JW Insider

Nathan W Pyle's alien comics are hilarious. Without kids, I don't think I would have known. Do you think the WTS will ever make use of something like them to help show the folly of Birthdays (aka Emergence Days)? Or Valentine's Day?

I did call them some months ago. There was a digital side note somewhere, explaining some passage or other, that began with: “Does God care about women?” and the answer was “No.”
It was purely a format thing. The “no” was in response to something else, but the formatting put it as answer to the above question.
I explained it to whoever answered the phone and was put through to an extension. I explained it to that brother and he seemed slow to recognize the problem, then inclined to shrug it off as one of those things. Well, this is not the right department anyway, he said, and he rung me through to someone else. 
The phone rang forever and ever and ever and with anyone else I would have hung up. Finally the original brother answered, was surprised that it was me again, then said, well, for some reason they’re not picking up the phone, and said he’d send them the message.
Maybe they were all doing the Happy Bethel dance.

Okay, I went through it. Yes, I do like it. I just needed the energy of a brand new day. I only put my daily Bible reading ahead of it—I hope nobody minds. The spies getting all weak-kneed in the promised land, bunch of wusses.
The blog & artwork is generational, and I am of an older generation. But I did like it, the simple drawing with bright colors.
My daughter keeps sending me a similar set of cartoons that are likewise generational, but they grow on one. Beings from another planet poking gentle fun at customs by describing it in words they don’t quite have.

I’ll check out Chicago if I can. I may have a hard time sneaking it past my wife. I see some review that there is language throughout. I get it that it would be historical, but to her a #@!* is a #@!*
It’a hard even to get a murder mystery in, since they always start with someone being killed. 
We did recently watch Bridge of Spies (for the 2nd time, and I rarely watch anything a 2nd time) But Tom Hanks can turn anything into gold and this Spielberg movie is gold to begin with. 
 

Sigh—I don’t want to be crude, but the unaccustomed volume of friend requests means I’d better not see much cleavage and preferably none at all. To say you are approving friends based upon not seeing cleavage, I know sounds crass, but there you have it. I can see why social media wears people out. My wife has those things too, you know.
Don’t people know that I do nothing but think about God all day?

I sighed at that tiny square at the top of the right-hand scrollbar, which indicated a novella below. But it was mostly pictures that required only a quick glance and a chuckle. The entire piece literally takes about 3 minutes tops. And I needed something light as I just watched the "Trial of the Chicago 7" on Netflix. I recommend both highly. Thanks xero; and thanks, Alan Sorkin.

No, that is not problem, really  it is not.
So many others in Bible times were wrong, is not good way to excuse yourself (myself, etc) for wrongs, errors we made. Justify one's own mistakes with a general truth like this; that we all make mistakes, is not the right way. To make justification in fact. Because, when we make a mistake, then we need to admit the mistake, correct the mistake and ask for forgiveness. I am sure you will agree. 

I think maybe JWI and others here and (gasp!) myself are part of a yet-to-be-identified great multitude class who is faithful, but not AS, faithful, and perhaps needs a special designation & place to go. 
I see Brother Cesar is on the upcoming speaking roster in Washington. I wonder if he will tell this class where to go?

I sighed at that tiny square at the top of the right-hand scrollbar, which indicated a novella below. But it was mostly pictures that required only a quick glance and a chuckle. The entire piece literally takes about 3 minutes tops. And I needed something light as I just watched the "Trial of the Chicago 7" on Netflix. I recommend both highly. Thanks xero; and thanks, Alan Sorkin.

I know you are being sarcastic, but if anything changed, then it wouldn't be for the first time, you know that. And really, it is not a fundamental problem whether the number is literal or not, (even though I said it could solve the problem of increasing partakers, as you say, it could be because some have dropped out etc.. ) Ultimately God knows the correct interpretation, we can only do our best to understand it, and we can be wrong, as so many others in Bible times were. I am not worrying about it.

Could it be that only mentally unbalanced or competitive people find themselves obsessed with who is or isn't anointed? The recent video made it clear that this is an internal decision by an individual and that there's no objective way for anyone to know if someone is or isn't anointed. The minimal behavioral conduct required to be considered "Christian" is clear from scripture and we can all look at someone and see if the behavior we can observe is in line w/scripture. On the other hand we don't have body cams and recordings from a persons mind or anything like this so we can know 24x7 whether they're OK.
It seems all the worrying of this bone is about organization. Does Jehovah use this organization known as JW's?
You decide as an individual. If Jehovah chooses to NOT use it, you'll know. No one needs a bunch of whiners to look for unscriptural lint left in the washing machine to know whether the clothes cleaner still has cleaned the clothes to a usable degree.
Ok. You can go back to nit picking.

You really recycle your thoughts. I hate for it to sound like this, but you remind me of my favorite blog poster (who's bipolar) and the following account about her simple dog.
"She actually seemed to like throwing up.  To the simple dog, throwing up was like some magical power that she never knew she possessed - the ability to create infinite food.  I was less excited about the discovery because it turned my dog into a horrible, vomit-making perpetual motion machine.  Whenever I heard her retch in the backseat, I had to pull over as quickly as possible to prevent her from reloading her stomach and starting the whole cycle over again.     But as far as the simple dog was concerned, it was the best, most exciting day of her life. "   I'd say this is also true for all these opposers who perpetually recycle their complaints.   http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/11/dogs-dont-understand-basic-concepts.html (Maybe that's why Revelation says "outside are the dogs"?)  

What’s this? A new teaching? 
Look, I have to draw the line somewhere. I am not getting anything done. I must soon turn off notifications. After years of one FB friend request per month, the algorithm have shifted and I’m getting 50 a day. My page is public so I let most anyone in. But there are floozies among them!
How am I going to weed out the floozies?  How will I, now that I am alert to the problem, I wasn’t at first, going to ensure I get no more? The profile photo usually suffices, but even there I am inclined to be “merciful,” unless it is outrageous. Maybe they are Mary Magdelines. (dream on, you dope)  I mean, I do get to witness to anyone there. Still, there ought to be a FB standard question, “Are you a floozie?” It would make life easier. 
Maybe I will make my own: “Are you a floozie?” I will ask anyone new. Don’t answer ‘yes’ though, unless you want to be tossed or unless you promise to be a floozie no more.
You floozies in there had better behave, that’s all I can say!
...Whoa!!! Someone with the handle “Good Luck” just sent me a friend request. He (or she) has no idea he has put himself on the chute to the bargain basement.
All this is making serious inroads on my time. And now you throw in some hilarious dog blog that will take some time if I intend to go through it!
”

It would also resolve the issue of there having been more than a million partakers who faced death for their Christian faith rather than give a pinch of incense to the Roman emperor, or contaminate their conscience with other forms of idolatry or blood. It's either that or explicitly allow for the idea that an earthly hope had been opened up generally to Christians before 1935.

True. I've made that very clear many times. I think of this site as a place to discuss various opinions and concerns about various Watchtower doctrines. After much prayer and study and meditation, I even find myself in disagreement with almost all of our chronology-related doctrines. Of course, at last count, I also find myself completely agreeing with about 95% of the Watchtower's other doctrines. (It's closer to 98.6% when using the list of all the different baptismal questions that have been used since 1967, when I was baptized.) So I have no problem discussing the 5% that I question.
What happened to your three posts about Russell? It looks like you deleted those posts and a couple of others under this topic that other persons here had already answered. For a minute there, I assumed you actually went back and looked up some of those Russell quotes and realized that you needed to remove your own posts. But that didn't sound very much like you at all! LOL!

Just to introduce another item into this consideration. It seems that the number 12 or its multiples in the Bible always appears as literal, never symbolic.
Jacob's 12 sons (males) were exactly 12   The 12 tribes of Israel were actually 12, not 13   The Levitical priesthood was organized in a multiple of 12, namely 24 divisions (1Chr 24: 1-19)   The recruitment of assistants and officers who served David were organized in groups of 24,000 per month, from the 12 tribes, giving a total of 288,000 soldiers. All multiples of 12, and all exact numbers, real and non-symbolic.   Also, Jesus literally chooses 12 apostles, as we know. Literally.   The following is very interesting, in my opinion. When there were only 11 faithful apostles alive, just before Pentecost, they prayed intensely to Jehovah for guidance during those days (Acts 1:14), as a result of which, it was for divine guidance that they chose a twelfth apostle again, thus when Spiritual Israel began at Pentecost there were literally 12 foundations.   And, precisely at Pentecost, how many were gathered when the nucleus of the anointed ones who would go to heaven was formed? 120. Another multiple of 12 (Acts 1:15) It is true that in Revelation numbers like 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 are symbolic. But I have my reservations for 12 or 144,000 as symbolics.
Indeed, if 144,000 is symbolic, many things are fixed, as has already been said: the large number of Christians during the past 20 centuries who will easily have exceeded that number. The problem of replacement anointed ones, and I suppose others that now escape me.
The best answer I can give is: I'm not sure, I don't know.

It would also resolve the issue of there having been more than a million partakers who faced death for their Christian faith rather than give a pinch of incense to the Roman emperor, or contaminate their conscience with other forms of idolatry or blood. It's either that or explicitly allow for the idea that an earthly hope had been opened up generally to Christians before 1935.

True. I've made that very clear many times. I think of this site as a place to discuss various opinions and concerns about various Watchtower doctrines. After much prayer and study and meditation, I even find myself in disagreement with almost all of our chronology-related doctrines. Of course, at last count, I also find myself completely agreeing with about 95% of the Watchtower's other doctrines. (It's closer to 98.6% when using the list of all the different baptismal questions that have been used since 1967, when I was baptized.) So I have no problem discussing the 5% that I question.
What happened to your three posts about Russell? It looks like you deleted those posts and a couple of others under this topic that other persons here had already answered. For a minute there, I assumed you actually went back and looked up some of those Russell quotes and realized that you needed to remove your own posts. But that didn't sound very much like you at all! LOL!

Yes, of course. There are very few numbers in Revelation that are taken literally. Even the number 144,000 is made up of a non-literal number of tribes (12) each made up of a non-literal number of persons from each one of them (12,000).
The rationale for taking this one literally is that it is compared with an uncountable number of gentiles who come out of the great tribulation. We don't teach that these are literal gentiles either.

In general, that statement is true. Except when this particular mystery doctrine was being explained by Russell. For example, in Volume VI of Studies in the Scriptures, page 239, Russell showed that the 144,000 were "Joint-sacrificers" with Jesus Christ.

As I mentioned above, these 144,000 joint-sacrificers are correctly referred to as "gods," per Russell:

[also, Volume VI of Studies in the Scriptures, p.239]

This is correct. Russell never took the place of Christ before his Church. Christ was the Head of the Body, and Russell would never consider himself the "Head" of the Body of Christ. This doesn't mean that Russell would ever have admitted that any other person could be God's "mouthpiece." Russell only said this about himself, and no one else. Also Russell printed letters that addressed himself as "the faithful and wise servant." He printed no letters that identified anyone else as that "faithful and wise servant." He did this while teaching that this "servant" could only be ONE INDIVIDUAL, and not a class of individuals.

No. I don't think he ever took it back. The teaching survived into Rutherford's period of leadership, and there were still echoes of it during the time of Knorr and Franz. I don't recall exactly when it was rejected in print, but some say that Franz, while giving the Memorial talk, would quote the verse from 1 Cor 12:12 and then follow up with an odd statement to the effect that "only the 144,000 share the flesh and blood of the Christ, even though Jesus himself no longer shares flesh and blood." It's scriptural but by putting emphasis on the word "share" he made it sound odd, perhaps invoking John 6.
There's even an echo of it in the expression, "he is one of 'the anointed.'"
Originally this "mystery doctrine" led to some awkward sounding statements from Russell too. For example, he said in 1914 (Watchtower, p.83):
https://archive.org/details/1914WatchTower/mode/2up?q=sum+total
"The word Christ signifies anointed. God has declared that He will have an anointed King and High Priest to be His Agent in the blessing of the world. He has declared that that great King is, primarily, the Lord Jesus Christ. He also declares that instead of the Lord Jesus being the sum-total of the Anointed One, it is His good pleasure that there shall be members added to Him. And the adding of these members has been the completing of this Anointed One."
But if all the anointed were "The Christ" this had led to him also claiming that the anointed 144,000, including himself, were also the "Mighty God" and the "Eternal Father." (Isaiah 9) And his explanations seemed strained.
"Soon follows the power which will, under him as our head, constitute the whole body of Christ the "Mighty God" to rule and bless the nations - and the body with the head, shall share in the work of restoring the life lost in Adam, and therefore be members of that company which as a whole will be the Everlasting Father to the restored race." - (WT November 1881: 298)
Rutherford called this body of Christ: "the Great Messiah." This followed consistently on Russell's statements such as another from the same 1914 Watchtower:
"And as we further study, we find that this is the Mystery mentioned in the Scriptures: to wit, that the great Messiah so long promised should be composed of many individuals;
But I think it was only Russell who delved into statements that would show that this doctrine proved that when Jesus said "Ye are gods" in John 10, that this also had reference to the 144,001. I'm sure that to some, this would have sounded too similar to Mormon teaching.

I think that if you understood the whole picture of Russell's attempt (and the difficulties) to make all scripture fit into one complete view, you would never call it blasphemy. In fact, I don't think you could even provide any "proof" that he was wrong. Take the following two passages from 1 Corinthians for example:
(1 Corinthians 12:12) For just as the body is one but has many members, and all the members of that body, although many, are one body, so too is the Christ.
(1 Corinthians 6:15) Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?
Paul could easily be interpreted as saying that each and every one of the "Anointed" (which is an English word for the Greek word "Christ") are therefore all included in the "Anointed." Therefore this interpretation was imposed back upon Ephesians 1:9, so that the very doctrine of all 144,000 being gathered into the Christ, was considered to be the "mystery" or the "sacred secret:"
(Ephesians 1:9, 10) 9 by making known to us the sacred secret of his will. It is according to his good pleasure that he himself purposed 10 for an administration at the full limit of the appointed times, to gather all things together in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth. . . .
The better understanding, of course, is that the 144,000 are in close union with Christ, and only the primary one, the Head, should be called "The Christ" or the "Anointed One."
(Galatians 3:16) . . .. It says, not: “And to seeds,” as in the case of many such, but as in the case of one: “And to your seed,” who is Christ.
 

It would also resolve the issue of there having been more than a million partakers who faced death for their Christian faith rather than give a pinch of incense to the Roman emperor, or contaminate their conscience with other forms of idolatry or blood. It's either that or explicitly allow for the idea that an earthly hope had been opened up generally to Christians before 1935.

It would also resolve the issue of there having been more than a million partakers who faced death for their Christian faith rather than give a pinch of incense to the Roman emperor, or contaminate their conscience with other forms of idolatry or blood. It's either that or explicitly allow for the idea that an earthly hope had been opened up generally to Christians before 1935.

It would also resolve the issue of there having been more than a million partakers who faced death for their Christian faith rather than give a pinch of incense to the Roman emperor, or contaminate their conscience with other forms of idolatry or blood. It's either that or explicitly allow for the idea that an earthly hope had been opened up generally to Christians before 1935.