JW Insider

I don't think it suggests that. It's a review of his reign of 55 years. He could have done evil in only a few of those years and the verse would make just as much sense. Or perhaps a king could remain good for most of his reign but it's the reputation he made before the end of his life that counts here. Solomon, ironically, is credited with these verses:
(Ecclesiastes 7:1, 2) . . .A good name is better than good oil, and the day of death is better than the day of birth. 2 Better to go to the house of mourning than to the house of feasting, for that is the end of every man, and the living should take it to heart.
It's an interesting topic however, because "a boy" was not considered to necessarily know the difference between good and bad:
(Isaiah 7:15, 16) 15 He will eat butter and honey by the time that he knows how to reject the bad and choose the good. 16 For before the boy knows how to reject the bad and choose the good, the land of the two kings whom you dread will be completely abandoned.
 

Which means, when translated:
Apostates invariably end up where they belong - in the gutter
[I guess it's not as funny if you have to explain it.]

Which means, when translated:
Apostates invariably end up where they belong - in the gutter
[I guess it's not as funny if you have to explain it.]

Exactly, you have to think of it like I do when I see the "mostly peaceful protests". It doesn't matter if its "mostly peaceful" when your business has been looted or burned to the ground. On the whole, his reign was a failure.

I don't think it suggests that. It's a review of his reign of 55 years. He could have done evil in only a few of those years and the verse would make just as much sense. Or perhaps a king could remain good for most of his reign but it's the reputation he made before the end of his life that counts here. Solomon, ironically, is credited with these verses:
(Ecclesiastes 7:1, 2) . . .A good name is better than good oil, and the day of death is better than the day of birth. 2 Better to go to the house of mourning than to the house of feasting, for that is the end of every man, and the living should take it to heart.
It's an interesting topic however, because "a boy" was not considered to necessarily know the difference between good and bad:
(Isaiah 7:15, 16) 15 He will eat butter and honey by the time that he knows how to reject the bad and choose the good. 16 For before the boy knows how to reject the bad and choose the good, the land of the two kings whom you dread will be completely abandoned.
 

More thinking aloud...
In Hebrews 13:7 it talks about listening to people, ostensibly ones who've taken it on themselves rightly or wrongly to be one's spiritual advisors and to contemplate the delta between their words/deeds and consequences to them personally over time and then imitate their faith in the word of God. Now later in Hebrews 13:17 it speaks of obedience and submission to those same ones, so I imagine then it would not be obedience to them, but to their faith application of God's word. In other words the biblical principle is what you agree to, but the corporate expression of the same in any given congregation might be different, yet we are not to forget that we are imitating faith in the bible and the principles on which it, that faith is, not the person or the practice.
No deification of entities and no abdication of responsibility.
On the other hand one can hardly imitate the faith of those one is not in constant community with, nor can one contemplate how their conduct is turning out.
One can hope that ones we do not see and do not commune with in a close family/community setting such as was common in the first century are observed by those in these respective congregations and this is not unlikely as we have all traveled and seen this uniformity, one can reasonably surmise that this is true.
It does argue for regular meetings and connections w/in congregations so we can watch each other's gardens of faith grow. W/o this we can't contemplate much.
One more reason for in-person stuff as much as possible.

I heard about that particular exchange. Or at least that such shenanigans had been reported on by Joe Rogan. (I don't really know much about the two being interviewed.) My older son is a lawyer who came by to help my wife and I do some gardening/planting today, and by coincidence he was quoting Joe Rogan today. I knew generally about some of the bogus academic papers, but had never listened closely enough to know exactly what these were about. It's a shame what kind of hypocrisy and shallow thinking can make up swaths of academia.
I couldn't care much less about modern gender issues, but the shallowness and hypocrisy of publishing what people want to hear has infected many other ideologies -- and has manipulated attitudes toward ideologies and their supposed "opposites." And of course, this can be taken advantage of by those who know what's going on, sometimes to promote something true, but usually with only enough truth to help leverage a more sinister agenda. Discovering "truth" becomes a bit more complex when we realize that even the studies and statistics it's supposedly based on can easily be misused -- or just made up out of thin air.  Starting with the conclusion and working backwards (or "creating" evidence) to make it believable has become such a common practice in support of ideology. 

I heard about that particular exchange. Or at least that such shenanigans had been reported on by Joe Rogan. (I don't really know much about the two being interviewed.) My older son is a lawyer who came by to help my wife and I do some gardening/planting today, and by coincidence he was quoting Joe Rogan today. I knew generally about some of the bogus academic papers, but had never listened closely enough to know exactly what these were about. It's a shame what kind of hypocrisy and shallow thinking can make up swaths of academia.
I couldn't care much less about modern gender issues, but the shallowness and hypocrisy of publishing what people want to hear has infected many other ideologies -- and has manipulated attitudes toward ideologies and their supposed "opposites." And of course, this can be taken advantage of by those who know what's going on, sometimes to promote something true, but usually with only enough truth to help leverage a more sinister agenda. Discovering "truth" becomes a bit more complex when we realize that even the studies and statistics it's supposedly based on can easily be misused -- or just made up out of thin air.  Starting with the conclusion and working backwards (or "creating" evidence) to make it believable has become such a common practice in support of ideology. 

Sadly hilarious.

I heard about that particular exchange. Or at least that such shenanigans had been reported on by Joe Rogan. (I don't really know much about the two being interviewed.) My older son is a lawyer who came by to help my wife and I do some gardening/planting today, and by coincidence he was quoting Joe Rogan today. I knew generally about some of the bogus academic papers, but had never listened closely enough to know exactly what these were about. It's a shame what kind of hypocrisy and shallow thinking can make up swaths of academia.
I couldn't care much less about modern gender issues, but the shallowness and hypocrisy of publishing what people want to hear has infected many other ideologies -- and has manipulated attitudes toward ideologies and their supposed "opposites." And of course, this can be taken advantage of by those who know what's going on, sometimes to promote something true, but usually with only enough truth to help leverage a more sinister agenda. Discovering "truth" becomes a bit more complex when we realize that even the studies and statistics it's supposedly based on can easily be misused -- or just made up out of thin air.  Starting with the conclusion and working backwards (or "creating" evidence) to make it believable has become such a common practice in support of ideology. 

I heard about that particular exchange. Or at least that such shenanigans had been reported on by Joe Rogan. (I don't really know much about the two being interviewed.) My older son is a lawyer who came by to help my wife and I do some gardening/planting today, and by coincidence he was quoting Joe Rogan today. I knew generally about some of the bogus academic papers, but had never listened closely enough to know exactly what these were about. It's a shame what kind of hypocrisy and shallow thinking can make up swaths of academia.
I couldn't care much less about modern gender issues, but the shallowness and hypocrisy of publishing what people want to hear has infected many other ideologies -- and has manipulated attitudes toward ideologies and their supposed "opposites." And of course, this can be taken advantage of by those who know what's going on, sometimes to promote something true, but usually with only enough truth to help leverage a more sinister agenda. Discovering "truth" becomes a bit more complex when we realize that even the studies and statistics it's supposedly based on can easily be misused -- or just made up out of thin air.  Starting with the conclusion and working backwards (or "creating" evidence) to make it believable has become such a common practice in support of ideology. 

https://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/

@xero Good call on the Vox Day SJW book. The idea that "SJWs always lie" isn't exactly true, but when they do, they seem to have no choice but to double-down if called out (as Vox Day says) and I've never seen such projection and blame-shifting (as Vox Day says). My son's most recent college experience found that SJWs are pretty much able to ruin any discussion about anything, and they'll feel proud of themselves in so doing.

@xero Good call on the Vox Day SJW book. The idea that "SJWs always lie" isn't exactly true, but when they do, they seem to have no choice but to double-down if called out (as Vox Day says) and I've never seen such projection and blame-shifting (as Vox Day says). My son's most recent college experience found that SJWs are pretty much able to ruin any discussion about anything, and they'll feel proud of themselves in so doing.

@xero Good call on the Vox Day SJW book. The idea that "SJWs always lie" isn't exactly true, but when they do, they seem to have no choice but to double-down if called out (as Vox Day says) and I've never seen such projection and blame-shifting (as Vox Day says). My son's most recent college experience found that SJWs are pretty much able to ruin any discussion about anything, and they'll feel proud of themselves in so doing.

I got it. Randomly I’ll hear Bill Gates whisper sweet nothings in my ear telling me to buy more Microsoft products, it’s a weird side effect, but on the plus side I grew an extra set of limbs making me much more productive at work. I’m hoping I’ll be a candidate for employee of the month now.

We learnt this week to walk away when people are abusive.  If this is not abuse then I do not know what you think it is.  You must be a nightmare in your congregation. ....bye ..... if you think you are going to get any converts here ..... forget about it.  No remorse in your demeanor either.  Head knowledge and NO compassion or love. You justify your hateful attitude by Jesus cleaning the temple...... 99.9 percent of the time Jesus was compassionate and kind as well as patient.... think about that!
 

Yes. He does.
Note how the verse says Jesus, not Cesar.
I think it is a mistake to view him as a fellow believer. He might be, but two sayings temper that conclusion for me.
The first is that ‘if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck.. Cesar certainly does not walk and quack like any Witness you or I know. It is impossible not to be moved at all by those Watchtower study articles you quoted previously. The duck he walks and quacks like is simply that of an abuser, like AlanF himself, when he puts on another hat. 
The second is my own saying, a slight tweak of Romans 3:4 that “every man be found a liar.” Modify it to “every man online be found a liar” and the saying finds yet another application in these modern times. How can you know about anyone online? Anybody can say anything. You can only go by whether something has the “ring of truth” to it, and he has not a bit of that when it comes to Christianity.
I suppose it is remotely possible that he is a whack-job of a Witness, presenting himself one way before flesh and blood, and working out his frustration, that he has not resolved by godly means, online, like the outwardly pious one filling up on porn or uber violent gaming by night. But I think it more likely he is some outlier, perhaps one-time active, but now a braggart who just bullies with a body of knowledge that at first glance seems impressive, but usually turns out to be shallow—he may know the title of a work, but not much else. JWI has many times pointed out how he just throws in whatever he has to ruin any discussion. (which I admit is how at times I use humor, but I hope I can never be accused of using it so recklessly).
The only thing I know about him for sure is that his favorite show is Nature. Not the show itself, which he doubtless thinks is apostate, since he thinks everything is, but the scenes of the huge animals ramming each other with horns. It is the only type of social interaction he seems capable of understanding. He takes note as to how he can be more like this or that big dumb ox that has bested its rival when he next goes online—never more than a few minutes away.
 

Living on a forum where opposers exist is like having a house next to the train-tracks. You could move, but then you'd miss the doppler effect of the train as it comes and goes. Also it's sometimes fun to put pennies on the tracks.
 

Your superiority makes you a disingenuous witness, or at best, a bad teacher. The bible says if we do not have love then we are NOTHING. 1cor 13 first verse.  You break your spiritual family members down by telling them they are not good enough.  Have you not attended the last few watchtower studies ?  Did you do any introspection? Have you not read the psalms? ... or is it only head knowledge that matters to you and no wholehearted wise application of what you learn?
Tom was only repeating the man's own words back at him .... Jah2me has said these very same expressions hundreds of times on this forum, namely that he is waiting for the true anointed because he does not recognize JWs.... Tom was playing with the mans own words and his head..... .
Maybe it was a case of your answering before thinking about what he was trying to do. Remember the scripture which says there is NO man is without sin.  Some may think that all others are equal in sin  but they are not...... their hastiness to break down and judge is not sin.  Jehovah turns his eyes away from the haughty..... We all need forgiveness from God to be approved every day of our life.  If we are just criticizing and not building up we may ourselves miss out on this forgiveness.  The very reason I identify jah4me as a hate-OCD person is because that is all he does - break down and criticize. 
Sometimes we need to correct BUT not harshly.

Further Example for illustration and argumentation:
Does the Bible support or condemn slavery? Does it approve of it somewhere in the text or is it neutral on that issue?
The OT text regulates slavery, meaning, it supports it as part of the social circumstances of the time. In the NT the matter of slavery is still relevant and nowhere is it described to be unacceptable to Christians. In fact, Paul also advises slaves to return to their master and be obedient (Ephesians 6). Isn't Paul "Christianly enlightened" so that he comes to understand that it is wrong to support slavery? Or did he obey the social injustices normal for the society of that time?
When did slavery begin to be abolished and why? Was it because of a sense of injustice and that it was contrary to the freedom God had given to man or because of the social changes in the political consciousness of those who participated in power? Or was it all mixed together?
So, Paul under “inspiration”, seems, supports slavery in the 1st century. What is inspired here? Paul's advice for slaves? Or is it inspired that the record became part of the Bible and shows how Paul gave counsel that was contrary to God’s love, but was already in accordance with the rights of slaveholders?
Well it looks like, whether something is right or wrong becomes a process that goes beyond the framework of "level of accurate knowledge", and biblical understanding and interpretation in the past and today. 
True Christian people in the past was good Christian despise their slaveholder position. Today JW Christian would be considered as bad Christian if would had slaves. What has changed? Bible text in Ephesians 6? Interpretation of same text? Or Human Society today?
 

I remember back in the Old Testament how Jehovah tolerated a GREAT DEAL of error with his people .... until it reached a certain unrecoverable breaking point. Jehovah is our God, not because he needs to be worshiped, but that by doing so we all get on the same channel, and his favorite project (that we know about) prospers and does well.
If we had pet hamsters or gerbils, we would not cut off their heads because they constantly poop and pee in their enclosures.
(... insert many other profound related observations below: )

There is something rather distasteful when one tries to apply the expression about Jehovah allowing an "operation of error" being allowed for anyone's benefit.
(2 Thessalonians 2:9-12) . . .But the lawless one’s presence is according to the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and portents 10 and with every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth that they might be saved. 11 So that is why God lets an operation of error go to them, that they may get to believing the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.
(James 1:13-15) . . .let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone. 14 But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn sin, when it has been carried out, brings forth death.
I know that sincere Watchtower writers have written that it was a good thing that the Watchtower made the past mistake about Romans 13. Because it supposedly made us less respectful of secular authorities at a time when we needed to be less respectful, or it made it easier for us to stand up to draft issues, or something like that. And, of course, similar rationales were claimed for the failures of 1914, 1918, 1925 and have been tried for the 1975 issues, too: that it was a test and a filter, etc. We can probably expect similar things to be said about the overlapping groups in "this generation," too, if time allows.
That's clearly correct. When I was first introduced to the problems of our chronology, this is one of the first things impressed upon me by a member of the GB and by a couple members of the Writing Dept. Daniel Sydlik was the most outspoken about the need to just scrap everything about our chronology to start from scratch. But he also spoke to me about how the tongue is a fire and it can set a whole woodland on fire. Although I couldn't verify it until months later, a couple of brothers in the Writing Department told me that Sydlik wasn't the only member of the GB who felt this way. But at the time, I thought the chronology was so important that I asked how they could stay if they believed the chronology was wrong. Later when I looked at the Bible evidence myself, my question changed to: "Well, why don't they just make the change?" Of course, the answer was that proposing such a change could get you DF'd. But they also said that because many Witnesses think of the chronology as a "core" doctrine, as a foundation, that it's too big of a change. One brother always said that if you pull this out from under them, they don't have enough to fall back upon. They assumed that by continuing to write articles that tried to build faith in other core teachings, that they could do much more good inside the organization than outside. So they were careful to keep relatively quiet unless asked directly.
In the congregation, I try to take that same counsel to heart. We can always do more good from inside than from outside, even if we never talk about these specific doctrines at all. But for the sake of my own conscience, I think it's good to try to prepare ourselves for a significant change when more people realize that the chronology is not something we will always be able to fall back on. So I think it's also a good idea to bring it up now and then, but not in a way that makes waves.
My guess is that this is true. Ones who leave and don't come back seem quite likely to lose spirituality, although I'd also guess that any exceptions are likely not the ones who try to make their voice shout back to us. (Witness thinks that most all the good/true anointed must come through the WTS organization as their test.)
A bit disturbing, again, in the face of scripture:
(Romans 8:14, 15) 14 For all who are led by God’s spirit are indeed God’s sons. 15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery causing fear again. . .

Good suggestions.
Of course, without getting into any of the specific details of those topics here, I think those suggestions can be properly discussed under this heading about individual and collective conscience.
Let's say that after consideration of the Bible principles involved along with prayer and meditation, a Witness conscientiously believes that he should speak up about a potentially wrong teaching.
Let's say, for example, it was anywhere from 1966 through 1973, and the Witness saw too much improper speculation about the end of 6000 years of human existence in 1975, or the length of a generation after 1914. Or let's say it was 1919 through 1925 and the Witness/BibleStudent saw too much improper speculation about 1925. Or anywhere from 1878 through 1914, when he or she saw too much improper speculation about what would happen in 1914. Or let's say it was 1929 through 1962 and the Witness saw that there was too much emphasis on the misapplication of Romans 13:1-7.
The conscience of an individual Witness might tell him he must speak up whenever he sees brothers going astray.
(Romans 15:14) . . .Now I myself am convinced about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are also full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and that you are able to admonish one another.
But there is also a "collective" conscience, or at least the "sense of what's right and what's wrong" held by the majority within a group. If we've been in business or corporate settings, we know that we are often just playing our parts as rank-and-file employees, not "partners." Therefore, our own sense of what's right and what's wrong is something we will often keep to ourselves. But the company might allow an anonymous "suggestion box" where comments and criticisms are supposedly welcomed. But there are still potential repercussions for speaking up even in a supposedly anonymous format. When the company CIO comes to you and says: "We know that had to be you who made that comment" we must always be prepared to give a reason for the hope within us, even in a secular setting.
Rather than speak up in a congregational setting, I prefer for now to just get my thoughts spelled out on a semi-anonymous forum. A forum where I can be dismissed easily as a crackpot by those who need that kind of protection for themselves. Being too clear can be seen as too pushy, too proud, too presumptuous. And accepting the inevitable wild chaos and mudslinging by those who are afraid of the criticism is another protection for those other readers who are not ready or willing to think about a doctrine.
But most Witnesses, I think, will be quick to think (or say) that anyone who thinks they can "admonish one another" when not bureaucratically assigned to make such admonishments is doing the wrong thing, not waiting on Jehovah, not being a good "corporate" citizen. He or she is being presumptuous even though every one of the wrong teachings I mentioned above was a case of the corporation speaking presumptuously. In retrospect, the corporation took passengers on an uncomfortable "trip to Abilene."
Immediately, many Witnesses will start making analogies to Uzzah, Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and compare to David's attitude about Saul.
But in the Christian setting we have a different analogy before us. There is no more organization in the seat of Moses where criticisms of that organization should remind us of Korah, for example. Effectively, all of us now make up the household of faith, as brothers. It's Jesus, not the organization, that is now in the place of Moses.
(Hebrews 3:5, 6) . . .Now Moses was faithful as an attendant in all the house of that One as a testimony of the things that were to be spoken afterward, 6 but Christ was faithful as a son over God’s house. We are His house if, indeed, we hold on firmly to our freeness of speech . . .
Effectively, we are all the corporation, the body. Even the least among us. As a body, or organization, we belong to one another.
(Romans 12:3-5)  so we, although many, are one body in union with Christ, but individually we are members belonging to one another.
(1 Corinthians 12:22-27) . . .On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are necessary, 23 and the parts of the body that we think to be less honorable we surround with greater honor, so our unseemly parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 . . . 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but its members should have mutual concern for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all the other members suffer with it; . . .
I think some will jump on the phrase "no division in the body" and think this means "groupthink" is OK. But it's obvious, in context, that it really means there should be no specific members of the body who divide themselves off to give the impression they are superior to the others. Practically this means that in some ways, Brother Lett should see "Brother Cesar Chavez" as superior to himself, and vice versa. Sister Anna should see you as superior, and you should see Anna as superior to you. It also means that you should be able to criticize Anna and Brother Lett and CC, just as they should be able to criticize you. Then we all accept each other's criticism and admonishment to the extent that it fits scripture and conscience.