29 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Give them permanent “W”s

Ah! Now I know where that "NI" came from in your Scrabble game. It was for "Needs Improvement"!

11 hours ago, The Librarian said:

• ANY group with the following people in them, either members or admins:

A few with those names are probably members of their local PTA. Or, if in the United States, the Republican or Democrat political parties.  

Yikes, so many apostate groups.

Seriously, though, I don't know where you found such a list. I haven't heard of hardly any of them. But I do see that many good and active Witnesses have "Theocratic Ministry School" listed as their "school/college/education" in their Facebook profiles. Perhaps they should all be warned?

On 9/26/2019 at 1:09 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

When that doesn't work, they keep attacking with more completely made up lies.

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.

20 hours ago, divergenceKO said:

Showing spiritual weakness only emboldens those that Satan has corrupted to think they hold the truth in any subject.

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.

20 hours ago, divergenceKO said:

When the opposition makes misleading claims that Brother Russell claimed the world would end in 1914,

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.

20 hours ago, divergenceKO said:

When the opposition claims Brother Rutherford claimed the world would end in 1925, those in opposition have not read the publishing of the Brother?

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.

20 hours ago, divergenceKO said:

When those in opposition claim the Org prophesied the world would end in 1975, those in opposition only read what they want to read to make a misleading debate?

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:

On 9/23/2019 at 11:17 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I toss it up in the air, and all that God needs, he takes.  What falls back to the parking lot, I use for MY local needs.

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.

5 hours ago, Anna said:

I think we get ourselves into a pickle when we try and explain WHEN will these things happen and put a kind of time frame on it. But on the other hand, can we be blamed for that? Didn't the disciples ask "when?"

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.

On 9/21/2019 at 3:36 PM, Anna said:

Funny you should mention the magazines. Just the other day I was reading the #1/2020 WT "The search for Truth" which I think is also excellent.

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.

On 9/21/2019 at 3:36 PM, Anna said:

. . . it gives the example of a Bible prophesy and its fulfillment. So what I started wondering about is do we ever talk about the fulfillment of the prophesy about Jesus' kingship as happening in 1914 in the same way . . .

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.

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.

8 hours ago, Witness said:

If a building is called “God’s House” would it be considered holy?

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.

8 hours ago, divergenceKO said:

It is not a question of whom

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.)

8 hours ago, divergenceKO said:

I can see where this statement would be given to sway the insight of others.

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.

8 hours ago, divergenceKO said:

The worldwide Brotherhood has seen one of our own team removed after experiencing the communication between you and JWinsider. It is not a question of whom, but the legitimacy of this open forum that falls into question.

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.

9 hours ago, divergenceKO said:

I can’t understand the logic, putting someone so high, then turn their backs on him, if he was truly considered a prophet.

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.

9 hours ago, divergenceKO said:

It’s unfortunate we can’t stop people from thinking in a certain way.

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.

13 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

(that old hen)! Only then will our coup be complete!

Oh boy. A chicken coup!

3 minutes ago, Anna said:

Although all this is hugely off topic

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.

2 hours ago, divergenceKO said:

and yet Mr. Orwell made a predication in 1946, that no one seems to debate.

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":

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.

4 hours ago, Sean Migos said:

If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, it should have been understood as doctrinal refinement.

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.