JW Insider

*** w20 November pp. 14-15 Take Courage—Jehovah Is Your Helper ***
HELP FROM INDIVIDUALS IN AUTHORITY
...
13 What help do we receive? When it is in harmony with his purpose, Jehovah may use his powerful holy spirit to cause people in authority to do what he desires. King Solomon wrote: “A king’s heart is like streams of water in Jehovah’s hand. He directs it wherever He pleases.” (Prov. 21:1) What does this proverb mean? Humans can dig a canal to divert the water of a stream in a direction that fits their plans. Similarly, Jehovah can use his spirit to divert the thoughts of rulers in a direction that is in harmony with his purpose. When that occurs, people in authority feel motivated to make decisions that benefit God’s people.—Compare Ezra 7:21, 25, 26.
14 What can we do? We can pray “concerning kings and all those who are in positions of authority” when these individuals are called on to make decisions that affect our Christian life and ministry. (1 Tim. 2:1, 2, ftn.; Neh. 1:11)
I notice that the Watchtower also includes this within the idea of paying back Caesar's things to Caesar, and even the idea of "being ready for every good work" is subsumed under the idea of performing "government" sponsored works:
*** w90 11/1 pp. 11-12 pars. 7-8 The Christian’s View of the Superior Authorities ***
7 Further, Paul’s exhortation to be in subjection to the superior authorities is in harmony with Jesus’ command to pay back “Caesar’s things to Caesar,” where “Caesar” represents secular authority. (Matthew 22:21) It also agrees with Paul’s later words to Titus: “Continue reminding them to be in subjection and be obedient to governments and authorities as rulers, to be ready for every good work.” (Titus 3:1) Hence, when Christians are ordered by governments to share in community works, they quite properly comply as long as those works do not amount to a compromising substitute for some unscriptural service or otherwise violate Scriptural principles, such as that found at Isaiah 2:4.
8 Peter also affirmed that we should be subject to the secular authorities of this world when he said: “For the Lord’s sake subject yourselves to every human creation: whether to a king as being superior or to governors as being sent by him to inflict punishment on evildoers but to praise doers of good.” (1 Peter 2:13, 14) In harmony with this, Christians would also heed Paul’s admonition to Timothy: “I therefore exhort, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, offerings of thanks, be made concerning all sorts of men, concerning kings and all those who are in high station; in order that we may go on leading a calm and quiet life.”—1 Timothy 2:1, 2.
Srecko brought up a point about how neutrality might be equated with lack of knowledge, but it is clear that knowledge would be necessary to distinguish whether those community works requested by authorities are not some form of compromise. 
It's easy to imagine a group of Witnesses who are told by government authorities that they must clean up a polluted lake or waterway before undertaking some large building projects on its shores, or that they must clean up the toxins that can carry runoff into the water to protect animals depending on it. In spite of the recent article about neutrality, when such situation occurred, Witness lawyers (and others) actually lobbied the relevant government authorities for favorable rulings. Lawsuits were initiated by the WTS to overcome the costs of some of these decisions. I know that brothers were called in to gain a lot of knowledge about the situation before some of these actions were taken. But I also talked personally with one of the lawyers involved and it was my assessment that the spirit of Jesus' words here were not taken to heart:
(Matthew 5:40-46) . . .And if a person wants to take you to court and get possession of your inner garment, let him also have your outer garment; 41 and if someone in authority compels you into service for a mile, go with him two miles. 42 ... 43 “You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing?
In the future, if WItnesses are told to build buildings that meet certain "green standards" to meet certain SDG's (Sustainable Development Goals) do you think that some Witnesses might rightly lobby against it, because these SDG's were suggested to governmental authorities by the UN, who only promoted them because they were a way of promoting "peace and security"? And we all know that when we support anything that combines "UN" with "peace and security" we are supporting Satan's schemes?
A little bit of knowledge won't hurt us. We should not be ignorant of Satan's designs either:
*** nwtsty 2 Corinthians Study Notes—Chapter 2 ***
we are not ignorant of his designs: Paul does not just say that “we are aware of his designs.” Rather, he uses a figure of speech called litotes, that is, an understatement made in order to give emphasis by saying that the opposite is not true. (An example of litotes can be found at Ac 21:39, where Tarsus is called “no obscure city,” which means an important city.) Accordingly, some translations render this phrase “we are well aware of his schemes” or “we know his wiles all too well,” which conveys similar emphasis.
This is a double-edged argument. Arauna is correct therefore to look to whether any of these "community works" are actually compromising. She correctly said she would have to "go along" with some of them even if she hated where they were coming from. But since we all stand individually before the judgment seat, we should all have a reason for the stand we take.

*** w20 November pp. 14-15 Take Courage—Jehovah Is Your Helper ***
HELP FROM INDIVIDUALS IN AUTHORITY
...
13 What help do we receive? When it is in harmony with his purpose, Jehovah may use his powerful holy spirit to cause people in authority to do what he desires. King Solomon wrote: “A king’s heart is like streams of water in Jehovah’s hand. He directs it wherever He pleases.” (Prov. 21:1) What does this proverb mean? Humans can dig a canal to divert the water of a stream in a direction that fits their plans. Similarly, Jehovah can use his spirit to divert the thoughts of rulers in a direction that is in harmony with his purpose. When that occurs, people in authority feel motivated to make decisions that benefit God’s people.—Compare Ezra 7:21, 25, 26.
14 What can we do? We can pray “concerning kings and all those who are in positions of authority” when these individuals are called on to make decisions that affect our Christian life and ministry. (1 Tim. 2:1, 2, ftn.; Neh. 1:11)
I notice that the Watchtower also includes this within the idea of paying back Caesar's things to Caesar, and even the idea of "being ready for every good work" is subsumed under the idea of performing "government" sponsored works:
*** w90 11/1 pp. 11-12 pars. 7-8 The Christian’s View of the Superior Authorities ***
7 Further, Paul’s exhortation to be in subjection to the superior authorities is in harmony with Jesus’ command to pay back “Caesar’s things to Caesar,” where “Caesar” represents secular authority. (Matthew 22:21) It also agrees with Paul’s later words to Titus: “Continue reminding them to be in subjection and be obedient to governments and authorities as rulers, to be ready for every good work.” (Titus 3:1) Hence, when Christians are ordered by governments to share in community works, they quite properly comply as long as those works do not amount to a compromising substitute for some unscriptural service or otherwise violate Scriptural principles, such as that found at Isaiah 2:4.
8 Peter also affirmed that we should be subject to the secular authorities of this world when he said: “For the Lord’s sake subject yourselves to every human creation: whether to a king as being superior or to governors as being sent by him to inflict punishment on evildoers but to praise doers of good.” (1 Peter 2:13, 14) In harmony with this, Christians would also heed Paul’s admonition to Timothy: “I therefore exhort, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, offerings of thanks, be made concerning all sorts of men, concerning kings and all those who are in high station; in order that we may go on leading a calm and quiet life.”—1 Timothy 2:1, 2.
Srecko brought up a point about how neutrality might be equated with lack of knowledge, but it is clear that knowledge would be necessary to distinguish whether those community works requested by authorities are not some form of compromise. 
It's easy to imagine a group of Witnesses who are told by government authorities that they must clean up a polluted lake or waterway before undertaking some large building projects on its shores, or that they must clean up the toxins that can carry runoff into the water to protect animals depending on it. In spite of the recent article about neutrality, when such situation occurred, Witness lawyers (and others) actually lobbied the relevant government authorities for favorable rulings. Lawsuits were initiated by the WTS to overcome the costs of some of these decisions. I know that brothers were called in to gain a lot of knowledge about the situation before some of these actions were taken. But I also talked personally with one of the lawyers involved and it was my assessment that the spirit of Jesus' words here were not taken to heart:
(Matthew 5:40-46) . . .And if a person wants to take you to court and get possession of your inner garment, let him also have your outer garment; 41 and if someone in authority compels you into service for a mile, go with him two miles. 42 ... 43 “You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing?
In the future, if WItnesses are told to build buildings that meet certain "green standards" to meet certain SDG's (Sustainable Development Goals) do you think that some Witnesses might rightly lobby against it, because these SDG's were suggested to governmental authorities by the UN, who only promoted them because they were a way of promoting "peace and security"? And we all know that when we support anything that combines "UN" with "peace and security" we are supporting Satan's schemes?
A little bit of knowledge won't hurt us. We should not be ignorant of Satan's designs either:
*** nwtsty 2 Corinthians Study Notes—Chapter 2 ***
we are not ignorant of his designs: Paul does not just say that “we are aware of his designs.” Rather, he uses a figure of speech called litotes, that is, an understatement made in order to give emphasis by saying that the opposite is not true. (An example of litotes can be found at Ac 21:39, where Tarsus is called “no obscure city,” which means an important city.) Accordingly, some translations render this phrase “we are well aware of his schemes” or “we know his wiles all too well,” which conveys similar emphasis.
This is a double-edged argument. Arauna is correct therefore to look to whether any of these "community works" are actually compromising. She correctly said she would have to "go along" with some of them even if she hated where they were coming from. But since we all stand individually before the judgment seat, we should all have a reason for the stand we take.

I hope things work out for you both..and wherever you go I know Jehovah will be with you 

What sort of "neutrality"? "Neutrality concept" made by WT understanding?
"My people will be silenced,(*destroyed) because there is no knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge," - Hosea 4:6
May we say how lack of education in "knowledge" about secular and spiritual things is good way to be ruined? 
Lack of knowledge about, what is and what is not "neutrality", is good example of this.
JW members made prayers to God about... and letters, to Russian's "secular authorities".  I don't know what was content of their prayers. And don't know what was content of those letters. Perhaps somebody who have time and information would/will make comparison and comment about it.
Of course, if prophecies (i.e. interpretations) are correct about that, that JW members are and will be under attack of secular governments (in this case Russia) in the "last days of last days" than what is purpose and benefit of "prayers" for JW members and for attackers in high position?
What if "prophecy" is more powerful than "prayers"? Than JW "prayers" means nothing. They will not be "listened". 
And vice versa, if "prayers" of faithful JW members can delete (or delay) fulfillment of "prophecy" about "last days" and attacks on them, than when "end" will come?
In third scenario, two parallel "kingdoms" can live together and forever. Everybody looks for their own business. :))

I don't think the scripture meant that we need to pray out any particular persons or schemes, only that the men in high positions who make decisions that might affect us, and our preaching work, will make decisions that result in the kind of peace and security that have a net positive effect.
There's something to that, I agree. We get the necessary peace when they stay out of our way. But the verse can mean a range of things to different persons in different circumstances. Some get more specific in their prayers than others. I think we could even pray that someone comes up with a vaccine for Covid19. Some would say no, because that's like praying for a worldly medical institution.

No. I never saw any evidence provided by the UN with respect to this man from Ethiopia. I never saw any evidence from you either. Just a claim with no evidence.
Your assumption and judgment are both wrong in this case.
Perhaps you have been watching for a longer time, and perhaps, as you say, you don't have the kind of time to watch. But I get the impression that your sources are not from watching the UN anyway, but they come from conspiratorial, racist, lying and/or biased sources. I like to look at the viability of as many sources as I can, and I agree that this can be very time consuming. And I also don't think people should merely repeat slanderous accusations without taking some time to research these claims first.
It's easy to claim things you don't agree with are simply "irrelevant." If you have evidence, point to it. Show it. Give a link to the person who claimed that the WHO president genocided his own people, for example. I think there is none. But there is quite a bit of evidence that this was a lie from racist and politically motivated sources. I go where the evidence takes me, and it's not my fault when evidence for one way or another seems to "dominate."
We all have more important things to do. But I don't have anything against providing evidence. Evidence can come from scholars on all sides of a controversy. We can listen to all of them. And evidence doesn't have to come from just scholars and experts, either. An average person like me can take a video of something and it provides good evidence, too. An average person can track down an expert's contradictory statements, or admissions of making false statements, and this can provide evidence, too. (I just found an amazing admission of false statements by someone this morning and I'll make a post about it when I get time.)
I've given up on this forum a couple of times. But it's the only forum I use. I have a FB account I haven't written on in 4 years, and I have a Twitter account to read news, but I never write anything there. Also, this is a diverse group willing to talk about a lot of different subjects. I don't think any of us know many people at our Hall that would be comfortable with a lot of these topics. So I typically tend to come back after a few days.
I hope your move goes well, and I hope to see you on these pages again.

Oh dear, as someone here would say. I don’t know whether it is worth your time or not but I do know I will miss you if you leave.
As for me, I’ve tried to leave numerous times but the old hen always sings her siren song and lures me back:
”Oh mother, tell your children, not to throwww away their decorum,
Spend your life in sheer misery on the old hen’s world media news forum.“
 

I talked to a friend who says the lock downs at Patterson Bethel are very depressing. He is not someone who would have any influence on teachings but he says that there are many whispers of this type of thinking that you (@Arauna) have shared. How could all the Bethel be in lockdown (earthwide) without something really big about to happen? He only gets about an hour outside his room every day, and he thinks there is something big planned for the first of October. Perhaps a big meeting. Some think it's an exciting announcement, and some think it's a hint that they are letting people go. As it is, he has very little to do. All Caleb/Sophia videos have been completed up through the end of next year, and he and several others literally have nothing to do right now. Just waiting. He says that brothers in the legal department (some still sharing space there) are saying that KH's up for sale just aren't selling, and that big checks go out daily for "you know what," but with a lot less contributions coming in already. Brothers and sisters are beginning to (unofficially) shift their congregations through Zoom to join congregations half-way across the country, which they had moved away from for employment, etc. "This must be it!" he says.
And of course, I'm all for it. Whenever it is Jehovah's time, he will move things in his own way. Of course, I still think that what happens does not need to wait on anything more specific "coming upon all those dwelling upon the face of the whole earth." We already say that what happened in 1914 came upon all those dwelling upon the face of the whole earth, in the sense of a change in the direction of history: "the year that changed the world." But I'm still of the opinion that what comes upon the face of the whole world needn't wait for anything specific beforehand. All these things might happen, but there is no reason to claim that such things must happen. The actual end comes upon the whole earth as a surprise, even if we are sure this must be the season.
Anyway, I tried to cheer him up by telling him how each congregation has a different personality, and that I have seen a lot of joy come through the use of Zoom in the congregations. I attended a couple "funerals" recently that were attended by brothers and sisters from all over the country, who would never have been able to attend otherwise. And in each case the Zoom was left on for about 45 minutes after the memorial talk and small, "break-out" groups of us chatted and reminisced and got to see others we hadn't seen in many years. Some congregations are losing "headcount" but others, like ours, had a new peak in auxiliary pioneers (special hours for CO visit, and circuit assembly months). Everybody wants to see one another, which is great, but so far we are doing fine in our congregation.
 

No. I never saw any evidence provided by the UN with respect to this man from Ethiopia. I never saw any evidence from you either. Just a claim with no evidence.
Your assumption and judgment are both wrong in this case.
Perhaps you have been watching for a longer time, and perhaps, as you say, you don't have the kind of time to watch. But I get the impression that your sources are not from watching the UN anyway, but they come from conspiratorial, racist, lying and/or biased sources. I like to look at the viability of as many sources as I can, and I agree that this can be very time consuming. And I also don't think people should merely repeat slanderous accusations without taking some time to research these claims first.
It's easy to claim things you don't agree with are simply "irrelevant." If you have evidence, point to it. Show it. Give a link to the person who claimed that the WHO president genocided his own people, for example. I think there is none. But there is quite a bit of evidence that this was a lie from racist and politically motivated sources. I go where the evidence takes me, and it's not my fault when evidence for one way or another seems to "dominate."
We all have more important things to do. But I don't have anything against providing evidence. Evidence can come from scholars on all sides of a controversy. We can listen to all of them. And evidence doesn't have to come from just scholars and experts, either. An average person like me can take a video of something and it provides good evidence, too. An average person can track down an expert's contradictory statements, or admissions of making false statements, and this can provide evidence, too. (I just found an amazing admission of false statements by someone this morning and I'll make a post about it when I get time.)
I've given up on this forum a couple of times. But it's the only forum I use. I have a FB account I haven't written on in 4 years, and I have a Twitter account to read news, but I never write anything there. Also, this is a diverse group willing to talk about a lot of different subjects. I don't think any of us know many people at our Hall that would be comfortable with a lot of these topics. So I typically tend to come back after a few days.
I hope your move goes well, and I hope to see you on these pages again.

LOL! I'm sure no one thinks it's ever a complete surprise. (Although that has supposedly happened, too, in rare cases.)
Jesus said that the "synteliea" [which can mean a "destructive final end"] would come upon Jerusalem within one generation, within the lifetime of some of those disciples who heard him speak. So it could not have come as a complete surprise. They knew the "season" just as anyone who sees a fig tree blossom knows that summer is near.
But apparently Jesus himself didn't know how long long this judgement event (proto-parousia) upon Jerusalem would have to wait. He only knew that the kingdom was not going to manifest itself instantly and that there would be a need for patience and endurance, that there would be a seeming delay, and that they should not be misled by great earthquakes, or international wars, or persecution, or famine. They would go through a period of time that would allow for preaching to be done all around their known world. Jesus knew that the Gentiles would be preached to during that same generation. The good news would be preached in all the known nations of their world before that end came. Paul did not declare that this had happened until the 50's or 60's when he told the Colossians:
(Colossians 1:23; New Living Translation) But you must continue to believe this truth and stand firmly in it. Don't drift away from the assurance you received when you heard the Good News. The Good News has been preached all over the world, and I, Paul, have been appointed as God's servant to proclaim it. Only after the actual first sign, the parousia and synteleia upon Jerusalem (the "sign" they asked about) could the parousia and synteleia for the world now occur at any time "instantly." Matthew 24:30-36, New Living Translation:
And then at last, the sign that the Son of Man is coming will appear in the heavens, and there will be deep mourning among all the peoples of the earth. And they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.h 31And he will send out his angels with the mighty blast of a trumpet, and they will gather his chosen ones from all over the worldi—from the farthest ends of the earth and heaven. 32“Now learn a lesson from the fig tree. When its branches bud and its leaves begin to sprout, you know that summer is near. 33In the same way, when you see all these things, you can know his return is very near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generationj will not pass from the scene until all these things take place. 35Heaven and earth will disappear, but my words will never disappear. 36“However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself.k Only the Father knows.  

I used to think the same thing, until after my first, second, and third child. That's when I realized that my idea about pangs of pregnancy had actually been influenced by my (our) incorrect understanding of this very scripture. I had to think that the "pangs" would be a "generation" long, in some similar way to how up to 120 years of a generation compares to the 1,881 years from 33 CE to 1914 CE. In the long run, I could rationalize that the final generation was only about 5% of the full period, and this might be considered "instantly" in some sense.
But then I realized that my wife was able to work a full-time job (high school principal) right up until the day she went to the hospital and then she always had the baby within a matter of hours. The "5% solution" implies that the pangs of distress (labor pains) last at least half-a-month. With the new definition of the 'generation that never seems to pass away' the percentage rises to 10% or nearly a whole month.
So the expression about the labor pains is really a huge hint that Jesus actually meant what he said about something coming as a surprise, as if without warning. Just like the days of Sodom would have seemed to suddenly come to an end without warning.
Just an aside, but others have already pointed out that the labor pains analogy was appropriate for the birth of the kingdom. This hardly seems to fit a birth that starts in 1914 and then the labor pains only start AFTER the birth and last for 120 to 240 years. Labor pains usually start BEFORE a birth, not AFTER.
[moved out of order with next post . . . read that one first.]
Actually, all we have to do is look into the meaning of the original Greek word to understand that this is not about when contractions can start:
The original-language word rendered “pangs of distress” refers to the intense pain experienced during childbirth. [Source: Internet]

I don't question that Revelation 17 has an important meaning for us.
Yes. We should always pay attention to our teaching. 1 Tim 4:16: "Pay close attention to your life and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by so doing you will save both yourself and those who hear you." [Berean]
If this Watchtower eschatological scenario could be absolutely known for sure to be correct then I would think that some hints could be discerned from political and ideological developments. Of course, I trust that Jesus' words preclude any human from knowing absolutely what the future scenario might look like. However, when the Bible says that God puts the idea in their hearts it likely means (as the Watchtower teaches) that Jehovah allows these entities to go ahead with intentions that already existed in some form. Therefore, such a future scenario could very well be discernible to some extent in advance. To the extent that anyone might feel it useful to look for such hints as a way of testing the validity of the teaching then there is a legitimate reason to "test the spirits." [1 John 4:1]. But I would think there are much more basic and important Bible principles to test against before we can get to that point.  
I think Jesus told us why. He made it clear that the very topic of the end and the natural desire to get advance information about when it would occur would result in much confusion and persons who would end up misleading others, either on purpose or just human nature. So Jesus made it clear that there would be a lot of things happening that people would latch onto in order to claim that they KNEW more about the closeness of the end. So Jesus made it clear that wars would continue to happen, but that they shouldn't get all excited and think this was a sign that the end must be close. Jesus made the same point about earthquakes that might shake someone from their reason and make them think the due time had approached. Or pestilence, famine, persecution. All these things would go on happening, but there was no reason to become inordinately excited. In fact, Jesus added that during the period leading up to the final end [the synteleia/parousia] people would be marrying and being given in marriage, people would be eating and drinking, and the parousia would come upon most of them as if without any warning. In other words, these people would be crying out 'there is peace and security' before sudden destruction came upon them. Peter adds that scoffers could even say 'Where is this promised parousia [that will shine brightly like lightning from one part of the heavens all the way across to the other]? Things are still going on just as they always have.
So, yes, Jesus gave a lot of details about the prophecy related to the end times, but many of those details were to show that there would be NO specific details that could be seen as an advance sign of the end, but that Christians should remain active and endure patiently in spite of the lack of signs. But when the end finally came, THEN there would be an unmistakable sign that this parousia was upon us suddenly like bright visible lightning.

Discuss the question from the title of the topic? Now that's a novel idea. ?
It is a reasonable solution to see the 10-horns and the wild beast as either representing, or some part of the dominant world power at the time of the great tribulation, the fall of Babylon the Great, Armageddon, etc. And it is a reasonable assumption to see the prostitute as false religion. And it seems that God puts a thought into the heart of the ten horns and the heart of the wild beast to give their kingdom to this wild beast until some end predetermined by the God's words will have been accomplished.
Obviously. But is it the same as "biting the hand that feeds us" to discuss whether our current explanation of this chapter is reasonable? Is our end-time-scenario too sacrosanct to question in any way. Or is perhaps now the best opportune time to consider where our loyalties will lie if things seem NOT to be working out as expected? Or is perhaps now the best opportune time to consider the meaning of Jesus words about not being able to work out the closeness of the time of the end if things DO INDEED seem to be working out as expected?
As several people already know, I come at this issue from the perspective that Jesus warned us against trying to look at signs of the times to divine the closeness of the end. It will come as a "thief in the night." Some of us will answer, but we won't be surprised, or in the dark, as someone who is awake and prepared for the thief. That's true, of course, but not because we will be able to figure out the time or season in which the thief will appear. Not because we will be watching for some entity to call out "peace and security." It's because we as Christians will be both patient and ready at all times because we are always looking out that our motivations are pure. Peter says we stay ready by watching ourselves and the type of person we ought to be, and clarifies the motivations behind all our activity in 2 Peter 1:5-8:
5 For this very reason, put forth all earnest effort+ to supply to your faith virtue,+ to your virtue knowledge,+ 6 to your knowledge self-control, to your self-control+ endurance, to your endurance godly devotion,+ 7 to your godly devotion brotherly affection, to your brotherly affection love.+ 8 For if these things exist in you and overflow, they will prevent you from being either inactive or unfruitful*+ regarding the accurate knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. There have always been those persons who think they are doing a favor to fellow Witnesses, or perhaps also highlighting their own faith in the predicted scenario by watching out for any mention of "peace and security" by a Pope, a world leader, or a UN representative. The initial post in this topic goes to a lot of trouble to try to read between the lines for items coming from the UN that somehow indicate that "they" could turn against and attack religion at any time. I think this is unhealthy and unchristian for several reasons. But I've already gone into detail about this aspect in other posts in the past.
This doesn't mean the scenario is impossible, only that Jesus said it was wrong to look for such scenarios as a way to anticipate the closeness of the end or to try to predict the timing his parousia. They might create some fervor and anticipation about the closeness of the end, but they will produce an unchristian motivation.
And, as I've also said, it would not be honest for me to discuss the question at hand without also mentioning that I think the whole scenario should be questioned. And, as I've also said, I think as Christians we are under an obligation to question such scenarios as to whether they are Biblical or even useful.

Assuming your obfuscation is purposeful, I'll try to translate your apparent intent:
"I, AllenSmith, have never yet failed to understand the true character and intent when I view certain people here. To myself, I now understand that I had previously misunderstood the main thing that 'JWInsider' was saying, although since I will never actually admit a fault, be they ever so blatant to others, I will, instead, focus on the new claim that that I never misunderstood the subliminal message."
If you meant @Srecko Sostar, I have never seen this person as a staunch supporter. If you meant @Melinda Mills, then you probably missed the fact that she does not typically "support" my views in areas where they might differ from the Watchtower, and never staunchly even when she does. In this case, she merely pointed out the fact that I left out the word "not," because the sentence wouldn't have made any sense in context as it stood. But she was pointing out what I must have meant, not what she necessarily believes. I see she did "upvote" a comment or two of mine, and that is always a dangerous thing for people to do when you are around, since they will often have to brave your disapproval. You often convey this disapproval of any kind of support in a bullying manner and go after people for assumed sins just because they found something agreeable in a post of mine. I hope you will stop this kind of bullying. (I'm not saying that what other people do doesn't ALSO come across as bullying . . . [ahem..j.t.r..ahem] . . . but it's easier to take when it's cushioned with a sense of humor.)
Yes. It's true. I gladly admit that this post was not primarily about the differences in our view of the GB. Still, many JWs believe that the time will come when the UN will attack religion, and there is an associated assumption that this will result in a collapse of religion in some global sense, and will thus precipitate a specific attack on Witnesses which is thwarted by Jehovah, Jesus and the angelic hosts. This is supposed to be our lot between the great tribulation and Armageddon. We are told to expect that it means times of being cut off from communication with New York, and a need for almost unquestioning reliance on local leadership through the guidance of congregation elders. In some cases, we expect that some will be cut off from even that much association.  JWs want to feel prepared to face such a time without fear.
I don't think it's out of place, then, to discuss this entire supposed "UN episode" in the light of such expectations.
I don't feel right about discussing it unless I also disclose that I have my own questions about the readiness of many Witnesses to face such a scenario. Part of that is the strained relationship that I see many Witnesses have with their local elders, and others in the congregations in general. Part of that is what I see as an unhealthy and immature relationship of dependency on the Governing Body for almost every aspect of their spirituality and worship. For me personally, I must also deal with the fact that I look to the track record of the Governing Body in attempting to predict the meaning of scripture, and I realize that so far they have something like a 0% accuracy rating in everything ever predicted when it comes to fulfilled prophecy. So, just out of the honest need for full disclosure when I give an opinion, I will be forced to include some of my personal hesitance to accept these predicted scenarios as necessarily accurate.
But I should still have a right to an opinion, and you should have a right to yours, and a right to give counterbalancing evidence if you have any.
Interesting. It's false to say they have never claimed this. But it's usually more subtle than an outright claim. Whether they claim it or not is immaterial. It's an impression that is given and never completely corrected. We could have a whole separate discussion on this topic.
I never claimed they asked for anyone to glorify them. Please stick with the evidence, not stuff you make up.
They should feel no superiority for having served at the "Bethel House." No one should. I certainly don't. In fact, as you have pointed out yourself, sometimes serving at Bethel is a detriment to true spirituality.

I don't think the scripture meant that we need to pray out any particular persons or schemes, only that the men in high positions who make decisions that might affect us, and our preaching work, will make decisions that result in the kind of peace and security that have a net positive effect.
There's something to that, I agree. We get the necessary peace when they stay out of our way. But the verse can mean a range of things to different persons in different circumstances. Some get more specific in their prayers than others. I think we could even pray that someone comes up with a vaccine for Covid19. Some would say no, because that's like praying for a worldly medical institution.

No. I never saw any evidence provided by the UN with respect to this man from Ethiopia. I never saw any evidence from you either. Just a claim with no evidence.
Your assumption and judgment are both wrong in this case.
Perhaps you have been watching for a longer time, and perhaps, as you say, you don't have the kind of time to watch. But I get the impression that your sources are not from watching the UN anyway, but they come from conspiratorial, racist, lying and/or biased sources. I like to look at the viability of as many sources as I can, and I agree that this can be very time consuming. And I also don't think people should merely repeat slanderous accusations without taking some time to research these claims first.
It's easy to claim things you don't agree with are simply "irrelevant." If you have evidence, point to it. Show it. Give a link to the person who claimed that the WHO president genocided his own people, for example. I think there is none. But there is quite a bit of evidence that this was a lie from racist and politically motivated sources. I go where the evidence takes me, and it's not my fault when evidence for one way or another seems to "dominate."
We all have more important things to do. But I don't have anything against providing evidence. Evidence can come from scholars on all sides of a controversy. We can listen to all of them. And evidence doesn't have to come from just scholars and experts, either. An average person like me can take a video of something and it provides good evidence, too. An average person can track down an expert's contradictory statements, or admissions of making false statements, and this can provide evidence, too. (I just found an amazing admission of false statements by someone this morning and I'll make a post about it when I get time.)
I've given up on this forum a couple of times. But it's the only forum I use. I have a FB account I haven't written on in 4 years, and I have a Twitter account to read news, but I never write anything there. Also, this is a diverse group willing to talk about a lot of different subjects. I don't think any of us know many people at our Hall that would be comfortable with a lot of these topics. So I typically tend to come back after a few days.
I hope your move goes well, and I hope to see you on these pages again.

The guy who wrote The Graduate—the book, not the movie—gave away all the money he made from writing it. He bought a house with his one-time movie rights. He gave it away within weeks—he would give three away during his lifetime—a lifetime that ended July 2020, He was 81.
The movie ‘The Graduate’ was a sensation—the highest grossing film of 1967, with seven academy award nominations. It is fussed over to this day for capturing the “alienation of modern youth”—though they are not so modern anymore, have long since put their alienation behind them, and many have done quite well for themselves, thank you very much. Many ultimately chose the life of plastic that the Graduate protagonist rejected.
But not author Charles Webb and his wife. Several times they came into money, and each time they would give it away. The Graduate movie is ranked the 17th greatest American film of all time by the American Film Institute; the “coming of age story is indeed one for the ages,” gushes Rotten Tomatoes. Webb didn’t make a dime off it and didn’t want to. He wouldn’t even do book signings—they were “a sin against decency.”
What kind of a guy does this? Many times he received windfalls. Each time he gave it away. “Mercifully I wasn’t written into [the Graduate movie] deal,” he told the AP. “Nobody understands why I felt so relieved, but I count my longevity to not being swept into that. My wife and I have done a lot of things we wouldn’t have done if we were rich people. ... I would have been counting my money instead of educating my children.”
He’s not kidding about educating his children. He and his wife Fred—she took that name so as to identify with a group of men named Fred afflicted with low self-esteem (you’re guess is as good as mine)—pulled their two children from school. They homeschooled. This resonates with me because I did the same, only mine were not pulled out—they never saw the inside of a school other than an experimental 6th grade, after which both chose to homeschool again. 
Homeschooling wasn’t legal when Webbs did it. It was when we did, even if a little dicey—there were always unpredictable hoops to jump through. Once, the school district turned down my curriculum plan on the basis of, of all things, a weak music curriculum. The kids were enrolled in Suzuki violin, for crying out loud! I went to the library, copied and submitted some gobbledygook from a music textbook, and they were as happy as pigs in mud.
A set of older friends in another jurisdiction were constantly harassed over their homeschooling—much more so than us. Yet my pal later reflected on his younger kids that were homeschooled vs his older ones that were not, and observed that the those of the first batch were far better at interacting with all factions of the community. Pretty much the same experience here—not that we had the contrast but we did have the experience of kids who readily mixed with all ages—whereas when I was in grade school, those kids in even one grade up might have been on another planet, to say nothing of adults. “I had no idea that there were so many stupid people,” said my son in complete innocence after he enrolled in the community college at age 16 and began his second experience in the classroom. 
The Webbs moved around a lot, sometimes camping, sometimes living out of a Volkswagen bus. Oldest son John called that part of his education “unschooling.” I know what unschooling is, too. We did it at times. It is simply a less rigid homeschooling, with more forbearance for letting youngsters pursue their own interests. I’d love to speak with these two kids—now adults. How did they turn out? “Not a lot of people picked up on it, but the title of ‘The Graduate’ was supposed to convey it was about education,” Webb told some reporter in 2006. He wasn’t keen on the mainstream model.
Meanwhile, he and/or his artist wife did stints at KMart, picked fruit, cleaned houses. “When you run out of money, it’s a purifying experience,” he said. Besides the VW bus, they lived in motels, trailer parks, even a nudist colony—they managed that place during their tenure. They named their dog ‘Mrs. Robinson.’
Now, these two were not Jehovah’s Witnesses. I don’t want to imply that they were. (Have JWs ever preached in a nudist colony?) Yet we have so many people who have renounced financial comfort so as to “have a greater share in the ministry” that when I see it elsewhere, it resonates no less than the homeschooling. I count as a friend today someone whose pursuit of a full-time ministry within Jehovah’s Witnesses triggered estrangement from his unbelieving oil baron family. “Look, Eric! Texas tea!” I call his attention to any gas station that we pass. 
The book that became the movie is not autobiographical. “I got interested in the wife of a good friend of my parents and ... [realized] it might be better to write about it than to do it,” he told the online publication Thoughtcat in 2006. Yet much of it was his life—his remoteness from his wealthy connected parents, for example, along with their world that he found so superficial. His relationship with his heart specialist dad was “reasonably bad,” he said, and with his socialite mom, he “was always looking for crumbs of approval.” He had figured he might get a considerable number of those crumbs with the publication of his book, for she was an avid reader who might boast “My son is an author!” but he didn’t—probably the skewering of her lifestyle had something to do with it. 
Still, whether you give up every dime or not—you don’t have to do it just for the sake of doing it. The ministry of the apostle Paul caused him to know both “how to have an abundance and how to do without.” (Philippians 4:12) He knew and was comfortable in both places. This fellow was good at doing without, but he seems to have panicked at having an abundance. Sometimes you have to renounce your past. Sometimes in doing so, you swing too far the other way. 
Maybe it was a starving artist kind of thing. He even made a cliche over it: “The penniless author has always been the stereotype that works for me. . . . When in doubt, be down and out.” But not for any romantic reason—he pushed back at that notion. “We hope to make the point that the creative process is really a defense mechanism on the part of artists — that creativity is not a romantic notion.” It’s not like he would recommend it to others, or maybe even to himself. It is more like he felt driven to it, half against his will. I think of how so many comedians developed and honed their comedy as a means of defendIng themselves from school-age bullies. There is even a video that suggests that.
A character from one of his other books—he wrote eight—an alcoholic painter, says: “What’s important for me is that I keep doing it, keep painting, and hold on to that feeling which goes along with putting the paint of the canvas,” he wrote. “It’s all I have and all I need.” This, too, resonates with me, a fellow who imagines himself a writer—and inherits the pluses along with the minuses.
“Lots of people momentarily embrace the idea of leaving the rat race, like the characters in The Graduate,” said one obit writer. “Mr. Webb [and his wife] did it, with all the consequences it entailed. If they regretted the choice, they did not say so.” And, “Webb has such an easygoing charm about him, such a friendly and sincere presence,” another wrote years prior. This also resonates with me, who—no, that is going too far. In the dog park I constantly have to apologize for my dog, who gets grouchy in his old age, “just like me.”
As though to get in the final word, the condensed obituary in TheWeek Magazine read: “The Graduate author who ran from success” Did he? Or is it that they can only imagine their own definition of success there at TheWeek?

Fair enough, but to me, it's pretty simple. If the words of Jesus and Paul substantiate the viewpoint that Christians should avoid looking to any kind of Governing Body as a "sole channel" then we are jumping the gun by worrying about any particular response to any Governing Body that makes that claim. We first need to deal with whether the claim is proper. I have no doubt that the claim of Moses was proper. The Bible said it was. I also have no doubt that this particular claim of the Governing Body is improper. The Bible said it was.
To me, it's exactly as simple as having a group of very respected and authoritative elders in the congregation claiming that we should celebrate Christmas, for example. Not likely to happen, but for the purpose of this illustration, let's say that it will happen in 2018. If these are very respected elders who are pillars in the congregation and good examples and have offered a lot of excellent spiritual teaching in the past then perhaps many in the congregation will go along. But let's say that some others are still respectful, but don't go along with these elders. Let's say that those who don't go along are told that they are acting like Korah, Dathan and Abiram. In such a case, I think the first thing to concern ourselves with is whether the reference to Korah et al is appropriate. It's only appropriate if the respected, authoritative elders are really in a situation comparable to Moses.
To someone who believes that the elders are in a situation comparable to that of Moses in Numbers 16, then obviously the situation would appear similar, and nothing could likely be said that could easily convince them otherwise.
That's why I refer directly to the words of Jesus and Paul that address this exact kind of situation. It was Jesus and Paul who said that it was the spiritual responsibility of all of us to be servants of each other. Jesus spoke out directly against any kind of governing body that would think of itself as if they were in a similar situation to the seat of Moses. And Paul spoke out directly against a situation that had occurred due to problems emanating from the congregation where the Jerusalem council provided leadership, and went so far as to show how he did not treat the Jerusalem council as if they were a governing body for other congregations. 

Please don't think that just because I believe the Governing Body has made a serious error of judgment as to doctrine that this is some disaster. They have already admitted to hundreds of errors over the years, and this would not be much different. They are elders of a congregation and therefore not above error and not above criticism. We should take to heart Paul's counsel to Timothy in 1 Timothy chapter 5. He knew that Timothy might be much younger, but should not let anyone look down upon his youth. He told Timothy that older men (elders) should be respected and not severely criticized, but also that they were not above criticism. Those elders who preside in a fine way are worthy of double honor, even "wages" (1 Tim 5:17,18). But he also said that accusations against elders would occur, and some would need to be reproved before all onlookers. Timothy was not to show prejudice or partiality:
5: 1 Do not severely criticize an older man. On the contrary, appeal to him as a father, to younger men as brothers. . . 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. 18 For the scripture says, “. . .  “The worker is worthy of his wages.” 19 Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 Reprove before all onlookers those who practice sin, as a warning to the rest. 21 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to observe these instructions without any prejudice or partiality.. . .  24 The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men become evident later. 25 In the same way also, the fine works are publicly known and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hidden.
Paul made the same point about partiality in Galatians just before he mentioned that he had to reprove elders with respect to Peter, James, John and Barnabas, and the problems they had caused both in the Jerusalem congregation and which had spread as far as Antioch and Asia Minor.
(Galatians 2:6) 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me.
(Galatians 1:10-12) 10 Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave. 11 For I want you to know, brothers, that the good news I declared to you is not of human origin; 12 for neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it was through a revelation by Jesus Christ.
The Word of God is our revelation by Jesus Christ. We are taught our doctrine from that source, and if anyone has tried to add any gospel to that, then they are "accursed" according to Galatians.
(Galatians 1:7-9) . . .. 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed.
And then Paul went on to show how this applied not just to himself or an angel from heaven, but even to the so-called Jerusalem council, which today we might call "the Governing Body."
(Galatians 1:16-20) . . .I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ceʹphas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. 19 But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now regarding the things I am writing you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.
(Galatians 2:1, 2) . . .Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up as a result of a revelation, and I presented to them the good news that I am preaching among the nations. This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded,. . .
(Galatians 2:6-13) 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary, . . .  when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and me the right hand of fellowship, . . . 11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. 13 The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense, so that even Barʹna·bas was led along with them in their pretense.
It seems now that it is almost too scandalous for some commentators to notice that that it was actually men from James, the "leader" of the Jerusalem council, who were the very "false brothers" sent to spy upon the "freedom" of the Antioch congregation. Paul goes to very great lengths here to show how he resisted the men from James and especially the effect they had on Peter and Barnabas and other Jews. He speaks of the "council of Jerusalem" as if it were something that he was right to almost ignore completely for 14 years. And then he comes as close as possible to speaking of the potential of these men as being something "accursed." He makes it clear that although they seemed to be pillars, and highly regarded, that Paul himself needed to steer clear of them for as long as he could until the ministry based on the revelation by Christ had taken enough of a foothold.
Does this mean he had no respect for them? Not at all. He just needed to avoid treating them as if they were some kind of governing body. He wanted to make sure that congregations outside of Jerusalem knew that they had no reason to treat them with any kind of partiality or doctrinal deference. He doesn't speak against the office of "apostleship" itself, but this was clearly a necessary transition toward the idea of basing our doctrine on the inspired writings themselves, especially at a time when the living apostles would soon disappear from the scene. 

Most Witnesses obviously want to live peaceful Christian lives and conduct ourselves in a way that pleases Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. None of us really want the job of being responsible to take a specific position on all doctrinal matters and setting priorities for organizational direction in our overall global ministry. But we can be thankful that among Christians, there will always be a few that will take the lead in those heavy responsibilities.
The very desire to take the lead in such matters seems like an assignment that only someone who is very brave or very foolhardy would take. It seems that, from a worldly perspective, only the most haughty among us would reach out for such an important job. Yet, we know some of these brothers very well from either personal acquaintance, or perhaps they were Circuit and District Overseers in our congregations. Perhaps we worked alongside some of them in a Branch Office. We get to know their personalities from presentations, speeches, and broadcasts. We see them interact with each other at some events.
All in all, the majority of them seem to be good, God-fearing, humble men who want to do what is right, the same as the rest of us. We don't get the idea that any of them "schemed" to get to this position. We know that the guidelines for elders apply to them just as they apply to congregation elders. And it's my opinion, but I see a certain stability and faithfulness to worthy goals among all of them. 
Now it's easy to say good things about these men, and that's my point. When these men were mostly chosen only from a certain similar mold, there was not a large "pool" for these "gifts in men" to be chosen from. In the past, most had been chosen from a limited bureaucratic background. At the point when there were 17 GB members alive at the same time, most (but not all) had the ability to give a good talk, but at least half of them were seriously lacking in Biblical expertise, and at least half of them had very little experience even in the door-to-door field ministry for the last 40 years of their lives. We should not have been surprised that certain kinds of flaws showed up among these men so that several were dismissed, and a lot of politics and scheming was known to go on among those who remained.
But the current group, especially after the death of Theodore Jaracz, have been chosen from a much wider pool of candidates. These men have made more progress in the last 20 years than in the previous 100 years. They are managing a much bigger, and smoother operation, with millions and millions more persons in their care. Doctrinal changes over the last 20 years have been steady and clearly beneficial overall. The quality of the publications and the website has improved greatly. It's reach is enormous. 
I've already stated my opinion that the GB are not the equivalent of the "faithful slave" from a Biblical standpoint. But that's not the point of discussion here. These men, the GB, who have taken the lead for doctrinal and prioritized the organizational and ministerial direction have taken on an important and necessary assignment. They admit that they aren't perfect. Of course, that statement is meaningless, because such a statement almost always is used with the intention of meaning "perfect, for all practical purposes." But they don't leave it at that. They admit that they have made serious errors in doctrine and leadership. they admit that the spiritual food they produce and distribute is not always perfect.
So, with that said, I think one way of looking at the overall picture is to see these men in the position of keeping order. They take the lead at the "highest" level, not because they think that you must think that all these doctrines are perfect. They do it because it keeps order and harmony. They do it by taking a stand on certain doctrinal matters and setting organizational priorities. Sure, they may do some of this by majority vote, but ultimately they make choices. This is part of remaining organized in any organization and not falling into chaos. Going off in many directions is inefficient. Even trying a certain direction that proves untenable has a certain value if it's caught early enough, and there is humility to change.
Taking a stand means that we will sometimes discover we took the wrong stand, but it also has an advantage in making our beliefs transparent. If a doctrinal stand is taken, our thinking is clearer on it, and contradictions show up more easily. It would be easy to be 100% accurate by taking a less dogmatic stand on many things. But this makes it harder to test whether we are thinking correctly and reasonably on some of our beliefs.
I think that it could be like those logic puzzles, like they do for LSAT tests, where you get 5 to 10 clues, and have to figure out, for example, where everyone lives and what they do, what they drink, and the color of their house:
Bill is a plumber who drinks whiskey and lives in the green house that is next to a corner house. John is not a carpenter, and he drinks soda and lives in either a red or blue house that is two houses from Sally's house. etc. etc. etc. Sometimes you get to a point where you just need to take a stand and say that John must be in a blue house, for example, even if you don't know for sure, so that you can properly test if it works. (Actually, Sudoku was probably a better example, come to think of it.)
So, we can have doctrinal claims that are still in the middle of such testing. We took a stand, and it clarifies our position so that it can be more clearly tested. It can work for both trivial and important matters like: whether Moses wrote all of the first five books of the Bible himself, or whether Galatians was written prior to 1 Corinthians, or whether the "other sheep" are Gentiles or "spiritual Gentiles."
If we (as an organization) take a stand, it should be faster to get to a point where we can take a consistent stand on all important matters of doctrine and teaching. This assumes that haughtiness and love of tradition don't get in the way of change. And that gets back to having the right kinds of personalities taking the lead.

Well, I am not sure that I would go that far:
”Rabbi, is there a prayer for the czar?”
”A prayer for the czar? Of course: May.........God.......bless.......the.........czar—and keep him far away from us!”
Just trying to scratch out a little tune, here, without breaking my back.

I noticed that even with all that quoting from Agenda 2030, you found absolutely nothing that supported any of the conspiratorial fear-mongering that is so prevalent all over the Internet.
I'm glad you finally looked it over, however. In the past you said: "Just read the documents." So I did. I've learned not to give so much credence to propaganda and conspiracy theories. It reveals that there has been, not just a lot of conjecture, but a lot of outright lying from those who tried to make us believe that those conspiracies are actually to be found somewhere in the UN documents.
The UN's version of the 2030 agenda is here: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld and it is a plan, basically from 2015, for countries that sign on, to set a good example over the next 15 years (from 2015) by resolving to eliminate poverty, and address many other types of injustice, along with pollution, climate issues, education, human rights, etc. They think they can manage to do good in all these areas by partnering with supportive governments, and other NGOs, and various other organizations which have also expressed optimism.
Of course, we know that in spite of all the good it wants to do, the UN has little to no power. The World Economic Forum site you mentioned points to sites that show some of the SDG's (sustainable development goals) are so far off track that they are not realistically expected before the 2070's.
I notice that you still see some of the goals as "bad" and some of the methods for trying to achieve them as "bad." I expect this old system in this old world to screw up almost any good goals and turn good into bad. But that is not the fault of the goals themselves. Many countries will set laws that say, for example: no more pouring of untreated sewage into a certain lake or river, or no more paying women less than men for the same job, or no more than 1 steer or 10 sheep per hectare of grazing land. But even if these laws are wonderful for people and the environment, there will always be people lobbying for a way to delay laws or make exceptions, because rising profits will always be more important in the short run, than good goals in the long run. And there's also ways that governments just get it all wrong. Look at the 20th century dust bowl days in the United States, or going after the wrong pests in China, or spraying carcinogenic pesticides everywhere. It's the way of the world.
I notice, of course, that although you could find nothing in the UN documents that was "bad" you added comments throughout to make certain things seem bad.
I should hope that an organization with the stated goal of promoting peace and security would "sound like they want to bring and security." The likelihood of overall success is practically nil, of course, but you think it's some sort of evil thing that they should want it? Why do you think peace and security is such a bad goal? You are supposed to be praying for governments to find ways to obtain peace and security. 
(1 Timothy 2:1, 2) . . .First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be made concerning all sorts of men, 2 concerning kings and all those who are in high positions, so that we may go on leading a calm and quiet life. . .
Do you pray that those in high positions work for peace and security, so that at the very least we can continue to preach more freely, or even so that we can lead a peaceful life in this world?
 

I noticed that even with all that quoting from Agenda 2030, you found absolutely nothing that supported any of the conspiratorial fear-mongering that is so prevalent all over the Internet.
I'm glad you finally looked it over, however. In the past you said: "Just read the documents." So I did. I've learned not to give so much credence to propaganda and conspiracy theories. It reveals that there has been, not just a lot of conjecture, but a lot of outright lying from those who tried to make us believe that those conspiracies are actually to be found somewhere in the UN documents.
The UN's version of the 2030 agenda is here: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld and it is a plan, basically from 2015, for countries that sign on, to set a good example over the next 15 years (from 2015) by resolving to eliminate poverty, and address many other types of injustice, along with pollution, climate issues, education, human rights, etc. They think they can manage to do good in all these areas by partnering with supportive governments, and other NGOs, and various other organizations which have also expressed optimism.
Of course, we know that in spite of all the good it wants to do, the UN has little to no power. The World Economic Forum site you mentioned points to sites that show some of the SDG's (sustainable development goals) are so far off track that they are not realistically expected before the 2070's.
I notice that you still see some of the goals as "bad" and some of the methods for trying to achieve them as "bad." I expect this old system in this old world to screw up almost any good goals and turn good into bad. But that is not the fault of the goals themselves. Many countries will set laws that say, for example: no more pouring of untreated sewage into a certain lake or river, or no more paying women less than men for the same job, or no more than 1 steer or 10 sheep per hectare of grazing land. But even if these laws are wonderful for people and the environment, there will always be people lobbying for a way to delay laws or make exceptions, because rising profits will always be more important in the short run, than good goals in the long run. And there's also ways that governments just get it all wrong. Look at the 20th century dust bowl days in the United States, or going after the wrong pests in China, or spraying carcinogenic pesticides everywhere. It's the way of the world.
I notice, of course, that although you could find nothing in the UN documents that was "bad" you added comments throughout to make certain things seem bad.
I should hope that an organization with the stated goal of promoting peace and security would "sound like they want to bring and security." The likelihood of overall success is practically nil, of course, but you think it's some sort of evil thing that they should want it? Why do you think peace and security is such a bad goal? You are supposed to be praying for governments to find ways to obtain peace and security. 
(1 Timothy 2:1, 2) . . .First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be made concerning all sorts of men, 2 concerning kings and all those who are in high positions, so that we may go on leading a calm and quiet life. . .
Do you pray that those in high positions work for peace and security, so that at the very least we can continue to preach more freely, or even so that we can lead a peaceful life in this world?
 

I have just one word of advice for you: “Plastics,” said the parent’s comfortable friend to Benjamin Braddock. Plastics—the new growth field in 1967, the year The Graduate movie came out—just as computers and then the internet would be to succeeding generations. Plastics—a graduate could make a killing in it.
But Ben didn’t want any career advice just then. Just out of college, with no goals at all, the only thing he knew is that he wanted no part of the phony monied world that had been his upbringing. He lolled around aimless at his folks’ upper crust home that year and ended up in an affair with his mom’s socialite friend—her idea, not his. “Mrs. Robinson, are you trying to seduce me?” is a line from the movie that has endured.
It is the same Mrs. Robinson that Simon and Garfunkel sung about. Mike Nichols, film director had been after Paul Simon to write news songs for the movie and he didn’t want to do it—he was busy. Finally he said that he did have this song kicking around about times past and Joe DiMaggio and Mrs. Roosevelt, and the director said he’d take it! Just change Roosevelt to Robinson and he had a deal.
This explains why baseball great Joe DiMaggio blew a gasket when he heard his name in the song—so says the Ken Burns documentary Baseball. Who are those hippy long-hairs to drag him into their immoral movie that had nothing to do with him?! Joe was a traditional type of guy. Others in baseball just barely calmed him down with the plea that, while the mention may not have had any context, it was a compliment.
That line about going into plastics is another line that endures. At what point did ‘plastic’ come to stand for an entire world of materialism devoid of deeper values? It couldn’t have been just then in 1967. The plastic revolution of consumption was just getting underway. 
Yet if fits so well with an NPR report of 53 years later—of September 2020. There has never been any meaningful recycling of plastic! Ten percent is all that has ever been reused—tops. And the industry knew it all along! Recycled plastic doesn’t hold up well, is expensive to make, whereas new plastic is cheap. But with environmentalism sweeping the globe, that is the last thing people wanted to hear, so they weren’t told that. They were told that those recycling numbers within triangles on every plastic item meant something, and earth-friendly people the world over—I do it myself—sort out all their plastic for recycling bins. Waste Management sends the truck by a second time to pick it up.
It doesn’t mean a thing. It all gets buried—all but 10%. For me personally this would have been fine ammo—better than the ammo that I did use—when I was kicking back at some atheist deriding Witnesses for preaching about God’s kingdom whereas they could be rolling up their sleeves to help with saving the planet! Look, we’ve nothing against saving the planet, I told him, and when there are recycling laws on the books Jehovah’s Witnesses no doubt obey  them more closely than most because they are good at obeying laws—they don’t figure that each new law is a line drawn in the sand that they have to cross in order to prove their courage. Yeah—they love cooperating in this regard, but it’s a little stupid to think they are saving the planet when, in one gigantic industry blunder, millions of gallons of oil can destroy the entire seashore. The BP gulf oil spill had just occurred and President Obama spouted tough talk about “kicking asses” over it. 
It was a great retort to the anti-religion humanist, but the worldwide plastic recycling scam would have been even better. Can someone look this fellow up for me? I’ll run this new one by him. “Look, I'm all for local clean-up-the-park days. Same with clean-up-the-roadside days,” I said. No one of Jehovah’s Witnesses will ever speak against them. In fact, in Russia, Witnesses do clean up the public parks—or at least they did before the ban. I didn’t know that at the time, but when I found out I included that tidbit in Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia. 
“In Russia, congregations do it all the time,” Anton Chivchalov told me—the one who keeps an eye on the current persecution in that land. “Most congregations do it. It has become a custom for them. Parks are more or less okay, other people clean them too, but still there is garbage to clean, and sometimes the authorities just lack enough workers, so there may be tons of garbage at times. We clean not only parks, but any public areas. We usually ask the city administration to assign some areas for us to clean.”
I speculated within Dear Mr. Putin on how it must make a great backdrop for informal conversations on God’s purpose to make the earth a paradise. Do Witnesses still do it, with police guarding them to make sure no one talks about God? I’ll have to ask Chivchalov. Still, even as they did it, they did not imagine that they were negating the verse of how humans will be “ruining the earth” when God intervenes—ruining it, not saving it, and the NPR story that the emperor wore no clothes despite his loud voice—he recycles hardly any plastic at all despite telling people he does so they will not feel bad about buying plastic and will buy more—was an perfect case in point.
And young Benjamin Braddock, the aimless college grad of the movie, knew it instinctively—that the world his parents’s generation wanted to thrust him into was plastic—promising 100% and delivering 10%. ‘He probably went into plastics after all and did very well for himself,’ said some cynical commentator on the movie—so many of that generation sold out, as they do in all generations. Be that as it may, the author of the book The Graduate did not sell out—he died penniless in 2020, after a lifetime of giving away assets. More on him later.
 

Yes. I know. We have been through this before.
It's not new. And I think that the GB would only agree up to a point. In general, the GB now teaches that many more of the verses and teachings in the Greek Scriptures that we once only applied to the Anointed can now have just as much meaning for the "other sheep." And although Galatians 5 starts out as a discussion about those led by the spirit, the GB also understand that the "fruits" of that spirit are for all of us to cultivate. But the GB would likely be very uncomfortable with a view that all of us are brothers (of Christ), and all of us should be led by the spirit. They would likely agree with the general point, but not the way I worded it.
Again, ALL Christians had to be in union with Christ.
(John 15:4-10) . . .Remain in union with me, and I will remain in union with you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it remains in the vine, neither can you unless you remain in union with me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever remains in union with me and I in union with him, this one bears much fruit; for apart from me you can do nothing at all. 6 If anyone does not remain in union with me, he is thrown out like a branch and dries up. And men gather those branches and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If you remain in union with me and my sayings remain in you, ask whatever you wish and it will take place for you. 8 My Father is glorified in this, that you keep bearing much fruit and prove yourselves my disciples. 9 Just as the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; remain in my love. 10 If you observe my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have observed the commandments of the Father and remain in his love.
It includes a wide variety of ministries:
(Romans 12:3-8) . . .each one as God has given to him a measure of faith. 4 For just as we have in one body many members, but the members do not all have the same function, 5 so we, although many, are one body in union with Christ, but individually we are members belonging to one another. 6 Since, then, we have gifts that differ according to the undeserved kindness given to us, if it is of prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; 7 or if it is a ministry, let us be at this ministry; or the one who teaches, let him be at his teaching; 8 or the one who encourages, let him give encouragement; the one who distributes, let him do it liberally; the one who presides, let him do it diligently; the one who shows mercy, let him do it cheerfully.
The sanctification is through the ransom, and the ransom is for all:
(1 Corinthians 1:28-30) . . .and God chose the insignificant things of the world and the things looked down on, the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 so that no one might boast in the sight of God. 30 But it is due to him that you are in union with Christ Jesus, who has become to us wisdom from God, also righteousness and sanctification and release by ransom,
All Christians are shown undeserved kindness, not because there are any who are so special that they deserve to be made holy, or sanctified. It's just that they are washed clean to have an undeserved, but acceptable "holy" standing before God so that we can approach Jehovah in prayer. No one is actually a special, righteous, anointed person who is a "TRUE anointed" who will be above their brothers as a kind of "leader" to follow.
(1 Corinthians 16:23, 24) 23 May the undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus be with you. 24 May my love be with all of you in union with Christ Jesus.
(2 Corinthians 5:16-19) . . .So from now on we know no man from a fleshly viewpoint. Even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, we certainly no longer know him in that way. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in union with Christ, he is a new creation; the old things passed away; look! new things have come into existence. 18 But all things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of the reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was by means of Christ reconciling a world to himself, not counting their offenses against them, and he entrusted to us the message of the reconciliation.
Revelation says this about the "great crowd:"
(Revelation 7:9-17) . . .After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. 10 And they keep shouting with a loud voice, saying: “Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.” ...  And he said to me: “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15 That is why they are before the throne of God, and they are rendering him sacred service day and night in his temple; and the One seated on the throne will spread his tent over them. 16 They will hunger no more nor thirst anymore, neither will the sun beat down on them nor any scorching heat, 17 because the Lamb, who is in the midst of the throne, will shepherd them and will guide them to springs of waters of life. And God will wipe out every tear from their eyes.”