, that are able to read it differently: as if Jesus really was giving them warning signs that would match Revelation 12's "short period of time" leading up to his parousia/synteleia. Or, as our own publications have explained it since around 1943/44: that this parousia/synteleia would have started in 1914, somewhere between 30 years and a maximum of, say, 185* years prior to the final judgment manifestation of that same parousia/synteleia. (At 103+ years since the start, we would now be just over half-way through that possible range.)

*Depending on how long Brother Sanderson, for example, might live on earth.

It would be nice if it were more clear-cut, but it's basically a matter of interpretation. Like an imaginary experience I had in field service:

• JW: Knock, knock
• Hello?
• JW: Hello. Today, I'd like to talk to you about this article in the latest Awake! on Spiritism. Did you know there are invisible spirits around us right now?
• Invisibility? I just can't see that.
• JW: Well let me make myself clear!'
• [Went back for a return visit, but nothing materialized.]

59 minutes ago, Noble Berean said:

Shouldn't they be brought to "...nothing by the manifestation of his presence"?

Good point!

I think the usual answer is: just wait, it will happen. His presence is invisible, so the "manifestation" is at the culmination of his presence before the judgment.

30 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:

I must admit, I like the twisting of the tongue.

'Nuff said!

5 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

I guess I’m using your tactics of forgetfulness.

Quite an admission on your part. But you shouldn't use forgetfulness as a "tactic." I certainly don't. Makes you sound like someone in every congressional hearing I've ever seen.

5 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

But, as usual, you cling to one word, “reinstate” while my words are Bethelite and friend. It’s a shame, team JWI resorts to wordplay. That’s why I call it a team, based on your “accusation”. LOL!

This is pure blame-shifting. You used the word "reinstate." I said I doubt it. Then you backed off your original claim about reinstatement and changed it to "come up with a Raymond supporter" and now you change it to "Bethelite and friend." So who is resorting to wordplay again?

Also, you have admitted to creating multiple accounts here. I have one account. Then you admit that you speak of "team JWI" because of my true accusation against you. This is the very definition of blame-shifting. It's about the same as Pee-Wee Herman saying, "I know you are but what am I?"

5 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

when was it, that the Watchtower got disappointed, even with “persons having to do with the publication of information”, that it “dismissed” almost every person in the writing department?

You are either confused, or as you admitted to doing before, perhaps you are using forgetfulness as a tactic. Including R.Franz and E.Dunlap (not including E.Chitty and L.Greenlees dismissed for unrelated reasons) only about 4, maybe 5 persons finally, were dismissed from Writing, and it was mostly the group that worked on the Aid Book. The actual expression you quote was about writers who built up the date 1975, not about dismissing people from the Writing Department:

*** w80 3/15 pp. 17-18 par. 6 Choosing the Best Way of Life ***

• In its issue of July 15, 1976, The Watchtower, commenting on the inadvisability of setting our sights on a certain date, stated: “If anyone has been disappointed through not following this line of thought, he should now concentrate on adjusting his viewpoint, seeing that it was not the word of God that failed or deceived him and brought disappointment, but that his own understanding was based on wrong premises.” In saying “anyone,” The Watchtower included all disappointed ones of Jehovah’s Witnesses, hence including persons having to do with the publication of the information that contributed to the buildup of hopes centered on that date.

In fact, far from being dismissed, those persons between 1968 and 1975 were more often rewarded and promoted for it, as they were showing loyalty to a theory being especially promoted by Fred Franz in spite of the measure of doubt that some "disloyal" people were expressing. Many of these early supporters of Fred Franz were coming from the Service Department (from where "[Our] Kingdom Ministry"/"Our Kingdom Service" had included a few infamous, pro-1975 statements) and the most "loyal" of these persons were "promoted" to the Writing Department.

Ironically, this very line in the "Choosing" book, was what prompted L.Greenlees to slam down on the desk of its writer (R.Lengtat) with Greenlees yelling about how this admission of guilt had "slipped through the cracks." There was a kind of unwritten rule in Writing that you NEVER admit guilt because it will be used against you. In those days, even if a false doctrine were being corrected, you never said you were "wrong" before, only that you were now "more right" -- the "light was getting even brighter."

5 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Didn’t you say you were from the writing department?

Never. I worked in the Art Department from just a few weeks after I arrived right up until I left Bethel. Simultaneously, I handled several research assignments for a specific committee reporting directly to Bert Schroeder for my last 4 years at Bethel and for a few years beyond while living in NYC. Most of the Art Department was either on or within one floor of the Writing Department at the time, just outside the Bethel Library at 124.

5 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Well, anyways, you claim to know everything about Bethel

LOL! How could anyone make such a claim? I've never claimed anything like that.

5 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

But as we know, with the “purge” there we 29,893 that got disfellowshipped, and I’m sure within that percentage, some returned that included repentant Bethelites.

I didn't say it wasn't possible, only that it wasn't substantiated as you claimed it could be.

5 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

if you get approval from, opposers

If it makes you feel better, I will admit that I consider you to be an "opposer." For a while, I admit that I really thought you might be the kind of opposer who just pretends to be a JW, so that it will appear that JWs always choose the Watchtower over the Bible no matter what the evidence. I thought you were trying to make it look like all JWs were in a cult. I soon realized that you were more likely a person who doesn't even realize he is opposing the Bible whenever the Watchtower makes an unsubstantiated claim. But I should also repeat that I love the truth of the Bible, and love the fact that the brothers who take the lead are primarily focused on serving Jehovah and they focus more on the moral character it takes to be a true Christian.

Sure, we also have carried over some odd doctrinal traditions, but there is no excess focus on such kinds of doctrines. When the GB have looked more closely at some of these through careful Bible study, they have made changes that seem to be almost always for the better, in my opinion. And is it a bad thing that the rest of us follow their lead, and adjust our thinking right along with them? Not at all. It shows that we are not married to the incorrect doctrines of the past. It shows that we humbly follow along and understand that progress will continue. We don't think it necessary to get out there and clamor for changes on our own timetable. We are satisfied that the rate of progress is reasonable. When Brother Splane gave a talk about this recently, he used the example of a person who just loved the ideas about the "great pyramid" but that when the change was made, he humbly accepted and followed the lead. He used this as an example for those who just loved the ideas about the prophetic dramas in all the Bible narratives and parables. Yet now that these hundreds of doctrines are being dropped, the brothers will humbly accept and follow the lead -- appreciating the progress.

This is a public forum, however, open to people who can read material and evidence from anywhere. So it is also a good place for Witnesses to show that they can hold their own opinions too. And even for fellow Witnesses, there is something called the Inoculation Effect or Inoculation Theory that can make it easier for other Witnesses to understand what kinds of changes and effect the Internet will undoubtedly have on us in the next few years. We will either have to completely change our focus onto "low-information" converts, or face facts. I prefer that we allow all ends of the information spectrum without prejudice.

---------edited to add:----------

1 hour ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Yes, I would say she and Joe knew what had happened with the purge and what was going on with Ray through Joe’s good Friend Richard Wheelock that would have been a witness to what was going on at Bethel before they were invited to Bethel in 1982. We know how Bethelite's like to gossip. This was before good old Ray and the Watchtower actually brought it to a close in 1983, while Barbara and Joe Anderson were STILL there.

Bethelites are most likely STILL gossiping about R.Franz and R.Wheelock and even Joe and Barbara Anderson, even in 2017. But just to keep the timeline straight, the best evidence we have on all this still comes from R.Franz himself wh says:

R.Franz and his wife, Cynthia, requested a leave of absence in March 1980 and left Bethel late in March. In late April 1980 a list of questions was prepared by B.Schroeder and it was given to G.Suiter, K.Klein, J.Barr, L.Barry to begin questioning E.Dunlap first, then Schroeder himself interviewed the Writing Department. The secret tape where a Spanish brother had said that Cris Sanchez (Bethelite in Spanish Translation) had told him that even Rene Vazquez and Raymond Franz had similar questions had already been played for the Governing Body by Schroeder. I know that Schroeder was trying to set things in motion from late 1979 against R.Franz and it was finally working for him as of April 22, 1980 when Schroeder asked R.Franz if he could get to Brooklyn on April 29th.  Cris Sanchez was about to be disfellowshipped a few days later, on April 25, 1980, and Bert Schroeder had evidently tried to trick Raymond Franz into a judicial meeting to be held for him on April 29, 1980 to take advantage of the momentum. The GB didn't admit to Franz that his name was involved in this until May 8, 1980 and Franz flew back on May 19, 1980 for his first "trial."

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Barbara Anderson was a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses from 1954 through 1997. She worked at Watchtower’s headquarters in Brooklyn, NY, from 1982 to 1992 where during her last four years there, she researched the movement’s official history (published in 1993) and did research as well as wrote a number of articles for their Awake! magazine. While working in the organization’s Writing Department, Barbara discovered that the Watchtower organization covered up child sexual molestation committed by Jehovah’s Witnesses..... 

Thanks I should have looked it up. It was correct, then, that she was not at Bethel when Raymond Franz was there, and she also came in just after I left, so I was not aware of the years she spent there prior to her work on the Proclaimer's book mostly in the 1990's.

3 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Oh! I’m pretty sure, we can at least come up with a Raymond supporter

I'm sure we can, too. It appears that those who worked directly with him supported him. But have you already forgotten your claim so quickly? You said that it could be substantiated that ex-Bethelites who supported R.Franz in the 80's, got DF'd in the process only to be reinstated. As you put it:

10 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

ThereÂ’s nothing unsubstantiated about ex-Bethelite's for being supporters of Raymond Franz in the 80Â’s, got DfÂ’d in the process only to be reinstated with an ax to grind.

Perhaps you have already backed down from this unsubstantiated claim. I think anyone would agree that there were and are R.Franz supporters, though.

Barbara Anderson might be one, I don't know. But she was never at Bethel when he was there. I think she's more of a 90's Bethelite. But she completely lost her belief that this could be the truth, so I doubt anyone could talk her into coming back.

Bill Bowen might or might not; I thought he blamed him for the "two-witness" rule, too. Also, he never was a Bethelite, I don't think. And I've heard he is kind of creepy.

Ed Dunlap. Yes he was at Bethel, yes, the time period is right, and I've read in the R.Franz book that they were good friends, and I knew that they worked together. Not much chance he'll try for reinstatement. He died long before R.Franz did. 

Nestor Kuilan. That could be a candidate. He was good friends with Rene Vasquez, who was also disfellowshipped, along with Cristobal Sanchez. All of them worked on Spanish translation and all of them knew each other. But Vasquez worked outside of Bethel, and handled some Circuit Overseer assignments. That circuit covered the congregation R.Franz was in, I think. When Vasquez came to Bethel, I think he mostly came to the factory building where Sanchez and Kuilan worked (along with both their wives). I remember that Rene Vasquez sold "Shaklee" vitamins and health supplies as did many brothers in the same circuit. He had done this for years, and was one of the first and biggest suppliers in the area. That meant that a lot of other Witnesses who he had helped to get into the business were actually making a portion of their money for Vasquez, and this had become a big question that even made its way around Bethel. It turned out that some Bethelites were also selling Shaklee on the side, in the same way that a couple of sisters were selling Avon products on the side. (We didn't have the "vow of poverty" in the early 1980's.) At their next circuit assembly (in Spanish) Brother Fred Franz gave a talk and made it clear what they should do. He said:

• "We get OUR VITAMINS from the Faithful and Discreet Slave!!"

 

3 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Now I’m not talking about the “claim” Bill Bowens made about Raymond Franz, that he was the author of the society’s “two eye-witness rule” and then, how good old Bill turned on Ray for not going on a TV news show, around, 2002.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if R.Franz was the primary one behind the two-witness" rule. I remember some articles that came in for artwork from R.Franz, so I knew a little bit about his style. But I never saw anything specifically on the two-witness rule. Still, from the articles I did see, he was the one who was usually assigned to take on specific portions of "organization books" and some articles on congregational issues dealing with qualifications for elders, ministerial servants, disfellowshipping, reinstatement, and the like. Most of these types of articles were cut down into "Questions from Readers" and never got an "artwork" assignment anyway. A few of his that were full-fledged Watchtower articles would have no artwork, but would only get an assignment for someone to create or choose a special "headline font." Some of the writers interacted with the Art Dept and were "memorable" for their interactions, as they were hard to please. But I never saw R.Franz interact much. If someone (like Swingle) thought one of his articles could use some art, he'd request it, but I don't remember Franz personally interacting with anyone in Art.

3 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Carry on, and entice your base with juicy stories of yesteryear!!!

LOL. If I can remember anything "juicier" you'll be one of the first to know. Or judging by how many names you appear to be using for yourself on here, you might even be the first through the fourth persons to know.

36 minutes ago, Israeli Bar Avaddhon said:

When someone asks us if "TODAY" Jesus knows the day and the hour, what do we answer?
We answer "It is reasonable to believe that TODAY he knows it"
. . .
The point is: the fact that Jesus said that no one knew the day and the hour meant that no one would NEVER know the day and the hour?

It could very well be that Jesus now knows, and did not know when he gave the inspired prophecy of Luke 21 and Mark 13 and Matthew 24. He said the "times and seasons" were still in the Father's jurisdiction, not ours, after he was resurrected. (Acts 1:6-8).

But that last point there is the key. He said that the last day would come upon humans as a surprise. In other words there would be no sign that could be used as an advance warning. A sign would spoil the surprise. This is why we remain prepared and awake at all times through our conduct, not by looking for signs and events. This is why when Jesus' disciples asked for a sign of the end, the first words out of Jesus' mouth were: "Do not be misled . . . . the end is not yet."

So, that's what I was referring to as the contradiction. It goes back to the same idea that Paul was making when he said we need NOTHING to be written to us about the parousia, because it is coming as a surprise. If someone were to be able to determine that one or more events mentioned in Revelation (a plague, for example) was an event that was marked within a specific timeline (as your chart shows), then this becomes a sign of the end. But we know that there are no signs of the end that can be used to fix the times or seasons.

I'm not saying that I am necessarily right in this thinking either, but just letting you know where the problem lies, as I see it.

2 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

There’s nothing unsubstantiated about ex-Bethelite's for being supporters of Raymond Franz in the 80Â’s, got DfÂ’d in the process only to be reinstated with an ax to grind. Then telling people, they know the Governing Body very well (Best Buds). All the while making wild accusations, about them, behind their backs!! 

Interesting theory. I wonder if it really is substantiated however. I have not heard of one single person who supported Raymond Franz in the 80's, got disfellowshipped, and then got reinstated. It's possible, of course, but seems unlikely. I knew one Bethelite, a person who might have supported Franz in the 80's based on his current promotion of a book that R.Franz wrote. He continued as a Bethelite until about 1984? and as an elder until about 1995, but then was disfellowshipped for an unrelated issue related to divorce and re-marriage, but who now thinks he should get back in, he claims, just to help warn more people that they should get out. But I don't think he has ever tried to get back in, and in his mental situation, what would be the chances that he could get reinstated with such a negative view of the WTS? He has views similar to "Witness." Can you imagine "Witness" trying to get re-instated (assuming he was DF'd).

But this is the closest situation I know about. I imagine there are a lot of people who read Franz' books and think that a warning must go out, but it really makes no sense that people would get DF'd over their negative view of the WTS and then truly want to get back inside the WTS just to tear it down. What a waste of a life!

I think it's pretty obvious who you have actually meant to target with your wild, unsubstantiated allegations. You are wrong, of course. By the way, Raymond Franz would have been one of the most difficult persons to be a supporter of while he was at Bethel, as he was always friendly with a smile, but very few words. His weeks where he handled morning worship were never about any controversial subjects, almost always just Christian conduct and character. He was extremely quiet, unassuming and stayed very busy in his office when at work, and handled a lot of Branch visits. Most of the Governing Body did not do multi-stop Branch visits. Otherwise, he spent a lot of time in his own congregation. So what was to "support"?

In my own experience, I got married in the early 1980's and remained in New York so that I was even able to continue several research projects reporting to Bethel, which did not completely wane until 1984. I have never been disfellowshipped. Two brothers from the Writing Department gave our wedding talk, and one of them actually did fade away several years later and I haven't spoken to him since then. But the other remained in his position as editor of the Watchtower well into the 2000's. In 2013, I was asked to give the funeral talk for a person from his old congregation in NYC since he couldn't get there on time. (He lived in Patterson.) He got there later, and we ended up sharing the talk in much the same way as he had shared our wedding talk with another speaker. This was Brother Fred Rusk.

Also, can you explain your reference to "Mabon"? I looked the name up in Wikipedia and can't see what you are trying to say.

Religion and mythology

• Mabon, the Autumnal equinox in some versions of the Pagan Wheel of the Year
• Mabon ap Modron, a figure in Welsh Arthurian legend
• Maponos, a pre-Christian Celtic god
• Mabyn or Mabon, an early Cornish saint

People

• Willie Mabon (1925–1985), American singer & songwriter
• Dickson Mabon (1925–2008), Scottish politician
• William Abraham (trade unionist), also known as Mabon (1842-1922), Welsh politician

7 minutes ago, Israeli Bar Avaddhon said:

because I believe I have the scriptural basis that many things that happened in the first century are merely a model or preview of what will happen in the near future.

This is exactly where I was going with the idea that ...

21 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

but there are some points to glean from this view that can shed light on the meaning of these same prophecies for the future.

21 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

there is a kind of "unified theory" available from within the context of all these verses that combines the basic ideas of each reference to a 3.5 year period mentioned above. A couple of them can even be taken literally, and I think those ones also provide a symbolic foundation for the others.

The difference, at this point at least, is that I want to see if there is a way to make sense of the time prophecy without contradicting Jesus' words that the end-times events would come without warning.

I have read your blog articles and find them to be very interesting, but can't yet get over the contradiction with Jesus' words (and Paul's words). I know that your URL's will be removed soon by a moderator. You would do better to just point out that there is an article that can be found that explains your point of view, and perhaps quote from it in small portions. Also, thanks for your chart. I've seen that from other posts, too. Perhaps if you merely pointed out the Italian title for one of the articles, you wouldn't have to include the URL link, and if someone wanted to find it, they could search on Google.

34 minutes ago, Israeli Bar Avaddhon said:

This book, however, was quoted by the Lord himself, so that if all the rabbis were to say that Daniel is not a canon, the Lord Jesus Christ would prove that they are wrong.

True, I intended to point that out, even though we should all be very aware of this, and it's something that will come up directly in a discussion of the meaning of the 1,260 days. But it is also possibly true that Daniel contained some wording in the original and/or the LXX version that was changed by the second century C.E. to conform to the current Masoretic version. (We know this is true of the 70 weeks prophecy.) And it's also possible that Daniel (in Jesus' day) already contained some of the portions and additions that the New World Translation and most other translations leave out. This might even be why Jesus added:

• (Matthew 24:15) . . .as spoken about by Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place (let the reader use discernment),

Perhaps it is also a side point related to 1 John:

• (1 John 4:1) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God,. . .