JW Insider

I happened across an excellent commentary of how the current "system of things" has been affected by Covid19. (linked below) The speaker hits on many of the most salient points and it stands as an excellent review from a perspective that sees a bit beyond just the medical issues. But about 20 minutes into the 30 minute video, I learned some interesting points: Americans owe 1.7 trillions in student loan debt. It was only 500 billion in 2006; up 1.2 trillion in just a decade and a half. He also says that In bankruptcy court, the only non-dischargable debt is student loan debt. [Therefore, I like the wording you used: "chained on to the individual."] What's worse, I think, is something he didn't say, but is fairly obvious. Students are still paying their $30,000 to $50,000+ per year, where part of what a student should be paying for is the ability to interact with professors and specialists in their chosen area of specialization. Instead, what they are often getting lately is a hands-off video stream of a professor who can't interact much at all with students. Might as well be video-taped lectures. No one-on-one in-depth guidance towards a specific area of pursuit. No semester abroad in France, UK, or China, or special internships. Only on-line access to the university library for what's been digitized, which is often a small percentage of what would have been available.

I'll NEVER recommend that he be banned. I am more than happy to let him make his own motivations clear. If he's banned, all that evidence he provides against himself just goes away, and he just starts it all up again with one of his 40 other names.

That would be Anna. because one of the moderators (I think it was The Librarian) didn't have time to manage it. The Librarian, Anna and I are Witnesses, but I know of no other Witness moderators. Posts I have seen from "admin" and "TheWorldNewsMedia" accounts make me believe that they are not Witnesses. (I also believe that one of both of them are owners of the site, or perhaps its the same person.) I got a note from the Librarian once asking if I could take over some moderating duties to keep topics from getting too mixed up. I can move posts to new topics with a function called "Split." It allows me to split a post from one topic and move it to another topic. I assume that like lot of these forums, if someone is extremely active, that they will be asked if they can help moderate.

True. Compared to whatfinger.com, Drudge is now a relatively progressive leftist.

Go to Hell- enistic Classical Art on the Met Museum site: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/244054 and notice how they gave the "Votive Thumbs Up" in Hellenistic times: [I think it's what they gave the comedians whenever a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Funny_Thing_Happened_on_the_Way_to_the_Forum]

From what I gather it absolutely is not a JW Elder run forum. I believe that the person who might actually be ultimately responsible for the forum rules is not the least bit concerned with what we talk about over here. It's probably all based on the report feature, where people can raise flags about a specific post, or spamming, which the owner(s), administrator(s) and some moderators can act upon to either give warnings or ban a person. This feature can no doubt be abused, and it's probably true that a person who abuses it for revenge (or whatever) probably risks getting banned for that, too. I think that overuse of the down-vote 25 times a day might also be seen as spamming. (Some forums prohibit down-votes unless you have been a participating member for a good period of time.) I think sometimes that lots of people on religious forums end up saying things that are not even considered all that bad among the members, since we are quite used to being judged and even "condemned to hell" by persons of all sorts. For most of us it just "rolls off our back." But to a more secular person, it might sound a lot more like cyber-bullying, and they believe they must take action or be held responsible for tacit permission of a hostile, bullying environment.

It's gotta be templates from wix.com for brorando.com. But a quick search will show that he has used several different sites and domains over the years.

So what is it doing on our website right now? Yes, you're absolutely right about that. My mistake. There are two relevant pages on the website, and they have never changed even one word from the earliest archives I can find, going back to 2014: What Is the Seven-Headed Wild Beast of Revelation Chapter 13? What Is the Scarlet-Colored Beast of Revelation Chapter 17? I know you are aware of this, of course, but the "Revelation 13" page never mentions the United Nations, but it DOES say that a key to understanding the "Revelation 13" beast is to understand "an image of the wild beast" in Revelation 17. The difference in identification is clear from the web pages: "Rev 13" page: The wild beast with seven heads introduced at Revelation 13:1 represents the worldwide political system. "Rev 17" page: The scarlet-colored beast, described in Revelation chapter 17, is a symbol of the organization . . . . and is now the United Nations.

That was on the closed club for JWs Only. But here is some of it again. Note however that Witness is somewhat correct that the actual term "image" from Rev 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 20 has not been used since 2012, [in the WT or books] which is nearly 10 years. But the same idea is tied to Rev 17 (the scarlet-colored beast) which has been used as a more direct reference to the UN. *** w20 May p. 7 pars. 17-18 “The King of the North” in the Time of the End *** 17 The king of the north has supported the king of the south in one key endeavor; they “put in place the disgusting thing that causes desolation.” (Dan. 11:31) That “disgusting thing” is the United Nations. 18 The United Nations organization is described as a “disgusting thing” because it claims to be able to do something that only God’s Kingdom can do—bring world peace. And the prophecy says that the disgusting thing “causes desolation” because the United Nations will play a key role in the destruction of all false religion.—See the chart “Rival Kings in the Time of the End.” *** w19 September pp. 10-11 par. 11 Armageddon Is Good News! *** Jehovah will destroy “the great prostitute” by means of “the ten horns” of “a scarlet-colored wild beast.” That figurative wild beast represents the United Nations. The ten horns represent the current political powers supporting that organization. *** w19 October p. 15 par. 3 Stay Faithful Through the “Great Tribulation” *** God will put his thought into the hearts of “the ten horns” of the “scarlet-colored wild beast.” The ten horns represent all the political powers that support “the wild beast”—the United Nations. (Rev. 17:3, 11-13; 18:8) When those political powers turn on false religion, that will mark the beginning of the great tribulation. It will be a truly catastrophic world event. *** w15 7/15 p. 15 pars. 4-5 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! *** Jehovah God will put “his thought” into the hearts of “the ten horns” of the “scarlet-colored wild beast.” These horns represent all the present political powers that give support to the United Nations, an organization pictured by the “scarlet-colored wild beast.”—Read Revelation 17:3, 16-18. 5 Should we conclude, though, that the destruction of the religions of Babylon the Great results in the death of all the former members of those religions? Apparently not. *** w14 10/15 p. 19 Milestones in My Life of Kingdom Service *** The Bible foretold that the League would be replaced, leading to a time of relative peace. And so it was that in 1945, World War II ended. After that, the “beast” reappeared as the United Nations. Jehovah’s Witnesses then expanded their global preaching work, and what a great increase there has been ever since! *** w13 7/15 pp. 4-5 par. 6 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” *** In the larger fulfillment, the “standing” will occur when the United Nations (the modern-day “disgusting thing”) attacks Christendom (which is holy in the eyes of nominal Christians) and the rest of Babylon the Great. The same attack is described at Revelation 17:16-18. That event will be the beginning of the great tribulation. *** ws12 6/15 pp. 17-18 par. 13 Jehovah Reveals What “Must Shortly Take Place” *** The League of Nations disappeared when World War II started. During that war, God’s people said that according to the prophecy in Revelation, this organization would appear again. That is exactly what happened, and now the organization is called the United Nations.—Revelation 17:8. *** ws12 6/15 p. 18 par. 15 Jehovah Reveals What “Must Shortly Take Place” *** The religions of Christendom are surely part of Babylon the Great. False religions have publicly supported the image of the beast, that is, the League of Nations and the United Nations, and they have tried to direct these organizations.

I suspect you already knew that @Srecko Sostar never called on me in any way. This is something you apparently just made up when you stated it as fact under another topic/thread. But just in case you weren't aware, I thought I'd let you know. It will say a lot about your motives, if you continue to repeat this unfounded and false idea.

Instead of acknowledging what Srecko is saying about continuity, you are treating it as if it's a trick question. Like asking if Muhammed Ali ever won a boxing match against Sonny Liston. The answer is yes and no. His name was Cassius Clay when he fought Sonny Liston. In the same way, yes, I know many Jehovah's Witnesses who celebrated Christmas before they were baptized, and I even knew a few Jehovah's Witnesses at Brooklyn Bethel who celebrated Christmas after they were baptized, but before they called themselves by the name Jehovah's Witnesses. In fact, I was once in the same room with at least three of them where they had celebrated Christmas 49 years earlier. But I have never known any Witnesses who celebrated Christmas after they began calling themselves Jehovah's Witnesses. Since Srecko was talking about the continuity of the teachings of the Watchtower Society he appears to have meant this idea in much the same way that the Watchtower means it when it uses some of the following types of expressions, and these are just a few examples out of many more: *** w98 9/15 p. 32 The War That Destroyed the 19th Century *** For over 120 years, Jehovah’s Witnesses have pointed to 1914 as the end of what Jesus called “the appointed times of the nations.” *** w65 7/1 p. 394 par. 9 Plaguing the Modern “Egyptians” with Truth *** While all seven annual messages sounded by Jehovah’s witnesses from 1922 to 1928 concluded with such appeals, it was particularly the Resolution of 1927, passed at their international assembly in Toronto, Canada, that highlighted this feature *** w91 4/1 p. 7 Is It Later Than You Think? *** Since 1914, however, Jehovah’s Witnesses have done that, in spite of the persecution Jesus foretold—government bans, mob violence, imprisonments, torture, and many deaths. In 1919 there were 4,000 of Jehovah’s Witnesses preaching this good news. *** w78 6/1 p. 23 par. 11 Co-Workers in the Harvest *** In 1918 . . . the leading members of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses were railroaded off to the penitentiary for a 20-year imprisonment. In the eyes of their enemies they appeared as unburied corpses. *** w83 2/15 p. 11 A Notable Annual Meeting *** . L. A. Swingle reviewed the worldwide expansion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, from 3,868 publishers in 1918 to the more than 2,300,000 today. *** w81 5/1 p. 17 par. 2 If God Has an Organization, What Is It? *** At the same time, particularly since the year 1922, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been efficiently organized for fulfilling the prophecy of Jesus *** w80 10/1 p. 28 par. 16 After These “Last Days” God’s Messianic Kingdom! *** What Jehovah’s Witnesses have preached world wide since 1918 is something unique, *** w09 5/1 p. 22 Brooklyn Bethel—100 Years of History *** THE year 1909 was a momentous one . . . It was also a momentous year for Jehovah’s Witnesses. Earlier, Charles Taze Russell, president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, the legal arm of Jehovah’s Witnesses, had seen the potential for expanding the preaching of the good news of God’s Kingdom. *** w01 1/15 p. 29 How the Governing Body Differs From a Legal Corporation *** The International Bible Students Association is used in Britain [in 2001]. *** w01 1/15 p. 30 How the Governing Body Differs From a Legal Corporation *** Especially noteworthy was 1931 when the Bible Students adopted the name Jehovah’s Witnesses. *** w55 3/1 p. 141 Part 5—The Warning Work (1909-1914) *** To hold this new property in New York state and to do business as a recognized religious body within this state it was necessary to form a New York corporation. Such corporation came into legal existence February 23, 1909, as decreed by New York Supreme Court Justice Isaac N. Miller. PEOPLES PULPIT ASSOCIATION was its name for thirty years. Then in 1939 that was legally changed to its present name, WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY, INC., similar to that of the Pennsylvania corporation, WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY.

This history is all very interesting. But it's too easy to make statements that aren't exactly accurate, even though you are making them for the good purpose of counteracting someone else's statements that are inaccurate in another way. For example, your quoted statement above would appear to be "off" a bit, highly oversimplified. At least, that is, if you trust the WTS wording of the charter of the original WTBTS (of PA) and compare it with the charter of the People's Pulpit (which was renamed the WTBTS of New York). The WTS also said that the initial purpose of the Peoples Pulpit was simply to own property in NY, which wasn't covered under the charter of the WTBTS of Pennsylvania. Most people don't have the time or desire to look into any of these matters too deeply, so it's good not to oversimplify too much when trying to make a point about the technical differences and relationships between Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses. If one wanted to be even more technical, Rutherford never believed it was right to speak of the "great crowd" of "other sheep" as Jehovah's Witnesses. After all, initially at least, they were "fools." The “great multitude” class ... have been fools, and so called by the Scriptures, ... These claim to be the people of God and convince themselves that they are; but they are foolish. (WT 10/15/1931 p.311) At that time the . . . “other sheep” were not considered to be “Jehovah’s witnesses.”—See The Watchtower, August 15, 1934 ... (WT 2/15/1966 p.120) Even in 1931, the Great Crowd was still considered a heavenly class who would not come through the great tribulation, but would have to die, and be resurrected as spirit beings. The WT "proved" this from Revelation 7:14. They were to be a class of heavenly beings but lower than the "little flock" because they had been negligent of their consecration and lost out on the higher calling. The “great multitude” or “tribulation” class ... will not be spared in the great time oftrouble, but, on the contrary, they are appointed to die; . . . they will fall. (Zech. 14: 2) They will not be carried through the time of trouble. They will be forced into the time of trouble . . . but must die in order to live as spirit creatures. (WT 9/1/1931 p.262) In 1934, the "remnant" who were the only ones called "Jehovah's WItnesses" would survive Armageddon, but the "great multitude" would NOT survive Armageddon, although the Jonadab class would survive. The faithful remnant . . .will survive Armageddon. ... The “great multitude” ["great crowd"] will not survive Armageddon, ... God’s promise is to preserve a remnant, and not a vast multitude. The “great multitude” are appointed to die. The Scriptures also show that the Jonadab class will survive Armageddon. (WT 3/15/1934 p.92) Today, of course, the Jonadab class is understood to have been the great multitude, who WILL survive Armageddon, and it's now the faithful remnant who will NOT survive Armageddon as humans (per recent information repeated at the Annual Meeting by Brother Herd). It was in August 1935 when the Jonadabs became the Great Crowd (great multitude), but were still not counted as Jehovah's Witnesses. They had been specifically told in the WT that they were not even invited to attend the Memorial celebration because they were not Jehovah's Witnesses. (Finally invited in 1938.) They weren't even considered members of the organization because they did not bear the "official name." Those who form the great multitude are appointed to places of service in the Lord’s organization although they are not members of the organization. (WT 8/15/1937 p.239) But it wasn't until well after Rutherford died, when the January 15, 1946 Watchtower finally included the "other sheep" as "Jehovah's Witnesses." Just saying there are a lot of nuances in the transition of beliefs (and naming conventions) during the times of Russell, Rutherford and Knorr/Franz.

That is what I remember, too. In fact, that's in the Proclaimers book: *** jv chap. 15 p. 220 Development of the Organization Structure *** At a convention in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1941, shortly before his death, he spoke about the matter of leadership, saying: “I want to let any strangers here know what you think about a man being your leader, so they won’t be forgetting. Every time something rises up and starts to grow, they say there is some man a leader who has a great following. If there is any person in this audience who thinks that I, this man standing here, is the leader of Jehovah’s witnesses, say Yes.” The response was an impressive silence, broken only by an emphatic “No” from several in the audience.

Okay, thank you. When you read the articles correctly. Are you one of those Jehovah Witness giving out a bad report about it? I will not engage in your quarrel. I'm only asking about how or why Rutherford would say he was NOT one of Jehovah's Witnesses in 1941. Your report about it said:

That sounds like it should have been at the St. Louis assembly. Where does Rutherford say he was NOT one of Jehovah's Witnesses?

I don't like the idea of banning anyone. In fact, most of "Dmitar's" divisive and contentious interference in discussions is already the direct result of his having been banned several times in the past. He was already banned under one of the original sets of names he used here (Allen Smith) and this made him so angry that he has continually come back with alternate names. Many of those names/accounts have also been banned. I stopped counting after about 40 of his alternate names. A few of his alternate names have rarely been used except to up-vote his own accounts and down-vote members who he doesn't like or who have exposed him in any way. Most of those names are still available to him because they have never been banned. It's one of the reasons I never recommend banning anyone. If his "Dmitar" account were banned, his usual practice is to start a new account, or re-activate one or more of these other accounts and come back even more contentiously and with more hostility. For bringing up this idea, you, @Matthew9969, could then expect 40 or 50 down-votes on things you have said in the past, and to have most of your future posts "stalked" for down-votes and probably anything he can think of that will cause strife and dissension. If you don't respond in the exasperated manner he expects, you can count on several weeks of false attacks claiming that you did react inappropriately. He puts a lot more energy into his posts than most people realize. Because of exposing him again here, he will likely do what he usually does: display a lot of egotism, envy, hostility, jealousy, fits of anger, stirring up trouble, divisions, etc. When he notices that his own anger might be a giveaway of his personality, he will begin to accuse others almost randomly of many of the same things he has been exposed for doing. In fact, almost comically, this means that if he has been exposed for "projection," he will then begin accusing others of projection, too. For anything that he has been rightfully accused of, he will hold a longstanding grudge and make sure he accuses his exposers with the same words. So, what I'm trying to say is that banning just doesn't work. It just results in more and more projection, blame-shifting, and passive aggressive hostility, which has often blown up into real abusive hostility, which then gets him banned and then he starts the cycle all over again.

Amazing that the head of Pfizer knew about all these adverse effects and even deaths, and still claimed publicly that there were no deaths. Also, while it's true that there were several reporting defects and this concerns millions of vaccines administered over about a 3.5 month period covered in the report(s), you can still tell from the average "delay" that most of these adverse effects happened within 24 hours of the jab.

There are at least a dozen good YouTube downloading programs, and most are free. I have a couple of them, one free, and one I paid $7.99 for a couple of years ago. I'm not trying to promote any specific one for a couple of reasons. 1. YouTube puts in its terms of service that you aren't supposed to download their videos except those you own. This is mostly to keep competitors from starting their own service by stealing a lot of videos or breaking copyright rules against video owners. (Funny, because Google bought YouTube BECAUSE it was still gaining most of its popularity from copyright infringement, and they used internal algorithms to promote all the infringement they could get away with -- except where corporations forced exceptions, or monetization for Google was possible.) 2. A product I use might not be as good (or safe) as ones that are available now, and anyway I don't really trust software that tests perfectly clean from viruses and adware when it first comes out, but then might easily slip in some adware, virus, or undisclosed data collection, after it gains a good reputation. For that matter even anti-virus and anti-adware software has been known to slip over to the "dark side," which was likely part of their plan all along. If you search Google for "YouTube Downloader" or "Free YouTube Downloaders" or things like that, you will usually get sites that give a nice list. Like this one that gives 5 of them: https://www.techradar.com/best/free-youtube-downloader Be aware, of course, that even these apparently useful lists are usually created by (or funded by) one or two of the items in the list, therefore you won't find those items on any other list. It's also ploy to make new or obscure programs look like they belong in a list with more reputable software. So always check multiple lists to get an idea of the most reputable suggestions. I also use a program on my iPhone that strips the audio from a video into an MP3 so that I can listen to the video while driving. (I make a two-hour drive between New York City and upstate every weekend, which is 4 hours in total. That's nearly 8 hours of listening at 1.75 speed.)

You are right. The Atlantic readers are already primed to think of anyone who questions anything about the safety of the vaccines as an anti-vaxxer. This term is so often misused that it's a perfect pejorative. Because then they can also be classed with right wing conspiracy nuts, and then the media can seek out the small minority of persons with crazy beliefs that the vaccine magnetizes their arm, or that each vaccine includes a tiny microchip. (Of course, in Sweden there really is a micro-chip that thousands of Swedes wear under their skin. https://www.npr.org/2018/10/22/658808705/thousands-of-swedes-are-inserting-microchips-under-their-skin) Therefore the question in the title of their article only needs to be rhetorical; it doesn't need to be answered. It makes Malone "crazy" just for the juxtaposition. It's curious that a fellow scientist says that he's hurting his chances to win a Nobel prize for his close and unique involvement with the invention of mRNA vaccines, and his related patents. Nobel himself (a Swede) is credited for inventing dynamite 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean he was happy with all the ways it was being used. Would The Atlantic have run an article "Alfred Nobel claims to have invented dynamite. Why is he trying so hard to undermine its use?" Whether Nobel himself personally had such specific reservations I don't really know. Albert Einstein thought he knew when he said: The problem of the inventor’s and scientist’s social responsibility was taken up by Albert Einstein in a speech in 1945, after the atom bombs were dropped over Japan in August of that year. Einstein pointed out that the physicists in 1945 were in a situation which much resembled that in which Alfred Nobel once found himself. Einstein drew his conclusion from this: “Alfred Nobel invented an explosive more powerful than any then known — an exceedingly effective means of destruction. To atone for this ‘accomplishment’ and to relieve his conscience, he instituted his award for the promotion of peace.” https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/alfred-nobels-thoughts-about-war-and-peace/ I wouldn't expect a scientist to have always said the right thing in speeches or on social media. Obviously there is ego and pride at play here, too. But most of his credentials are admitted by the article. But the article also stretches the truth. Just enough to make you question and doubt. It claims he is known for lucid explanations but faults him for those comments about his positions that are made by others (YouTubers or Twitter followers). It faults him for having money. It faults his wife for using all caps in a response that defends him. It faults him for giving interviews to the only people who will grant such interviews. There seems to be a need to bend over backward to find fault. And a couple of false statements thrown in there, too. Such as when he was temporarily deplatformed from LinkedIn. The article says it was for false statements, when it was directly the result of verifiably true statements and questions. (Like questioning whether someone being on the board of both Pfizer and Reuters could result in a conflict of interest.) LinkedIn apologized to him and restored his account. And of course, Dr. Malone is still not an anti-vaxxer. He got the vaccine himself. He still works on vaccines. He believes the vaccine has its place for the vulnerable, but is potentially dangerous and not studied fully enough for risking it on children and persons less at risk from Covid itself. And of course he is very well aware that the vaccine will NOT always keep one from getting the infection, and it will not keep one from spreading the infection. And he actually agrees with the point made in the Atlantic article, that the good appears to outweigh the risks for those who have the vulnerability factors already mentioned. At least the article doesn't do what so many have done in other media outlets (and social media, of course) which is to just simply lie about what a person has said or done in order to make them look less credible.

(Proverbs 26:17) . . .Like someone grabbing hold of a dog’s ears Is the one passing by who becomes furious about a quarrel that is not his. When I was a kid back in the 1960's, this verse never made me think of Internet discussion forums. Yet, the style of a certain participant here, who will not be named (though he has had dozens), is always the first thing that comes to mind. [edited to add: But, of course, I also know that it isn't fair to focus on only one example, when there are many others, including myself who just can't pass up a good discussion, even if not the least bit furious about it.]

A quick aside: The reason that the NYT article I mentioned above included questions about the vaccine from Israel can easily be guessed. Israel is just about the most vaccinated country in the world, already beginning on the 4th jab. But due to Israeli apartheid, Palestine, right next door, has had great difficulty reaching "adequate" vaccination levels. Yet, Palestine is doing better than Israel with Covid-19. For those who read Hebrew and pick up some of the more obscure sources in the Israeli press, you can even find a sinister side to some Israeli expectations. Some had concluded that keeping it difficult for Palestinians to get the vaccine might result in greater deaths of Palestinians. This is not a bad outcome for Israelis who will privately share a Hebrew expression that states: "To kill an Arab is a blessing." [The university at which I studied Hebrew for 3.5 years has a high American-Jewish population, and although these are Americans who often have a strong prejudice against Israelis, there were also Israelis in the Hebrew classes, who joked about that same expression above. Also, separately, when I had joined a study group at the home of a Jewish family (where we studied physics) the home-owner (father of one student) learned that I spoke Hebrew, and his first question to me was. So now you know how to say: "To kill an Arab is a blessing."?]

I am not an anti-vaxxer. I believe that almost all the current vaccine types intended for Covid-19 have been proven, at least in the short term, to do more good than harm for a select group of individuals who have not previously had the virus itself, and/or who have the typically identified comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes, advanced age, cancer, prior respiratory issues, etc. However, because these vaccines really can produce better outcomes for some, many people apparently do not understand why there should be any limitations on its use. The NYT has finally included some dissenting opinions about the efficacy of the vaccines (without ridiculing them) in a recent discussion among Israeli doctors and an ex-health minister. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/23/world/middleeast/israel-vaccine-4th-dose.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur It admits that several scientists have claimed that boosters may make it more difficult to fight the virus. But that's not the news I refer to here. It's the 3-hour interview (below) that Joe Rogan had with Dr. Malone, who was the man who invented (got several patents for) the mrna technology on which many of the vaccines are based. If anyone has spent any time at all discussing the virus or the vaccines, or spent any time listening to news reports about them, then this could easily be the most important information ever presented about these topics. It's here: Dr. Robert Malone interviewed by Joe Rogan I think everyone ought to at least give it an hour, especially considering the many hours that other news sources that we will be exposed to.

That's definitely true too. But Jesus still encouraged people to follow what they said. Naturally that didn't mean in everything without question. (Matthew 23:2, 3) . . .“The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. 3 Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but they do not practice what they say.

Nothing significant is left out of the quote, in spite of the ellipses. This teaching wasn't Rutherford's doing. Russell believed it too. Rutherford hadn't finished "rethinking" all the things he wanted to change from Russell's time. It wasn't until about 1931 that he had pretty much finished getting rid of nearly everything that was uniquely "Russellite." But as you say, culture is hard to change. When this Pleiades teaching finally was dropped, it was replaced with the "Rutherfordite" method of applying nearly everything in the Hebrew Scriptures to 1918: *** w53 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers *** What is meant by ‘binding the sweet influences of the Pleiades’ or ‘loosing the bands of Orion’ or ‘bringing forth Mazzaroth in his seasons’ or ‘guiding Arcturus with his sons,’ as mentioned at Job 38:31, 32?—W. S., New York. Some attribute striking qualities to these constellations or star groups and on the basis of such they then offer private interpretations of Job 38:31, 32 that amaze their hearers. Their views are not always sound from the standpoint of astronomy, and when viewed Scripturally they are completely without foundation. ... Incidentally, Pleiades can no longer be considered the center of the universe and it would be unwise for us to try to fix God’s throne as being at a particular spot in the universe. ... It has particular application to Jehovah’s people now. In the prophetic drama of Job he represents the faithful followers of Christ on earth at the end of this system of things, specially from 1918 onward. He represents the anointed remnant of the body of Christ, how at that time they were afflicted, in captivity to Satan’s organization, Babylonish Christendom in particular. They could not understand why Jehovah permitted this affliction from the world, and particularly from Christendom. They did not appreciate just what Jehovah’s purposes were concerning them, and so it was appropriate for God to specially reveal himself to them as the Supreme One of the universe and that the big issue was his universal domination over all creation, animate and inanimate. From and after 1918 Jehovah has made these points stand out. There are even hints here and later in the article that the "real" explanation had more to do with believing that the "superior authorities" were God and Christ, and not the secular authorities. (A point also made in another article of the very same issue of the Watchtower.) That teaching wasn't changed until nearly 10 years after this article. But the points about Jehovah's sovereignty were still very valid.

Changing back to Russell's view has happened with several teachings, including the elder arrangement, identification of the superior authorities, etc. But I also give Rutherford great credit in getting us out of idolatry, not just with the pagan celebrations, but with the idolizing of Russell himself. Rutherford claimed that the brotherhood was literally worshiping Russell and he called it "creature worship." But we shouldn't get the idea, of course, that Russell was always such a paragon of virtue himself. He lied in court about business matters he had involved the Watchtower with. And when his perjury was obvious, Russell changed his story 180 degrees. Rutherford knew these things about Russell, having been his attorney, as his defense of Russell in 1915 shows. Curiously, right up to the last book of the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) the Jews are still being condemned for giving in to idolatry. Yet it was the scribes and Pharisees who deserved credit for freeing the Jews from idolatry from that period forward, so that idolatry was no longer the problem in Jesus' day. It's true that Jesus condemned them for hypocrisy, but Jesus didn't condemn them for all their teachings. In fact, Jesus told his audience that they should still do what the Pharisees tell them to do, just not to do as they do. In Mark, Jesus says to one of them: (Mark 12:34) . . .At this Jesus, discerning he had answered intelligently, said to him: “You are not far from the kingdom of God.”. . . And we also know that not just Nicodemus, but a great many from the Pharisees became believers. And one became an apostle. I thought that was only over his failed predictions for 1925. And it was evidently only privately to a few persons at Bethel that he admitted this. In the Watchtower he blamed the brotherhood for believing it, rather than admitting that he himself had anything to do with it. To me, I think all of this is a great lesson that we don't put our trust in earthling man, in whom no salvation belongs. But we appreciate the good teachings and continuing improvements that we have shared together. The copper has become gold. It's not about the overseers themselves, but about what the right motivations bring. (Isaiah 60:17) . . .Instead of the copper I will bring in gold, And instead of the iron I will bring in silver, Instead of the wood, copper, And instead of the stones, iron; And I will appoint peace as your overseers And righteousness as your task assigners. If you look closely at the words here, it's not saying that the overseers themselves will be righteous humans, but that we will be led by peace and righteousness "itself." Not humans, specifically. Here's how the NIV puts it: (Isaiah 60:17, NIV) Instead of bronze I will bring you gold, and silver in place of iron. Instead of wood I will bring you bronze, and iron in place of stones. I will make peace your governor and well-being your ruler. So, yes, Russell might have sometimes been a perjurer, and Rutherford might have been a "drunken, womanizing, cigar-smoker" (as my old "table head" at Bethel called him). But we still greatly appreciate what has been accomplished over the years. What Jehovah has accomplished is often (as some old-timers still say) in spite of us, not because of us. What must actually be happening is that Jehovah's spirit acts upon us as a group because of our own love for one another. It's not specifically because of what we are always told to believe, but because of our pure and peaceful and righteous motivations. Love and joy and peace and faith, etc., are what bring Jehovah's spirit to all of us, including the good influence on the ones taking the lead.