JW Insider

By the way, if you're into stuff like this, you might wanna check out https://thepythagoras.com/. They have some neat articles about ancient civilizations and their contributions to science and math. It’s really interesting how much we owe to these early thinkers.

The Dendera Zodiac is such an amazing piece of history. Imagine ancient Egyptians looking up at the same stars we do now and creating this detailed map. It's mind-blowing!
So, what do I think about it? I think it's a fascinating blend of art and astronomy. Those ancient folks really knew their stuff. The way they incorporated their gods and mythologies into the constellations is just brilliant. And it's not just about the stars, it’s a glimpse into how they viewed the universe and their place in it.

Sorry @Thinking. I was taking a guess that he was closer to age 65 than to 120. But I have now been corrected. I think he's now claiming that he is closer to 6. 
If you have followed his past claims under some of those other names, you'd know that he has a bigger and more expensive sniper rifle than @Pudgy could ever dream about, plus 2 PhD's in Theology. Quite the combination. That's quite a feat for a 6-year-old! 
I'm super impressed.

BTK can correct me if I'm wrong, but a person who remembers Russell's time in a meaningful way would have to have been born at least around 1904 just to be 12 years old when Russell died. That would make him 120 years old this year. My conversations with @BTK59, @George88, @AllenSmith35, etc., have led me to believe that he is closer to 65 years old. This might not be true, but it's based on a couple of things he has said. 
That said, he does without a doubt have knowledge about Russell and early Bible Students.

This doesn't contradict what you are saying about the updates, but I always found it interesting that Paul said "the majority" as if the entire congregation was considered in the reinstatement process. 
(2 Corinthians 2:6) This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man; 
 

Early this morning, I recalled a thread where Anna made a comment about Catholic excommunication, and noted that the GB have moved in that same direction:

I know this was to Srecko, but I was thinking the same thing. It's nice to have a unified message. And to answer the next part of your points, I think that this particular forum provides a answer, of sorts, to see the expected results of such an experiment.
It could be chaos, but need not be. All of us can have our own opinions as long as we respect the doctrines promoted by the the Governing Body. The Governing Body would be respected for the number of years they have spent in Bible study and teaching and therefore "worthy of double honor."
There are many ways to manage both personal opinions and respect the currently accepted doctrines held by the majority. One way is for all of us to try to remember to always make sure people know we are expressing our own personal opinion even if we personally have absolutely no doubt about the correctness of that opinion. Many people have already come on this forum in the last few years, presenting themselves as JWs, and all the while making sure predictions about end-time events they expected in the next few months. All of them will surely be just as wrong as everyone else has been for these last 2,000 years.
And if we are just exploring an opinion we should be clear that we are anxious for others to share any clarifying, supporting, or non-supporting evidence to add to the discussion.
The Governing Body should also be willing to express any current doctrine in terms of its probability according to the best evidence they have accepted, and if they are rejecting more evidence than they accept, they should explain their reasons for rejecting the majority of the known evidence. The Governing Body has already done this on several minor teachings, and I always find it refreshing. In other words, every single doctrine we have, need not be expressed as an unchangeable dogma. Everything can be expressed as a current belief based on the evidence we currently accept. There would NEVER be an embarrassment over the past, and the new level of open-mindedness would result in more input from persons who run across new evidence all over the world. 

We all have the choices of many possible religions to follow. Or we can follow our own understanding which can be very dangerous. Wisdom is best found in a multitude of counselors.
This organization has not changed all its teachings. But if it had, I can't see how that matters so much unless they are currently lying about all the changes. Still, even if all the teachings have changed over time, this could even be a good sign that a filtering and refining work is going on.
Ultimately, with all the choices, I would still look for a religion that attempts to preach the good news. The content of that preaching might change . . . I would expect it to. But I would still look for a successful worldwide implementation of a preaching work based on the words of Matthew 24:14.  I would also look for a religion that stays out of nationalistic conflicts both internal and external. There are very few religions that promote neutrality and are all conscientious objectors to violence and killing for nationalistic purposes. My own understanding of God and his purpose would make me look for a religion that opposes the Trinity doctrine and opposes the doctrine of Hellfire and eternal torment.

@JOHN BUTLER,
I see that the news is starting on this so the documentation can't be far behind.
https://ravallirepublic.com/news/state-and-regional/crime-and-courts/article_e20e2330-eeeb-5f0f-a4e8-d8bcbababd85.html
From the 69 page appeal brief from the Watchtower to the Montana Supreme Court it is made fairly clear how the corporations operate from a practical legal perspective.
In this particular case the relevant parties are summarized as WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.; CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES and THOMPSON FALLS CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES, both as appellants and third-party appellants.
All three of these major parties are referred to as "entities associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses."
For legal purposes the brief defines: "Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (“CCJW”) (a New York nonprofit corporation that assists Jehovah’s Witnesses)." (p.2,3)
and:
"Watchtower (the faith’s New York entity that retains the attorney who gave legal advice to congregation elders)." (p.3)
It is typical in recent lawsuits to treat all Watchtower-related corporate entities as merely "advisors" in support of Jehovah's Witnesses or "the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses." In a larger sense these advisors provide logistical support for assemblies, meetings, property ownership, donation and financial management, preaching, research, writing, printing, and distribution of religious media. Similarly, the Governing Body are also treated as another "entity" of advisors for spiritual guidance that supports the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses.
(To some, this would obviously hearken back to the time under Russell and Rutherford, when the congregations, i.e, "ecclesia" or "companies," were more independent.)
In the brief, the WATCHTOWER is merely treated as the source of legal advice and legal counsel. "[E]lders of a local Montana congregation sought advice from legal counsel to know whether they had a legal duty to report." (p.2)
This recent separation of CCJW from Watchtower of New York and Watch Tower of Pennsylvania has allowed attorneys for the Watchtower to argue that outsiders have mixed them up and therefore made legal errors. For example, from the brief:
The court erroneously held that the attorney in New York violated
Montana’s reporting statute and that Watchtower was vicariously liable. The
court erroneously held that elders at CCJW in New York violated Montana’s
reporting statute and that CCJW was vicariously liable. [emphasis by WTS] p.3
This was considered by the WTS attorney to be a fatal error and therefore could continue:
And even
assuming the attorney who advised congregation elders misinterpreted the
reporting statute, a good-faith misinterpretation of a statute is not “actual
malice” and does not justify $31 million in punitive damages. [Emphasis mine.]
Although spiritual oversight of Jehovah's Witnesses, includes the Governing Body, there is now a good reason to leave the various corporations out of the mix. This way the Governing Body can legally claim to not be under the direction of the Watchtower, nor of the CCJW. The local congregations, although more closely associated with the CCJW, can also be treated as separate from these corporate entities:
Congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses receive spiritual oversight and
pastoral care from a group of local elders who are “clergy” under Montana law.
An expression that was very common in the brief referred to "established Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine and practice" without a need to acknowledge that this has historically been "established" through communication with Watchtower Society entities (where the money is kept). Instead, the connection to the CCJW can be admitted now as the legal conduit through which doctrine and practice is established, and CCJW is a source of spiritual advisement, just as the GB are. 
Congregation elders throughout the United States receive spiritual
guidance from elders at CCJW in New York. CR 77, Ex. C ¶7; Ex. G ¶7;
Ex. H ¶4. CCJW, a New York non-profit corporation headquartered in New
York, supports the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. CR 77, Ex. G ¶¶5-7.
Congregation elders confidentially communicate with elders at CCJW to
receive spiritual counsel and guidance. [p.8]
In other words, it's true that local congregations get advice from the CCJW which is spiritual advice, also confidential due to clergy privilege, but that the legal advice comes from the Watchtower, and this is effectively confidential due to something akin to attorney client privilege. This is clarified on page 9:
Watchtower, a New York nonprofit corporation that supports Jehovah’s
Witnesses, maintains a legal department. CR 77, Ex. Z: 39:7-40:8. While
congregation elders turn to CCJW’s Service Department elders for confidential
spiritual guidance, they call Watchtower’s Legal Department for confidential
legal advice. . . . CCJW is not owned or operated by, and
does not own or operate, Watchtower. At all relevant times (p.9)
CCJW (not Watchtower) communicated religious policies and procedures to
local elders. (p.10)
On this basis alone, as the court acknowledged blame in much higher proportion to the Watchtower (80 percent) and CCJW (15 percent) and the local congregation (4 percent) and the mother (1 percent), the WTS attorneys would therefore wish to show that the award was incorrect.
Other attempts to remove culpability and liability from New York entities were argued throughout much of the rest of the brief. For example:
Fourth, the elders with CCJW and the Watchtower attorney who learned
about the abuse all live in New York. Their duty to report is governed by New
York law, not Montana law. A state “has no authority to mandate reports by
adults or agencies in other states.”

Sorry @Thinking. I was taking a guess that he was closer to age 65 than to 120. But I have now been corrected. I think he's now claiming that he is closer to 6. 
If you have followed his past claims under some of those other names, you'd know that he has a bigger and more expensive sniper rifle than @Pudgy could ever dream about, plus 2 PhD's in Theology. Quite the combination. That's quite a feat for a 6-year-old! 
I'm super impressed.

Sorry @Thinking. I was taking a guess that he was closer to age 65 than to 120. But I have now been corrected. I think he's now claiming that he is closer to 6. 
If you have followed his past claims under some of those other names, you'd know that he has a bigger and more expensive sniper rifle than @Pudgy could ever dream about, plus 2 PhD's in Theology. Quite the combination. That's quite a feat for a 6-year-old! 
I'm super impressed.

The droves and droves of true Witnesses whom you seem to think flock to this platform, heedless of organizational counsel that they should not, should also recognize that no one (in the closed club) claims to be a stellar example of counsel to avoid any interaction at all with ‘apostates.’ But only you, not allowed in the closed club, thoroughly trash that counsel, as though contemptuous of it, and eagerly seek out people with whom to bicker with 24/7–thus enormously extending their shelf life, and all the while insisting you are the only faithful one around—and, alas, usually getting your head handed to you because of your reliance on name calling and dark condescension.
Everyone else is at least partially checked by organizational counsel, and might be far worse without it. They do try to remain in the overall spirit of it. Only one person here puts himself above it and ignores it completely.

BTK can correct me if I'm wrong, but a person who remembers Russell's time in a meaningful way would have to have been born at least around 1904 just to be 12 years old when Russell died. That would make him 120 years old this year. My conversations with @BTK59, @George88, @AllenSmith35, etc., have led me to believe that he is closer to 65 years old. This might not be true, but it's based on a couple of things he has said. 
That said, he does without a doubt have knowledge about Russell and early Bible Students.

Early this morning, I recalled a thread where Anna made a comment about Catholic excommunication, and noted that the GB have moved in that same direction:

This doesn't contradict what you are saying about the updates, but I always found it interesting that Paul said "the majority" as if the entire congregation was considered in the reinstatement process. 
(2 Corinthians 2:6) This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man; 
 

This doesn't contradict what you are saying about the updates, but I always found it interesting that Paul said "the majority" as if the entire congregation was considered in the reinstatement process. 
(2 Corinthians 2:6) This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man; 
 

I guess it's good to explain oneself every couple of years.
I said above that I am not trying to convince fellow Witnesses that 607 BCE is the wrong date for the destruction of Jerusalem. It might sound like it, but it would be an unreasonable goal to expect more than a small fraction of Witnesses to change their view on such a longstanding, strongly entrenched tradition. 
So here's my actual reasoning: (BTK should probably cover his eyes.)
There will always be persons who hear good things about the Witnesses and who will want to study with us. But there will be some, admittedly only a few, who will decide to look at the details for themselves. There may even be some who already knew about the details of the Babylonian chronology, and who will realize that it isn't a controversy at all, and it really isn't at all a matter of choosing Bible chronology over secular chronology.
I believe there will be more of these persons over time. No amount of bluster or false, contradictory explanations is going to convince them. (Because they have seen the details for themselves.) So what are we to do? Do we merely make sure that no one who has educated themselves about this particular topic will ever become a Witness? 
I think there should be a chance for these persons to know that a person can still be one of Jehovah's Witnesses and realize that this 607 thing was just a simple mistake that someone made back in 1873 or so, but that no one thought/sought to look into it or correct the mistake because it had apparently proven true as a prophecy about 1914.*
*I don't think anyone can blame most Witnesses for not really wanting to look into the details because we really do think something happened in 1914 that was prophetically significant. We would automatically be suspicious of anyone who had looked into the details for themselves and found an issue with them. We think that if we were to begin looking into the same, that we must be "kicking against the goads" or even "fighting against the holy spirit." We have been taught that perhaps it's controversial, but that it's just a matter of putting more faith in the Bible than in secular chronology.
That "Bible vs secular" mindset works for us, even though it's a false premise. But I'm talking about interested persons who have actually already LOOKED or who WILL LOOK into the data for themselves. Those persons will not have a choice to deny what they know. They should know that it is possible to be a Witness without having to deny something they KNOW to be true. They should also be aware that a Witness who accepts an alternative view about 607 and 1914 need not hold a very different view of the world around us and the closeness of the end of this system.

Maybe we can say it’s okay to join us but they don’t have to use the main auditorium; we’ll reserve space for them in the spare room where we keep the literature carts. 
Motive understood. Even BTK will acquiesce, I think.
Meanwhile, hopefully they will not be like that guy on the Titanic who inspected the lifeboat safety inspection sticker, saw it did not incorporated the latest methods, and declined to board.

I don’t even know what you are talking about….and yes I believed James….please let’s not get antagonised with each other….your really old and I’m old….we are wasting time…

I consider you and Tom superior to myself and I think he is a fantastic writer…he’s very good at his love of writing,,,,,more importantly he is a very good and trustworthy servant of Jehovah …and he’s humble and even admits he came here and was humbled….and I know him to be very gracious and kind also a little sarcastic at times,( I’m worse )
Forums can make you stronger or humbled and wiser or break you totally….they can also make one sarcastic nasty bombastic bitchy and frustrated …..( I can be guilty of all) but I’ve learnt things and got to  know some who I have affection for,,,and sure hope we meet at some time in that New World tho I think ..and I bet we wouldn’t mention anything that’s been discussed on this forum,,

Actually, he expressed remorse quite clearly on the forum. But from what I understand from you, you have the ability to read hearts and therefore you can judge without being concerned about being judged with the same measure in return. 
You quoted 1 Cor 5:13 which, in context, also says:
(1 Corinthians 5:11-13) . . .But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.”
I'm sure you can easily guess who 99% of the people on this forum first think of when they hear the word "reviler." Remember that God sees and judges all actions.

Jesus associated with tax collectors, publicly known sinners, prostitutes, etc. Doesn't mean he condoned their conduct and actions. He was known for mercy and looking for repentance. 
It's true that there should not be close association which can lead to condoning and even sharing in the sins of someone. Some of us will show more judgment and some will show more mercy. Not everyone will find the same middle-ground. 
I thought these thoughts from a recent Watchtower were good:
*** w21 October pp. 11-12 pars. 14-16 We Serve the God Who Is “Rich in Mercy” ***
Sometime later, Paul learned that real changes had taken place. The sinner was truly repentant! Although the man had brought shame on the congregation, Paul told the elders that he did not want “to be too harsh.” He directed them: “Kindly forgive and comfort him.” Note Paul’s reason: “So that he may not be overwhelmed by excessive sadness.” Paul felt pity for the repentant man. The apostle did not want to see the man so overwhelmed, so crushed, by what he did that he would give up on seeking forgiveness.—Read 2 Corinthians 2:5-8, 11.
15 In imitation of Jehovah, the elders love to show mercy. They show firmness when necessary but mercy when possible if there is a real basis for it. Otherwise, it is not mercy but permissiveness. Are elders the only ones, though, who need to show mercy?
WHAT CAN HELP ALL OF US TO SHOW MERCY?
16 All Christians seek to imitate Jehovah’s mercy. Why? One reason is that Jehovah will not listen to those who fail to show mercy to others. (Read Proverbs 21:13.) None of us would want Jehovah to refuse to listen to our prayers, so we carefully avoid developing a hard-hearted spirit. Rather than turn a deaf ear to a fellow Christian in pain, we must always be ready to listen to “the cry of the lowly one.” Similarly, we take to heart this inspired counsel: “The one who does not practice mercy will have his judgment without mercy.” (Jas. 2:13) If we humbly remember how much we need mercy, we are more likely to show mercy. We especially want to show mercy when a repentant wrongdoer returns to the congregation.
If a man continues in conduct that he is not sorry about, and he calls himself a brother, then close association could be interpreted (or misinterpreted) as the congregation's acceptance of wicked conduct. I agree that we have to be careful about such things. A person who recognizes that they have no right to call themselves a brother and who appears sorry about the wrong will leave us in a position to make our own decision about what level of association might be useful for them and that shows a proper level of mercy. There are some things that will boil down to a matter of conscience, in my opinion. But no one else needs to hold my same opinion:
 (1 Timothy 1:5) . . .Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy.
 

Yes I am fond of Pudgy..tho I’ve never had proof he was disfellowshipped….I would have still been especially fond of Peter even after he three times betrayed his Christ ….who as we know never disfellowshipped him…I don’t know who I’m really talking with…as to your name but your personality is familiar to me.
Actually I think you are very clever and knowledgeable with the scriptures and  Jehovah’s Witness’s and going by what you have said you must be very old. And go back a long way…I love your old historical memories and I have learnt from you a number of times and even upvoted you…..I wish I had your astute knowledge brother and your recall of scriptures…you certainly have a treasure with them.
But I do feel also sorry for you as you do not know Jesus very well..you lack the depth of his love. In our cong we had elders who said ….three strikes and your out…so many young ones were disfellowshipped . Most lost to the world but some survived it….Peter would have been disfellowshipped by them also and I have a feeling you would be like them.
You need to keep up with the new understandings and thoughts of the GB…they are teaching the real love that Jesus showed to those others considered ..good for nothing…they are really really pushing how we need to be kind to each other and even show kindness to those disfellowshipped…or did you miss that point.
Im preety sure you won’t change..but I wish you would be a little more gentle with people…I’m not an apostate and nor are the others you mentioned….but at least you and JWI and a couple of others keep this forum surviving….I would personally still love to hear about your experiences and memories of Russell’s time etc…as they are invaluable..
At least the conversation between you and JWI gives two sides to the coin….and each has good points to learn so I’ve learnt from both of you.

He is.
Nonetheless, his example has helped me. I had a ‘take no prisoners’ approach when I first became active here. Nobody gonna saying nothin bad bout God nor the earthly organization on my watch. I was not free of ad hominem attacks. Nothing like you, of course, but I was not free of them. I was also given to sarcasm.  He reined me back that. Sometimes you have to see where people are coming from and why. If you address a topic, just address it. Just answer a question. If you employ any sarcasm at all, even though the rest of your answer is brilliant, the other person will zero in only your sarcasm, and the overall reply is lost. Of course, it still stands for members of ‘the public’ who frequent this fine site, but it also sets a bad example for them. I look upon almost with awe on how restrained he keeps himself when interacting with you, kicking back only when your adhominems and weird accusations become intolerable, and even then in a restrained way. Anyone else rather quickly collapses under your dark strangeness and throws themselves against the electric fence, like concentration camp inmates who have lost hope.
To be sure, I don’t share his interest in this particular matter of 607. If it is wrong, it will be changed. Probably, the rapid deterioration of this systems of things will make the point moot, anyway. And you can always say, ‘Oh, to blazes with it! ‘Generation’ means ‘era,’ and in that way get another 60 years out of it, if not more.
Why doesn’t he state his point just once or twice and move on? I think it is quite clear that is what would happen if not for you. He states a point in a scholarly way. You apply accelerant and make sure the entire ‘public’ knows about it. In this way, you facilitate ‘apostasy’ far more than he.
It is crucial that you stop doing this.
Absolutely vital. The public should drop everything to figure it out. Start with the excellent book (my latest) ‘In the Last of the Last Days: Faith in the Age of Dysfunction,’ available at Amazon, and most ebook retailers. Take note of the metadata:
“Those of the Enlightenment laud the “human experiment” that is democracy, Jehovah’s Witnesses laud the human experiment that is worldwide family. Theirs is John Lennon’s brotherhood of man not rejoicing that there is above us only sky but instead seeking direction from that sky. A family all but solving racism, a family uniting nationalities and social classes. Who wouldn’t want a double-shot of it? But even a recent circuit overseer likened it to “one big, united, happy, somewhat dysfunctional family,” a phrase I suspect is not in any outline.

“Witnesses are ordinary folk, with all the foibles of ordinary folk, and sometimes a few extra thrown in since “They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are ill do: I [Jesus] came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

“What drives the Witnesses? Examine what faces these ordinary folk who star in a world-stage role that is alternately noble and strange. Some challenge is external: “A large door that leads to activity has been opened to me, but there are many opposers.” Some challenge is internal: “We have this treasure [of the ministry] in earthen vessels.” Translation: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

“Either way, “Do not be puzzled at the burning among you . . . as though a strange thing were befalling you,” says Peter. Don‘t be puzzled. Tackle it head-on. Start with the pure bonus, ‘Things that drive you crazy about the faith--and how to view them,’ for the goal is to endure: “When the Son of man arrives, will he really find the faith on the earth?” says Jesus. ‘Not if we have anything to do with it,’ reply ever increasing enemies.

"If errors were what you watch, O Jah, O Jehovah, who could stand?” asks the psalm. Is watching errors not the mission statement of today’s culture, typified in its media? Nobody stands as their enemies magnify, enhance, and even concoct evil reports—see it play out on the internet with any public figure, “admiring personalities,” until they destroy them. Ought Christians play that game?

"Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is stumbled, and I am not incensed? If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness,” says Paul. Three times the apostle entreated God to remove a “thorn in his flesh” Nothing doing, God said. I look better when you are flawed. If brilliant people achieve brilliant things, it’s easy to see why. But when flawed people do it . . .”
“Tips on the ministry within. How did Witnesses fare in the face of COVID-19? How to regard ever-present conspiracy theories that ripple through society? And what about those overlapping generations? How long can they overlap? What is at stake? What facts on the ground identify the times? Venturing to the edge of the universe, rewriting the textbooks, and dressing down the god of good luck is all in a day's work. Meet Mephibosheth, that faithful man of old whom nobody can pronounce his name at the New System Dinner Table. A bad boy turns over a new leaf, a theodicy that works, and my favorite circuit overseer finish up the offerings.”
It is essential that people read this work.
(I have a collection or two of the Bill Watterson cartoons ‘Calvin and Hobbes’ Some are named things like ‘The Essential Calvin and Hobbes.’ Watterson said he chose such titles because few things could be less essential than a collection of cartoons. I admit, I tease you a bit when so many things with you are ‘essential, and ‘crucial.’)

Actually, he expressed remorse quite clearly on the forum. But from what I understand from you, you have the ability to read hearts and therefore you can judge without being concerned about being judged with the same measure in return. 
You quoted 1 Cor 5:13 which, in context, also says:
(1 Corinthians 5:11-13) . . .But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.”
I'm sure you can easily guess who 99% of the people on this forum first think of when they hear the word "reviler." Remember that God sees and judges all actions.