JW Insider

Back to the topic of the OP. I think that the Democrats have show a usual level of stupidity, and then in addition, are falling into a huge trap here. I have seen Giuliani so sloppy at times that he doesn't realize he was being an accidental whistleblower himself (against Trump), but I saw him much better prepared on this particular story (in a Fox News interview) and even there he hinted that the Democrats are walking into a trap. Trump himself does not usually come across so well prepared on any particular news story, either, and he often wings it with statements he ends up walking back. But this is so clearly a story they are well prepared for, not just in defense against attacks by Democrats, but as a proactive strategy to bring down Biden a couple notches, and embarrass the Democratic party. The Democrats had many Republicans on their side in creating a big anti-Russia strategy that attempted to tie everything Trump did to a close "nefarious" association with Putin. To this end, Democrats even sloppily tried to tie Paul Manifort to Russia, when Manifort was mostly an anti-Russian working for Ukraine's interests (which are opposed to Russia). A lot of people think that it's unfair to speak of any nation as having a "Nazi" agenda, but Ukraine is really an exception, because it has truly held onto the Nazi legacy from 1945 until today. Although we don't know if the new president, a former Jewish comedian, will attempt to stem the Nazi party which has dominated official Ukrainian government agencies for years. Democrats had to ignore this "Nazi" agenda when FaceBook and the Democrats were looking into Ukrainian accusations against Russia. Ukraine had to be presented as "the good guys" to try to paint Russia in such a bad light. Inseparably, Russian oil pipelines always ran through Ukraine although Russia only recently created some workarounds, so the "oilgarchs" of Russia and Ukraine might have less leverage now. But corrupt "officials" and "unofficials" from the US and elsewhere have been able to profit off the oily corruption between these two states for years. I mention this because the only parry to the sword hanging over Biden right now was the fact that Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manifort was ALSO involved in getting money from related entities in Ukraine. Then, Biden's son (Hunter) was evidently put on the board of a mid-sized energy company and paid about a million euros a year. Ukraine's Attorney General wanted to look into this and his father, VP Joe Biden, tried to get that Attorney General removed. (There are also additional monthly payments totalling closer to 2 million a year going to undisclosed persons.) The Democrats have already gloated over the demise of Manifort, but on separate grounds, so that it would just create confusion or appear like sour grapes to try to present Manifort as Biden "parity." Letting the whole Mueller thing play out was a bit risky, but has paid off for Republicans. Democrats are now just grasping at the few remaining straws.

That's a 2-seater AMX; Javelins were almost the same (with some hood and grill differences) but were 4-seaters (in 1970). I was always afraid that under such a large hood, I'd open it and a Gremlin would pop out.

We should be careful not to mistake the activists, politicians, and doomsdayers with the consensus of scientists. Of course, there will always be some scientists who stand to gain notoriety and/or money from doomsday books or by making claims that support oil companies, fracking companies, or their favorite political parties. When climate change has become so politicized there will some fraud on both sides, although the steady money to follow is coming from corporations and governments who fund research at many of the universities. The tweet from "News Breaking LIVE" has been taken from a Bloomberg article. It's informative to see the whole article here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-25/trump-s-interior-department-says-there-is-not-a-climate-crisis The whole story is actually a perfect illustration of how one might "follow the money" to get to the truth of the matter in this instance. Here are the opening paragraphs of the actual article: The Trump administration brushed aside concerns about climate change as it sought to justify plans for oil drilling in the Arctic refuge, even going so far as to suggest that a little extra warmth would do the planet good. “There is not a climate crisis,” the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management asserted in its environmental analysis of the coming sale of drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s Coastal Plain released earlier this month. Congress mandated the sales two years ago as part of the tax overhaul but a thorough environmental assessment is a legal requirement for holding the auctions. In other words, the only way the BLM can make any money on the land auctions to get money from drilling companies who want to drill in the Arctic is to also produce a study that says it will not hurt the environment. Did anyone really think that the BLM was going to come up with any other conclusion? If they did, they would lose many millions of dollars. The United States Department of Defense ran a thorough study that claimed just the opposite. But then again, the Dept of Defense is probably anticipating the need for money too, as they watch climate change result in various national fights over clean water, arable land, refugees issues from droughts or devastating storms, fights over fishing rights as fish keep diminishing, the opening up of "new" lands (like Greenland) for mining/drilling. Opening up of a northwest passage for shipping lanes. &c.

I think that the new president of Ukraine wants a ride on Trump's plane and is willing to buy Javelins and stay in Trump Tower and buy more American oil to get it. 😎

I thought these were all excellent ideas. And I have to agree with them, especially the one where you mentioned me. 😄 I thought an excellent opportunity arose in advance of the Love Never Fails theme for the conventions. (1 Corinthians 13:8-13) 8 Love never fails. But if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with. 9 For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially, 10 but when what is complete comes, what is partial will be done away with. 11 When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, to think as a child, to reason as a child; but now that I have become a man, I have done away with the traits of a child. 12 For now we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face-to-face. At present I know partially, but then I will know accurately, just as I am accurately known. 13 Now, however, these three remain: faith, hope, love; but the greatest of these is love. For me, it seemed like the perfect opportunity to take the exact context of that verse, and develop a theme about ways in which the Governing Body can show that they are now reducing all the emphasis on attempted prophecy. (What will happen next before the end? A more pointed judgment message? Anointed "raptured"? Babylon the Great fallen? "Other Sheep" replacing the Governing Body? Cries of Peace and Security? An attack on Jehovah's Witnesses corresponding to touching Jehovah's eyeball? Gog/Magog? The order of the earthly resurrection? Who will teach whom? What happens at the end of the thousand years?) 1914, 1919, 1922, the 1260 days, the 1290 days, the 1335 days, the 2300 evenings and mornings, the 7 times, etc. These can all be de-emphasized now and replaced with a new message about ways we can show love to one another. This could include caring for aging parents, new counsel about caring for our families materially, caring for the sick and poor among us, even caring for disfellowshipped ones at our own discretion of personal conscience. Becoming known as a group who shows the greatest love among ourselves would be our new "calling card." Preaching could still have a "last days" theme, but it would always be about the sort of persons we ought to be in showing love for one another, knowing that the end could happen at any time, or that our own end could happen at any time. Our hope, and our faith in that hope are still a big part of the good news, but our love right now is the greatest theme of the good news.

It certainly can. You are right about that. But it also shows spiritual weakness when we forget to question ourselves and our teaching. So having a place to formulate questions helps us clarify those questions for ourselves, even when no one comes around to provide a scriptural response to those questions. And when someone does come around to provide a scriptural response, we can be happy that we are being corrected, or if it helps us confirm an answer to our questions. But if it's true that Satan has corrupted persons to think they hold the truth in any subject, then this is the same as accusing the Watchtower organization and its writers of being emboldened by Satan when they present their views as holding the truth in all subjects they speak about. I personally don't believe that the Watchtower writers are being emboldened by Satan. I think it's more of a matter of being excited to believe they have found all the important answers, and they therefore speak as if it must be right, as if they are speaking sacred pronouncement of God. To a point, if we are not going beyond the things written, this is a good thing: (1 Peter 4:10, 11) . . .To the extent that each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness that is expressed in various ways. 11 If anyone speaks, let him do so as speaking pronouncements from God;. . . But there is a danger of being so sure of ourselves, that we forget to question. We forget to ask for questions. We forget to WANT questions. The JW.ORG site does not ask for questions; there is no comments section. We all know that if the teachers are actually humble like little children, they will ask questions, and so will the rest of us. True. But how often do we also see those in opposition to truth, who know that Brother Russell predicted that other things would happen in 1914 that didn't happen? And then, as a distraction, because they are in opposition to admitting the truth, they point out that some people thought Russell predicted that the world would end in 1914. True. But how often do we also see those in opposition to truth, who know that Brother Rutherford predicted that other things would happen in 1925, that didn't happen? And then, as a distraction, because they are in opposition to admitting the truth, they point out that some people thought Rutherford predicted that the world would end in 1925. This can happen. We've seen it happen. But those in opposition to admitting the truth about what was actually predicted for as early as the mid-70's and as late as the end of the twentieth century, are often very anxious to create a distraction by pointing out that some people claim a specific thing was claimed for only 1975. When a person is really making a specific false claim, then it's good to point it out. But if they are not making that claim then pointing out a different mistake that someone else is making can be a very misleading distraction.

Whoops, I deleted that comment prior to your response, and can't put it back. But in order for yours to make sense, it was this: JTR: When TheWorldNewsOrg guy (or gal) makes a post it's rarely about JWs or in a category about JWs.

Your plan might work a bit differently during a category 3+ hurricane. I think you are counting on the fact that Jehovah gets the indication of his presence across to us calmly without needing to blast us with signs: (1 Kings 19:11, 12) 11 But He said: “Go out and stand on the mountain before Jehovah.” And look! Jehovah was passing by, and a great and strong wind was splitting mountains and breaking crags before Jehovah, but Jehovah was not in the wind. After the wind, there was an earthquake, but Jehovah was not in the earthquake. 12 After the earthquake, there was a fire, but Jehovah was not in the fire. After the fire, there was a calm, low voice. Sorry, lost my sense of humor there for a minute.

Even on this forum, when anyone brings up what the Watchtower publications said about expectations for 1881, 1910, 1915, 1918, 1925, 1970's, 2000, we sometimes hear an excuse like: "Can we really be blamed for having tried to put a time frame on the time of the end? After all, don't we hear about the disciples in Acts 1:6 asking if Jesus is going to restore the Kingdom to Israel at this time?" What makes this particular excuse troubling is that we don't expect anointed elders, or Governing Body members say that they believe they should be in a better position than other anointed ones when they are in heaven, perhaps even in a position much closer to Jesus himself. Yet can they really be blamed if they tried to do that? After all, the disciples themselves appeared to have involved themselves in such jockeying for position: (Matthew 20:20-22) . . .Then the mother of the sons of Zebʹe·dee approached him with her sons, doing obeisance and asking for something from him. 21 He said to her: “What do you want?” She replied to him: “Give the word that these two sons of mine may sit down, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your Kingdom.” 22 Jesus answered: “You do not know what you are asking for. Can you drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They said to him: “We can.” And of course, Jesus knew it wasn't just the mother asking which is why he addressed the two disciples themselves. But notice that the answer contains a mild rebuke when Jesus says that this is not even his to give, but it is in the Father's jurisdiction: (Matthew 20:23) . . .but to sit down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” Similarly, Acts 1:7 contains a similar mild rebuke to the question about the time period for end-time events: (Acts 1:7) 7 He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction. And of course, similarly, when Jesus' disciples asked him when the temple walls were going to fall, and they asked Jesus to give them a sign for when it would occur, Jesus didn't start out with a time frame, but created a context, starting out with the words: (Matthew 24:4) 4 In answer Jesus said to them: “Look out that nobody misleads you, (Mark 13:5) . . .So Jesus began to tell them: “Look out that nobody misleads you. (Luke 21:8) He said: “Look out that you are not misled,. . . There is plenty of variation in the details each gospel writer chose to report, but they all agree that these were the very first words out his mouth. And of course, some also emphasize the same "mild rebuke" that we see in Acts 1:7. (Matthew 24:36) . . .“Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mark 13:32) 32 “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father. In fact, Luke includes some of Jesus' words from the Mount of Olives "Sermon" as words that Jesus had already told the Pharisees, when they also asked him "when the Kingdom of God was coming." (Luke 17:20). Jesus response was very clear, that it would not be by things they could observe, not by physical signs. (Luke 17:20, NLT) One day the Pharisees asked Jesus, “When will the Kingdom of God come?” Jesus replied, “The Kingdom of God can’t be detected by visible signs. " That's not only a perfectly good translation, it fits exactly what Jesus repeatedly said about persons looking for signs. (Matthew 12:39) . . .“A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Joʹnah the prophet. (Matthew 16:4) 4 A wicked and adulterous generation keeps seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Joʹnah.”. . . (Mark 8:12) . . .So he sighed deeply in his spirit and said: “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly I say, no sign will be given to this generation.” This appears to be the same clear reason why Paul could say: (1 Thessalonians 5:1) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. This wouldn't have meant that they couldn't tell that they were already living in revolutionary, troublesome times, hard to deal with, and this should have made it clear that they should be ready at any time for something to happen within their own lifetimes. The biggest evidence that the end of all things was upon them was that Jesus had now already been in their midst performing miracles. But thinking they needed another sign to know that they had to be always ready might just be an indication of a "wicked" inclination. Jesus' disciples wanted a sign to warn them in advance when the walls of the temple were going to fall. Was it going to be in their lifetime? Could they continue to use the temple today? tomorrow? next week? next year? Jesus said they didn't need to know the timing because the end would come as a surprise, when it would be too late to do anything about it. By the time they saw Jerusalem surrounded by Roman armies, it was time to flee. That probably didn't sound rational to them from a human standpoint, since you can't easily flee through an army that's surrounding you. I don't believe there is any way to tell whether there is supposed to be some exact parallel in a secondary application to these Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem, or perhaps standing in the holy place itself. Obviously the GB has long believed that there must be some direct parallel, based originally on some of the old type-antitype traditions, and they are predicting a future scenario that appears to match the first century by drawing on Matthew & Luke and bits of Revelation, Daniel, Zechariah, Ezekiel, etc. A good question might be whether predicting a future scenario becomes more probable because it can incorporate bits and pieces from several different Bible books, or does it become less probable because it has been built upon bits and pieces of several different Bible books from different contexts. I think we are therefore back to a question of our own trust in those "bragging rights" that make us feel that a higher measure of Jehovah's spirit direction (or inspiration) has been evident among the leadership of this organization.

I think that one is excellent too. It follows the same general format of showing how the Bible answers the Big Question of how problems on earth will be solved through God's Kingdom. The angle of Truth and Trust in the Bible is the theme. Again, there is nothing stated in this magazine that should produce any unresolved questions. I believe even JTR would have to rate it somewhere near 100 percent useful, rather than his oft-repeated 15/85 rating. I'm going to try not to get drawn into a 1914 discussion, at least not on this particular thread/topic. But I do understand what you are saying. I'm not sure how far back you are going, because even up to as recently as 2014, there were plenty of references that could have meant what you refer to. The Isaiah 44/45 (Babylon-Cyrus) prophecy comes across as the most amazing prophecy to outsiders. It's simple, and it's used, of course, in the self-run free study on the JW.ORG website. The only persons for whom it would not work so well are those who believe that "Isaiah II" were chapters tacked onto the original book of Isaiah after the Babylonian exile. If you listen closely to the Faith In Action -"Out of Darkness" Part 1 video, I think it's clear that Daniel's "prediction" of 1914 is a better example for "insiders." An outsider would have too many unresolved questions: Most outsiders aren't into this idea that the Bible pinpoints dates for end-times prophecies. They would wonder why wicked Nebuchadnezzar's rulership pictures Jesus' Messianic rulership. They would wonder why we give it an additional application when the scripture itself explicitly says the application is to Nebuchadnezzar, and says nothing about an assumed second application. And they would wonder how we got 1914 from 7 times anyway. It doesn't even say 7 times are 7 years (that takes another scripture from a completely different context). And if it did mean 7 times were 7 years here, it doesn't say that those years were actually 360-day years, which also comes from its use in a different context. And if it did mean that 7 times were 360-day years, it doesn't say that those 7 times 360 have to each be multiplied again by 365.25. That's because the day-for-a-year idea also comes from a different context. And if they looked into it more deeply, they might wonder why we were forced to use a mix of secular dates for some events and pseudo-secular dates for some other events. Some of the dates we accept are the same as the secular dates, and some are 20 years different from the secular dates, but this time in the same context. They might wonder why a Bible prophecy would even rely on secular dates in the first place since the Bible itself never uses a secular date like 539 BCE, 607 BCE, 587 BCE, 33 CE, etc. They might wonder why we inconsistently claim that these "seven times" must be multiplied by 360, then multiplied again by 365.25 days each, when we claim that all uses of the term "three and a half times" in the Bible (Daniel & Revelation) should NEVER be multiplied again by 365.25, but only multiplied by 360. And even then, we allow for round-off in the use of "three and a half times." And if they looked into Babylonian and Jewish calendar systems a bit closer, they might notice that there was no such thing as a period of 7 years that did not contain at least two (sometimes three) intercalary months so that the number of days in ALL 7 year periods would always be closer to 2,568 days, not 2,520. Some of these questions would likely remain unresolved to an outsider, no matter how well we tried to explain them. They work for most those of us on the inside, because we generally trust that all those questions were probably resolved by persons who have a lot more holy spirit available to them than we do. So we just accept that we don't have to ask such questions. Besides, when I mentioned the "Out of Darkness" video, I am primarily referring to the very fact that this prophecy is used as one that is supposed to prove that Jehovah was using Russell (not Daniel). At the 44:20 mark in that video, we hear Brother Gerrit Lösch say: ". . . it enhanced their trust that Jehovah was using Brother Russell and his friends to explain truth to others." At the 44:30 mark in the video, we hear Brother Anthony Morris say: ". . . it's still significant that they could pinpoint that year. That's phenomenal!" This is hardly about the original prophecy anymore. In effect, this 1914 prophecy is therefore our own "internal" evidence (bragging rights) that there was an element of true inspiration from Jehovah to those who were supposedly "wise" enough to pinpoint that year by jumping through mental hoops that Daniel would have never dreamed of.

I guess the first point I could address is how someone with serious unresolved questions and concerns about a couple of our teachings could still participate in promoting our publications and our meetings to interested persons. Won't those persons be faced with unresolved questions too? This gets to the claim by some that 85 percent of what we present is not worth it, and 15 percent is worth it, but that 15 percent is valuable enough to ignore the 85 percent. If those were the real numbers then making a convert would be very hard to justify. And in any case we would always have to spend a lot of time telling our Bible students that there are a lot of things we don't understand ourselves. But the numbers aren't that bad, because we really don't spend the amount of time on the areas where more people have unresolved questions. For example, let's just look at the two magazines that were common to many of the carts today. One is the Watchtower No.3 2019, and the other is the Awake! No.2 2019. The Awake! has the cover is "Six Lessons Children Need to Learn." There are short articles on Self-Control, Humility, Resilience, Responsibility, Adult Guidance, and the Need for Moral Values. I am critical of a lot of things, but I found every single word to be well written and useful. It makes a nicely presented way to discuss such important topics with children. Or it just makes it simple to keep a prioritized list of ideas in a parent's mind to remember as they come up. And all of it leads to the fact that Bible principles are the foundation of these lessons, even if might seem at first like mundane lessons about the amount of time spent on entertainment media. So on to the Watchtower. The basic questions that religion should answer are the same questions that people ask all over the world. They are the questions that don't really overlap with science, and although they might overlap a bit with "philosophy" it's really the place of true religion to show why the Bible's view gives the best and most satisfying answers. These are the questions of "What is the meaning of life?" "Is God to blame for suffering?" "What happens when we die?" Those are the same questions called "Life's Big Questions" on the back of the Awake! So the Watchtower starts out with an article on "The Sad Reality of Death." Nothing questionable or inappropriate here. Science is mentioned as a possible source of answers, here, and in the next article "The Search For Long Life." The idea is clear and obvious, that "We are Designed to Live" just as the next article shows. Again, I see nothing that any naysayer, except atheists, might find wrong or questionable. In fact, up to this point, atheists might still be following along, too. After all, it does not overwhelm with scriptures, but uses them in unobtrusive ways. Now the question of "Why Do We Grow Old And Die" gets into the Biblical aspects, on page 8 of 15. It's all clearly the correct Biblical answer, however. Granted, some religious and science-oriented religious persons can take Adam & Eve as allegorical in some way, which is common. But even so, the rest of the Bible clearly uses the exact example as the explanation about death on earth. And therefore page 10 begins discussing the hope, when death is conquered. There is a very clear explanation of the Ransom here. Using Scriptures throughout this article. There is a paragraph or two on "When" but it is not done with the idea that "we know something about the date that no one else knows." Someone might wonder why it only mentions "millions" being resurrected, but this isn't said in such a way that we are telling people that it won't be billions, or thousands; it's just presented as a way of stating a happy hope in the resurrection. It mentions the "last days" but exactly the way the scriptures use the expression. In detailing "How Can You Have More Than This Life?" on page 12, the appeal is to those who want to see a better earth, and who would like to live forever under much better conditions. It's an invitation to learn more. And the next article shows how the road to that better life will produce side effects of contentment, more satisfying priorities, better marriages, and even better health (overall) in this life. I find BOTH of these entire magazines to be 100 percent valuable, well written, and they touch on no unresolved or unresolvable questions. And we all know that some of our talks and other publications cover this same material exactly as these articles do, sometimes with more examples, more verses, more detail -- but the same ideas. We are offering exactly what people should be looking for, satisfactory answers to important questions. When an interested person gets to all the meetings, they will soon discover that time is spent on the meaning of Ezekiel, for example, the history of the organization, and a lot of emphasis on urgency in preaching on account of the times we're living in, and the overall timing of Jehovah's purpose. Some of this material will likely result in questions that they will find ways to resolve, or else just accept and wait for a resolution in time. But it's not the gist of our preaching and disciple-making. I think most people who come into the organization will remember the Big Questions, and that those were the primary reasons they joined with us. Those questions are answered in a more appealing and satisfying way than other religions are answering them. And we back up our answers with the Bible. Our teachings regarding war, neutrality, Trinity, hellfire, paradise earth, the challenge to Jehovah's sovereignty, etc., will make even more sense to interested persons when they remember that the first attraction was to the way the Bible answered those big questions. Those were the questions that build a primary foundation around the teaching of God's Purpose, Eternal Life, the Ransom, the Resurrection, etc. So even if chronology and some of the specific prophetic interpretations can result in unresolved questions, for now, it's not like this needs to be such a big part of Witness thinking. We can participate in every major aspect of our worship with joy and without being overly concerned with these unresolved questions. And when they finally are resolved, I'm sure we'll see them as relatively unimportant compared to the big things.

This is really nice. I'd like to see a time when those JW.ORG boats area as ubiquitous as Red Cross, etc. That would be a great witness, too. There are times when the logistics can go wrong, too. (I heard about the warehouse of supplies destined for P.R. last year.) As it is, still, I think we normally do a lot better in this regard than nay-sayers say. And there's a lot of willingness to help that can go untapped if we don't speak up and join in with others. This is where we can really "shine" as an organization.

There are legitimate concerns that someone can misunderstand, or concerns that many people tend to walk by sight, not by faith. But the expression has been common for years, both inside and outside the Witnesses, that when you approach a house of worship, it becomes a "house of God." I don't believe for a minute that the average JW feels any reverence towards the bricks and mortar of a building. There is sometimes a natural feeling of nostalgia or sentimentality over a place or object that brings back a lot of good memories. So I heard about many Bethelites in Brooklyn who felt really bad about leaving their historical New York buildings. But did any of them actually think that there was something about the physical aspects of the buildings that made them somehow more spiritual? I think that even the brothers who used to give talks about "dedicating" a place "from now until the new world" were probably seeing an opportunity to emphasize the closeness of the end, and the stability and growth of the organization. Even if they perhaps considered the assumption that Jehovah might even protect these buildings as a means of protecting his people, they would definitely have not claimed or felt that there were any such guarantees. Earlier this month, I was reading a diary of a woman in the early 19th century, 1830's, who takes religion very seriously, even taking her children to up to three different church buildings on a Sunday. It sounds like she was Episcopalian, but attended the Episcopalian, the Methodist and the Baptist sermons and perhaps even their Sunday schools, too, if she could manage it in the day's schedule. She complains about some of the sermons and lessons, and she loves some of the others. But in each case, in each different building, she seems to identity all of them as "the house of God." She even reminds her child that Moses took off his shoes before entering holy ground, so he must remember to take off his hat. In spite of the words, "house of God" I'm sure this woman didn't consider anything special about the actual building. Sometimes when one of the preachers was called away, the preacher from one of the other churches would preach as a substitute, or they would share buildings in an emergency. People can understand the gist of the idea without taking everything so literally.

Most Witnesses are quite satisfied with a midweek meeting, a weekend meeting, and meetings for service, a study night with the spouse or family, and some additional time for talk preparation, additional personal study, prayer, meditation and contemplation. For many, due to various circumstances, it's hard enough to keep up even a minimum in each area mentioned. But for others, it's obvious that they (we) spend quite a bit of time on this forum, too. And for some, I'm guessing, they spend some time here, and even seek out other places, too, where Witnesses talk or are talked about. It's pretty obvious that when it comes to how we spend our free time, there are much more fruitful pursuits. We could be visiting sick or shut-in brothers and sisters, or just doing something loving for someone else, perhaps even taking on some additional employment to able to help out those who are having financial difficulties. And not to judge anyone of course, because it's likely that many of us already engage in such additional activities, and yet we still find ourselves coming to a forum such as this. I don't think anyone of us would think we are "witnessing" here, at least not in the typical sense of how we define sacred service. I do think that some think they are "witnessing" when they defend the status quo against those who might raise questions. And some non-JWs and ex-JWs likely think they are "witnessing" by exposing the real truth about the truth, as some would call it. However, when JWs, defenders of JWs, or even non-JWs find they are not resolving questions in their defense of a certain position, there is often a lot of anger that gets shown, and the focus of anger gets all the attention instead of the unresolved question. (Of course, that's probably a tactic for some who would rather not admit that some questions are still unresolved.) I won't try to address the reasons that other people might be here, but I can repeat my own reasons. I have unresolved questions of the type that would not be addressed by others in the congregation, nor by the ones responsible for "creating" those unresolved questions in the first place. JW.ORG is not going to include a "questions and comments" section any time soon, and if they did it would become a complete mess in a hurry. So I use this site as a kind of substitute for a JW.ORG questions and comments section. Because of that kind of utilization of this forum, I don't include a lot of comments about the areas of agreement because I have no question about them, no issue, and these are the areas where we can comment and speak up freely at the Hall, or to anyone around us who's interested in talking about such things. If this is our situation, however, that kind of skews the impression we might give to others about the Witnesses, why we believe, why we share our beliefs, and how much we appreciate our association with a world-wide brotherhood of fellow believers. Speaking for myself, I know we've done a bit of this on the JW Closed forum, but perhaps it's a good idea now and then to share our positive public views on this part of the forum, too. When I get a chance, I'll add something more specific to my next post.

I just figured it out. When I clicked on @Foreigner, there was no issue as his account was still there and I could click to his posts. But when I looked at the post where I had pointed out the spamming, which is the post of mine on August 31st that immediately follows the one below, I see that clicking on the @BillyTheKid46 link, I cannot from there link to any of his posts. In fact, I quote a post of his from 8/31 in one of my own, and his post from 8/31 is is missing. (This is one reason I hate that accounts get banned, censured, or even disciplined in such a way that any of their previous posts disappear. BTK had several posts that were very good, even several that I had upvoted, too.)

TTH has said he has nothing to do with the running of this site. I have no proof, but I'm sure he's telling the truth. He doesn't know me, and I don't know him, and I don't know the Librarian or the admin either. What I know about them is only from what I see in the posts I get. I did get an invitation from a moderator 3 years ago inviting me to use some moderating powers to move posts to new topics, because there were a lot of topics that were started and several persons (with names like Allen Smith) were coming into these topics for no apparent reason other than to spew some vitriolic hatred, judge persons (not views) they disagreed with as apostate, Satanic and deserving of death. I gladly accepted the moderating powers to move unrelated posts to new topics. It keeps things neater, more organized, and allows for those other ideas to grow into topics of their own. I don't use any function that allows me to delete a post, but it's a function called "Split." For anyone's post, I have a little pulldown, called Options, and in there is a function called "Split." I can start a new "empty" topic first, give it a name, and then when I click on "Split," I enter the location of the new topic, and the post ends up on that page. I have no control over the order, so they just show up by date order, the same order they showed up on the original topic. It's a bit too much effort for the value gained, and I prefer personally to just let topics go all over the place "organically." My own posts (like this one) are off-topic about as often as anyone else's (or more) so it seems like trying to exert control on a topic that is unnecessary, even if it's easier to follow. I know that I didn't communicate with TTH or anyone else about removing anyone here. It wouldn't make any sense anyway because I'm always AGAINST removing people from any forum. No matter how badly they act, they will just continue to act that badly under another name if they are removed. We all saw that this was the case with Allen Smith, and some of his cursing and cyber-bullying became just as bad under his new names as it had been under his original name. I always spoke up for him, though, because a person can be "censured" by the others without removing his rights to speak up on the forum. Any of us can personally block someone we don't want to hear from. I don't know for sure, but I suspect I have been blocked by some who didn't want to hear what I had been saying. So I know this is probably not about any of the original "Allen Smith" monikers. I know that I did expose the vote-spamming of @BillyTheKid46 and @Foreigner, but I just now typed their names with an @ in front of them, and they both seem to exist. (I haven't seen tweets from either of them for a couple weeks, though). Perhaps pointing out their spamming with small screen-shot snippets has resulted in a punishment of some kind, but I do not expect their removal. Besides I only pointed out a very small percentage of their spamming, as it related to my own posts. Others here pointed out that they were doing the same to their posts, too. My own goal in pointing out their spamming was not to get either of them removed, and I hope they have not been removed. I also hate the fact that when someone is removed you can no longer see their posts, and you end up with conversations that no longer make any sense with half the conversation missing.

It's really pretty easy to understand. If a person is considered a prophet, and he tells people that there is not just evidence, but incontrovertible proof that the resurrection of David and Abraham will begin in 1925, and it doesn't happen -- believe me -- a lot of people are going to turn their backs on him. Some might give him a year or two, just in case of a minor math error, but most people don't wait around after a prophet makes a fool of himself. There was another prophet like this named Nelson Barbour who prophesied that Jesus would return physically in 1873. He pumped up the readership of his Tract Society, but 1873 came and went, and he readjusted to 1874. Then 1874 came and went and the great majority of those subscribing to his tracts turned their backs on him. Probably about the same proportion of those who turned their back on Rutherford in just a few short years starting in 1925. Not so sure that's such a hard thing as you think. All you have to do is say that you believe something might happen a certain way, rather than making outlandish claims that you have incontrovertible proof, and that there is more evidence for 1925 than Noah had for believing what God told him about the upcoming Flood. Or that even though the chronology for 1914 was based on "God's dates" that couldn't be changed even by one year, that there was more evidence for 1925 then there was for 1914. If you don't print claims in the publications that you (and those who appear to agree with you) have the spirit of the Old Testament prophets you will find that very few people will come up with this idea on their own.

Oh boy. A chicken coup!

I suppose I could tie it back to the original post about a French-speaking Baptist Church. Most of these are about the wording used when we try to imply that: for decades in advance the Bible Students predicted that 1914 would see a time of trouble associated with the end of the Gentile Times, Christ's presence, Christ's enthronement, and the casting of Satan out of heaven. The problem is that the English wording has (usually) become very careful to only IMPLY that the Watch Tower publications and Bible Students had, for decades, predicted Christ's presence, a time of great trouble, Satan's ousting, and Christ's enthronement. In reality, all that was predicted decades in advance for 1914, was "the end of the Gentile Times" which, of course, meant some things that are completely different from what we now apply it to. It's easy for someone who knows English well, to create an implication of the above (to mislead) without actually stating something that's untrue. I have found some translations where the translator didn't catch the subtlety, and just assumed that the Watchtower really did predict these things. I guess it would be very difficult for Brother Jackson (Translation Dept) to call up these other translators and have to admit that they need to create a subtly misleading wording that does the same thing in Greek, for example, that it does in English. I'm sure it happens in many other languages where the translator isn't in on the "game." But I am hesitant to start a repeat on a 1914 / Gentile Times topic.

Reminds me a bit of when the Watch Tower publications declared Rutherford to be permeated with the real Biblical and prophetic spirit, while proposing that a British politician of the time was also like a prophet because he was declaring some of the same rhetoric that Rutherford was declaring. At the time, Rutherford was still trying to overcome the problem that 1914 had failed to be the fulfillment of that time of trouble, and he was pushing for the new idea that 1925 would resolve that problem by being a new time of trouble, and even the time for the physical resurrection of Old Testament faithful men of old to the Millennial age on earth. The Watchtower liked this "prophet" because he said that 1924 was to become even worse than 1914. By 1939 to 1944 it could be said that the true climax of these prophecies about 1924 had come true. Prophet Ramsay MacDonald and Prophet David Lloyd George hadn't predicted a resurrection, though.

I'll be happy to discuss it. The first thing I find about a 1946 prediction is on this site: https://www.shortlist.com/news/george-orwell-made-this-incredible-political-prediction-in-1946 George Orwell made this incredible political prediction in 1946 "The man was an actual prophet" . . . Deacon unearthed this passage, written back in 1946 by George Orwell, taken from one of his columns in Tribune magazine (which were collected in Seeing Things As They Are earlier this year) which eerily seems to describe exactly what is currently happening. Then I found the actual thing Deacon said, here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/10/08/how-george-orwell-predicted-brexit/ where he quotes from another book he (Deacon) had been reading, and it was noteworthy for how well it matched all the arguments of the EU referendum campaign for "Brexit": “The fact is that there is strong popular feeling in this country against foreign immigration,” wrote Orwell. “It arises partly from simple xenophobia, partly from fear of undercutting in wages, but above all from the out-of-date notion that Britain is overpopulated and that more population means more unemployment.” The most necessary step is... to raise the general level of public understanding: above all, to drive home the fact, which has never been properly grasped, that British prosperity depends largely on factors outside BritainGeorge Orwell, November 1946 On the contrary, argued Orwell, more immigration was needed, to compensate for “the ageing of the population” and Britain’s “frighteningly low” birth-rate. Unfortunately, he said, efforts to encourage European immigration had been “met by ignorant hostility, because the public has not been told the relevant facts”. Above all, he concluded, the government must “drive home the fact, which has never been properly grasped, that British prosperity depends largely on factors outside Britain”. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Of course, Orwell was not actually a prophet, otherwise he would have foreseen that attempts to “drive home this fact” would be successfully dismissed as “talking Britain down”. Were he here today, Orwell himself would be cast as a sneering metropolitan liberal elitist, out of touch with the legitimate concerns of ordinary hard-working families. Still: pretty remarkable. That article was written 70 years ago, and yet – excluding its references to the Second World War – it could easily have been written in 2016. Orwell effectively foresaw the arguments of the EU referendum campaign, decades before the EU even existed. Oh – and he also noted that there was no popular support in Britain for admitting refugees, because the public believed they were only economic migrants. Curiously, even the part where Deacon dismisses Orwell as "not a prophet" because he didn't correctly foresee the "driving home" of counterarguments, well, this could be dismissed now that this "drive" has also become a public part of the Brexit debate. After all, the article above was written in 2016, and here we are 3 years later when the debate has gotten even stickier. @divergenceKO, Was that the topic you were referring to? If so, I think it makes Orwell very observant, but not really a prophet. Reminds me a bit of when the Watch Tower publications declared Rutherford to be prophet in 1924, while proposing that a British politician of the time was also a prophet because he was declaring some of the same rhetoric that Rutherford was declaring.

For anyone who didn't understand the joke, the excerpt I put in the original post was actually taken from a 1987 Watchtower. It's from an article written by Brother Fred Franz, giving a part of his own life experience: *** w87 5/1 p. 24 Looking Back Over 93 Years of Living *** One Saturday night in the spring of 1913, Albert had gone to bed early in the dormitory of the YMCA, where he was living while working in Chicago. Later, his roommate burst into the room to explain a difficulty. He was invited that night to the home of a Mr. and Mrs. Hindman, and their daughter Nora was to have a girlfriend there at the house. Two girls would be too much for Albert’s roommate to handle by himself. With alacrity, Albert rose to the occasion. During the course of the evening, Albert’s roommate was getting along quite famously with the two young ladies. But Mr. and Mrs. Hindman concentrated on Albert . . . I often heard Brother Franz speak to the Bethel family for up to half-an-hour at a time, over a period of several years in the late 1970's and early 1980's. He often seemed pleased with himself that he could get away with sometimes coarse talk and even "suggestive" language, that no one else would ever even attempt in front of an audience.

Yes. That works for many Witnesses. I personally don't think it's honest to simply redefine all types of changes as "refinements." But I'm more concerned with the fact that it can reflect a lack of humility that expects us to merely accept false doctrines as doctrines that simply needed refinement. The teaching might be a complete turnaround or rejection of a former teaching, or it might just be a minor adjustment, but even in the latter case it does not mean that the previous teaching is still true. For example, there was a change that happened in 1943 that changed the time for Christ's presence from 1874 to 1914. In the long run that is just a minor adjustment of 40 years. But it doesn't mean that 1874 is still a true doctrine. 536 BCE for the destruction of Babylon was changed to 539 BCE, even a smaller change, but this doesn't mean that 536 BCE is still a true teaching. Yes it's a type of "refinement," but a "refinement" that must still admit that the previous teaching is false. For example, the Watch Tower publications once taught, under Russell, that the "superior authorities" were not the secular authorities, but were God and Christ. Then, in Rutherford's time, the WT changed the view to just the opposite. Then, in Knorr's/Franz' time, the WT changed the view to the opposite again, so that it was right back to what Russell had taught. The Watchtower treated this as an adjustment, a refinement, and even claimed that there were advantages to having been wrong (without using the word "wrong" of course). This is clearly a matter of just not wanting to admit that a false doctrine was ever "false." Haughty people don't like admitting they are wrong, so this gives the impression of haughtiness. So was Naboth a prophetic type of Jesus or the anointed? Is it the case that this is true, and that the only reason we don't teach it that way is because it's too complicated to tell the whole truth? If it's still true, then someone should say that it's still true and we won't hold back from telling you "all the truth"? Of course, if it's actually a change in "understanding" then we are admitting that the former understanding is wrong, therefore it is no longer true. As you tacitly admitted, as Witnesses, we can never admit to having had a false doctrine. So we use different words. False doctrines must be re-worded as "refinements" "improvements" "clarifications" etc. We see this type of explanation in the very articles that explained the changes to "types" and "antitypes" which had no Biblical basis to be treated as prophecies. The article appeared not to admit that these had ever been wrong. Only that the: "faithful and discreet slave" was becoming steadily more discreet. discretion was leading to "greater caution" these older explanation were unduly difficult to grasp the details can be hard to remember and apply the former explanation tended to obscure more important moral lessons None of those points actually admits that the former explanations were wrong, only that we were now being more careful, more cautious, more discreet, more simple and clear. Watch very carefully how this was done: *** w15 3/15 pp. 9-10 pars. 10-11 “This Is the Way You Approved” *** As we might expect, over the years Jehovah has helped “the faithful and discreet slave” to become steadily more discreet. Discretion has led to greater caution when it comes to calling a Bible account a prophetic drama unless there is a clear Scriptural basis for doing so. Additionally, it has been found that some of the older explanations about types and antitypes are unduly difficult for many to grasp. The details of such teachings—who pictures whom and why—can be hard to keep straight, to remember, and to apply. Of even greater concern, though, is that the moral and practical lessons of the Bible accounts under examination may be obscured or lost in all the scrutiny of possible antitypical fulfillments. Thus, we find that our literature today focuses more on the simple, practical lessons about faith, endurance, godly devotion, and other vital qualities that we learn about from Bible accounts. 11 How, then, do we now understand the account about Naboth? In much clearer, simpler terms. That righteous man died, not because he was a prophetic type of Jesus or of the anointed, but because he was an integrity keeper. Notice how even the idea that we no longer understand it the same way is worded in such a way as to be very ambiguous about whether the previous understanding was actually wrong. This is one of dozens of such ambiguous wordings, and I can show you cases where this exact kind of wording apparently "fooled" the translator into creating inconsistent (less ambiguous) results in Simplified English, French, German and Greek. And I'm sure there are several other examples I don't even know about.

Teacher: Please define "abominable." Student: A-bomb-in-a-bull is a tear-a-bull way to make hamburger.

For me, this was a matter of prayerfully considering and meditating on the full meaning of the 2014 talk by Brother Splane when he admitted that many teachings were all being dropped at once because they were based on an old extra-Biblical tradition of creating types and antitypes when there was no specific scriptural basis for doing so. This actually turned out to refer to literally over ONE HUNDRED teachings that we were now admitting had no scriptural basis. All at once, we were DROPPING at least ONE HUNDRED TWENTY teachings. Then there were 80 more of these types of teachings, which were reviewed in a 1981 Watchtower *** w81 3/1 p. 27 Do You Appreciate the “Faithful and Discreet Slave”? *** OVERWHELMING CREDENTIALS The “faithful and discreet slave” has abundant credentials. Following is a partial list of Scriptural and prophetic designations applying to or being represented in the remnant of Jesus Christ’s anointed followers since the notable year 1919: (1) Noah’s wife, Gen. 7:7; (2) angels sent to Lot, Gen. 19:15; (3) Rebekah, Gen. 24:64; (4) Joseph and Benjamin, Gen. 45:14; (5) gleanings left behind, Lev. 19:9; (6) two spies to Rahab, Josh. 2:4; (7) Barak, Judg. 4:14; (8) Jephthah, Judg. 11:34; (9) Naomi and Ruth, Ruth 2:2; (10) David’s Israelite warriors, 2 Sam. 18:1; (11) Jehu, 2 Ki. 10:11, 15; (12) Mordecai and Esther, Esther 4:13; (13) Job, Job 42:10, 13; (14) King’s daughter, Ps. 45:13; (15) men of loving-kindness, Ps. 50:5; (16) intimate group, Ps. 89:7; (17) Shear-jashub, Isa. 7:3; (18) light of the nations, Isa. 60:3; (19) big trees of righteousness, Isa. 61:3; (20) ministers of our God, Isa. 61:6; (21) cluster preserved, Isa. 65:8; (22) servants called by another name, Isa. 65:15; (23) men trembling at God’s word, Isa. 66:5; (24) new nation born, Isa. 66:8; (25) Jeremiah, Jer. 1:10; (26) Jehovah’s people in the new covenant, Jer. 31:33; (27) enduring watchman, Ezek. 3:16-27; (28) man in linen, Ezek. 9:2; (29) cleansed people, Ezek. 36:29-32; (30) dwellers in center of earth, Ezek. 38:12; (31) the host of heaven, Dan. 8:10; (32) sanctuary restored (cleansed), Dan. 8:14; (33) they that are wise, Dan. 11:33; (34) the happy one who is keeping in expectation, Dan. 12:12; (35) all flesh receiving the spirit, Joel 2:28; (36) Jonah, Jon. 3:1-3; (37) apple of Jehovah’s eye, Zech. 2:8; (38) liberated remnant, Zech. 2:7; (39) a Jew, Zech. 8:23; (40) sons of Levi, Mal. 3:3; (41) wheat, Matt. 13:25; (42) sons of the kingdom, Matt. 13:38; (43) workers for the vineyard, Matt. 20:1; (44) those invited to marriage feast, Matt. 22:3-14; (45) chosen ones, Matt. 24:22; (46) eagles, Matt. 24:28; (47) faithful and discreet slave, Matt. 24:45; (48) discreet virgins, Matt. 25:2; (49) brothers of the king, Matt. 25:40; (50) little flock of sheep, Luke 12:32; (51) beggar Lazarus, Luke 16:20; (52) sheep in “this fold,” John 10:1-16; (53) branches of the vine, John 15:4; (54) royal palace of David, Acts 15:16; (55) heirs with Christ, Rom. 8:17; (56) the remnant, Rom. 11:5; (57) branches in the olive tree, Rom. 11:24; (58) holy ones or saints, 1 Cor. 6:2; Rev. 16:6; (59) temple, 1 Cor. 6:19; (60) new creation, 2 Cor. 5:17; (61) ambassadors for Christ, 2 Cor. 5:20; (62) congregation of God, Gal. 1:13; (63) part of Abraham’s seed, Gal. 3:29; (64) Israel of God, Gal. 6:16; (65) body of Christ, Eph. 1:22, 23; (66) soldiers of Christ Jesus, 2 Tim. 2:3; (67) house under Christ, Heb. 3:6; (68) holy priesthood, 1 Pet. 2:5; (69) holy nation, 1 Pet. 2:9; (70) association of brothers, 1 Pet. 2:17; (71) seven congregations, Rev. 1:20; (72) twenty-four persons of advanced age, Rev. 4:4; (73) spiritual Israel, Rev. 7:4; (74) locusts, Rev. 9:3; (75) two witnesses, Rev. 11:3; (76) two olive trees, Rev. 11:4; (77) seed of the woman, Rev. 12:17; (78) New Jerusalem, Rev. 21:2; (79) the bride of Christ, Rev. 22:17; 19:7; (80) Jehovah’s witnesses, Isa. 43:10. I knew that we had spent hundreds of hours studying these in Congregation Book Studies from the time I can remember my very first Tuesday night meetings. Then, at Bethel, in 1980, I became a study partner with a Gilead student who lived next door to me on the third floor of the 107 building. My own set of Gilead Notes (I have 2 full sets) contained MONTHS worth of study of these specific kinds of teachings, and some students fretted that they could not keep track of them all. But what caught my attention in Brother Splane's talk is that they were being compared to the Pyramid doctrines under Russell and Rutherford. Brother Splane admitted that Brother Bert Schroeder (died 2006) had already come up with this change and had provided the current definition now being published in the 2015 Watchtower. *** w15 3/15 p. 9 par. 7 “This Is the Way You Approved” *** In times past, it was more common for our literature to take what might be called a type-antitype approach to Scriptural accounts. The Bible narrative was considered the type, and any prophetic fulfillment of the story was the antitype. *** w15 3/15 p. 18 par. 3 Questions From Readers *** If such interpretations seem far-fetched, you can understand the dilemma. Humans cannot know which Bible accounts are shadows of things to come and which are not. The clearest course is this: Where the Scriptures teach that an individual, an event, or an object is typical of something else, we accept it as such. Otherwise, we ought to be reluctant to assign an antitypical application to a certain person or account if there is no specific Scriptural basis for doing so. The questionableness of such doctrines had already been discussed in a Watchtower from back in 1972, where even though it came very close to admitting just how questionable such teachings were, the decision was made to keep teaching them. *** w72 8/15 pp. 502-503 God Readjusts the Thinking of His People *** Another thing that has given rise to questions is the use by Jehovah’s witnesses of parallels or prophetic types, applying these to circumstances and to groups or classes of people today. Many people who read the Bible view its accounts all as simply history, but when they begin to study with Jehovah’s witnesses a readjustment of viewpoint takes place as they see that there is more to the accounts than history. For example,. . . .[long example skipped] The question that is sometimes asked is, Did Jehovah stage that ‘dramatic’ event, so that we would have a warning now? Well, would he cause such bad things to happen? Would he maneuver them himself? No. The real answer was obvious, but before that article was complete, the writers had found some twisted reasoning to be able to keep these dozens and dozens of false teachings that we had come to accept from old traditions. Brother Splane gave the example of the brother(s) who really loved the Pyramid doctrines and how they had to have the humility to suddenly change their viewpoint when Rutherford dropped it. (Rutherford said these teachings were ultimately from Satan.) It almost sounded as if Brother Splane was saying that these "antitype" doctrines could not be changed until certain people who still loved them had dropped off the scene. When he mentioned that this "new" way of looking at it had already been stated so well many years earlier by Brother Schroeder, this was another hint that this change had been in the works for quite a while.