JW Insider

Lawyering (and barristering) is a whole field unto itself with its own ethics considerations, similar to how policeman in the United States are legally allowed, and often expected, to lie to a suspect to elicit incriminating information for a case. My oldest son is an attorney. In his last two years of law school they had him do paid summer internships with a well-known and well-respected firm in NYC, and they kept putting him on cases to help defend cigarette companies and insurance companies to lower their payouts. He was not an attorney yet, but he learned how the entire existence of some of the major law firms is based on their ability to get away with lying. After he took the exam and became a lawyer himself, he took a job in family court, and found, of course, that dishonesty pervades each side of arguments there, too. So now he does mostly real estate, wills and estates, and contract law. (Yet in just those few weeks of paid internship as a non-attorney he made more money than in his first year of being an attorney.)
The case with Gnam above is not nearly as serious as others, even compared to examples of other Watchtower lawyers in the U.S. But I don't condone such dishonesty, even in small amounts. In my opinion Mr. David Gnam is dishonest here, and therefore a wrongdoer, and very likely an unrepentant wrongdoer. I don't think he should be disbarred, but he should not be used by the Watchtower Society in any way unless he is ready to be honest.

That is applicable to any christian religion that follows the bible.... not just JWs.... the bible says you will die if you do not obey jehovah. Adam is in Gehenna and Satan and his demons will soon follow.. They obviously do not like what jehovah has to say, so they become victims.  They promote the idea of victimhood! Soon 'authorities' will scrutinize JWs for this view because this new victimhood culture is everywhere! Part of post modern philosophy. Everyone wants freedom with NO responsibility. Especially free morals.
Jehovah teaches freedom WITH much responsibility.  Everything you do - this can impact your neighbor.   Adultery, stealing, lying.... So, when you have a more developed conscience-  a more refined mature conscience.-  you will willingly obey all Jehovahs laws all the time because it not only benefits yourself but also blesses your neighbours.  You willingly exercise much self-control to not harm your neighbor because this is how a truly free society functions. Personal freedom with much personal responsibility. 
This concept was already built into the mosaic law - not to covet...... anything of your neighbor.  The person has to inspect themselves regularly to see if they covet anything their neighbour has, be it attention, love, good standing, a material thing.....Here the self-regulation manifests itself. 
But as we know - there are all those who are still immature, or those who think too much of their abilities.  I need not listen to anyone or show self-restraint...... and I do not like you telling me that I will die if I do not have an obedient personality..... that is all hogwash.... you just love to control......... These people have the audacity to even call jehovah a control-freek or a dictator.   They will help this world turn against all religion soon.... Those people without any law feel that religion is just a method to control people - they say. 
Jehovahs government under christ will allow much freedom because each person will be accountable to jehovah. Self-responsibility and self-control (willing obedience) will be crucial. All equal under perfect law driven by love for others. Jehovah will decide when the rebellious  get removed if they keep being rebellious. 
 

No. Sorry. I just highlighted some words of yours to get your attention. It does sort of look that I am attributing them to Glock, doesn’t it?
Do you mean they feared that if they left, Jehovah’s Witnesses would kill them?
When Fauci says people may die if they do not wear a mask, do people take it that he means to kill them himself? When the fire department says you may die if you don’t change the batteries of your smoke detector, does it mean they are going to do the deed themselves.
Of course not on all three. The game is too stupid to play. Such opposers are just upset that faith has power—they wish it were gutted. Of course, the Witnesses say that departing from Jehovah’s organized way exposes one to eventual death. A very good tell that such might be true is that whenever ones do it, in no time at all they come to think the Name itself is a hill of beans, and that it hardly matters if it is used or not.
 
 

Anyone who has thought about society knows that peer pressure is everywhere. At work, any club, in groups of friends, gangs - everywhere you go there is some form of peer pressure …to be accepted, even to have the image of being free in a so-called group where everyone follows their own desires, even there, there is is peer pressure - that of appearance of conforming to the image. 
How did Hitler become so powerful?  Radio propaganda and peer pressure.  Why did people follow orders ?  Peer pressure made them kill others... against their natural instinct.  So peer pressure can be a good thing or bad.  So when people say peer pressure to conform to good standards is brutal.... then you know what you are dealing with. 
Several experiments were done in the 1950s due to the Hitler era.  They are on Youtube. One experiment was about the amount of pain a person would inflict on others if ordered by authority to do so. Another experiment I recall was also interesting:  A group of people were in on the experiment. One candidate was brought in to choose the shortest line among many.  Others in the (informed) group all chose the wrong ones and vocally said so... eventually the person went against his own (correct) conviction and chose the wrong answer because most of the others had chosen it...
Why I say the governments are so evil now is because of all the secret experiments they have done on crowd control, mind control and social engineering.  They are manipulating internet to get people to think how they want you to think.  (conspiracy)? 
There are many historical documentaries online that show how the government used the Nazis (dr. Mengele types - they secretly brought them to America - operation paperclip - and here these Nazis received positions, new names) Their compromised consciences allowed them to further their research on mind control...and many programs were started which were in secret. MKULTRA was one of these programs.  These psychological research/brutal experiments ( done in secret) is only now surfacing with the release of old documents. 
That is why we are now in a time when they will manipulate everyone to do their bidding and only those with very strong faith will survive.  I have read about the use of frequencies etc to stimulate certain parts of the brain etc. They will use this in future as well.  Jehovah will have to step in.  All I know is - this world is totally evil and many vulnerable people were experimented on in USA and Canada without their knowledge  (so-called countries with human rights).  Some of the things they did to these people are shocking!
Better to have a little peer pressure to do the right thing than peer pressure to worship the state.  China has got all the technology to do this now and most citizens dare not speak out, even if they do not agree with what is going on.  CCP  used to hide this from foreigners in their midst but it is totally out in the open now.  everyone has to bow to their will.
So for those here who have a problem with peer pressure - your own desires to be accepted bring on the peer pressure. If you are a natural rebel, then you will also have a problem because in broader society you will have issues - except with immediate family.  Now the state is starting to attack family structure as well.  if they break this - you will have no support system.
The hunger and food shortages coming (due to extended lock-down) will make people conform even further - to get food.... you may not be able to buy and sell?  Let us see first what kind of new economic fedcoin, yuancoin, blockchain coin, or whatever digital system will arise in place of petro-dollar. The bank of international settlements, world bank, IMF etc will come up with something......

A lot of them a kind of stupid—I doubt that will happen.

I clicked. I thought this line was especially funny:
"That evening I prepared a protest sign: “Zenobia Lives!” but then I realized there would be no convention to carry it to."
It hadn't occurred to me that apostates will no longer have a venue to carry their messages. I hope that none of them discover the Internet.

Tell me about it. I had a real crush on her.
”And Zenob’s the name of his latest flame”
 

I will mourn her loss of prophetic fulfillment. Women in the role of "Kings of the South" will now be "scarce as hen's teeth." What's "sauce for the gander should have been sauce for the goose," I always thought. But now "this bird has flown" south, I presume, for the winter of my discontent.
And speaking of hen's teeth, (definition), I will miss the type of writing she inspired. How many articles can you think of that were written in a way to make ancient history so interesting, and toothsome, and colorful? Like the Watchtower article below:
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1999046
“The Dark-Haired Mistress of the Syrian Wild”
HER complexion was olive, her teeth pearly white, her eyes black and lustrous. She was well-educated and was a proficient linguist. This warrior queen was said to be greater in intellect than Cleopatra and perhaps equally beautiful. Because she dared to stand up to the dominant world power of her day, she fulfilled a prophetic role in a Scriptural drama. After she was long-dead, writers praised her, and painters idealized her. A 19th-century poet portrayed her as “the dark-haired mistress of the Syrian wild.” This highly acclaimed woman was Zenobia—queen of the Syrian city of Palmyra.
How did Zenobia gain prominence? What was the political climate that led to her rise to power? What can be said of her character? And what prophetic role did this queen fulfill? Consider first the geographic setting in which the drama unfolds.
. . . . With her colorful personality, Zenobia won the admiration of many.
[A-lass and a-lack* and ...A-hem? I would have pleated that we not skirt this personality as the system pants on to the end, and finally unfolds to its clothes.]
*See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alack_and_alas where the etymology has nothing to do with a lack of a lass (female sweetheart).
Someone messaged me once a couple years ago to tell me that these puns don't translate into their native language. Thus, these links and footnotes to show that they also don't really translate well into English or into Humor, either.

The GB makes mistakes. “Stay Loyal With Queen Zenobia and Obi Wan Kenobia!” some traveling overseers were parroting—they got it right from HQ!. She came crashing to the ground yesterday with no one to mourn her—with no one to say “Too bad, too bad, you great hen!” What a flip-flop to treat the old girl with such disrespect! How can God not be displeased?
 

I defend them as elders who are taking on a huge responsibility in leading some major efforts to distribute Bibles and Bible-based publications around the world to fellow Witnesses and for non-Witnesses, too. I do not defend them as the equivalent of "the faithful and discreet slave." That, to me, and perhaps even according to the words of Brother Jackson of the GB, is a pretty presumptuous and haughty assumption, therefore not in keeping with being faithful and discreet. I am making an assumption that this is a serious error, but it does not discredit all the work they do. It's just a mistake of interpretation. The GB admit that this will sometimes happen. Jesus' anointed disciples made serious mistakes too. And not that this is an excuse, but we see it did not disqualify the work and zeal they showed. Remember how Apollos was zealous and aglow with the spirit, even though he was only acquainted with John's baptism. He even "gave himself" an assignment to go over into Achaia, and Priscilla and Aquila supported it fully.
(Acts 18:24-27) . . .Now a Jew named A·polʹlos, a native of Alexandria, arrived in Ephʹe·sus; he was an eloquent man who was well-versed in the Scriptures. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of Jehovah, and aglow with the spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things about Jesus, but he was acquainted only with the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, and when Pris·cilʹla and Aqʹui·la heard him, they took him into their company and explained the way of God more accurately to him. 27 Further, because he wanted to go across to A·chaʹia, the brothers wrote to the disciples, urging them to receive him kindly. So when he got there, he greatly helped those who through God’s undeserved kindness had become believers;
Where testing the scriptures shows me that the GB are right, I support them fully. But I'm also a bit outspoken if I think they might be wrong.
I have a feeling that you are too quick to jump on any place where someone finds a reason not to support a specific teaching of the GB, and you want to explode that into proof that the GB are completely wrong on all things, when we are talking about very few things out of hundreds of perfectly good interpretations.
You recently asked about a translation issue where I think that the great majority of the 700 verses that were translated with the "prove to be" construct in the NWT were unnecessary, and some potentially misleading -but not linguistically wrong. But this is a translator's choice, and it was used to create a certain gravitas or "sacred" sound, much like quoting the KJV today gives a kind of gravitas or "sacred" sound when used in a sermon of otherwise modern English. (The NWT got rid of 85% of these "prove-to-be" constructs in 2013.)
But how quick would you be to jump on other translators who make translation choices? (Some other translators even made the same [prove-to-be] choice for the "causative" verb rendering in some of the same places found in the NWT.) In reading Joel in the NET version, for example, there are multiple footnotes that admit that words were added that were not in the Hebrew. For example, the note on Joel 2:25:
(Joel 2:25, NET) I will make up for the years1  that the ‘arbeh-locust2  consumed your crops3 
The footnote for "3" says:
3 tn The term “your crops” does not appear in the Hebrew, but has been supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity and smoothness.
They simply added a couple of words to the Bible. In reality, nearly every verse is filled with choices for the translators. Just three verses earlier, it appears that they made a choice that I would disagree with:
(Joel 2:22, NET) Do not fear, wild animals!1  For the pastures of the wilderness are again green with grass.
The footnote says:
1 tn Heb “beasts of the field.”
For me, "beasts of the field," the literal Hebrew, was much more appropriate, because this is especially addressing the problem of animals that pasture, like sheep, goats, and cattle, which are often domesticated beasts. "Wild beasts" might be more consistent with how the NET translated the term elsewhere, but it gives the idea that it includes wild lions and bears and hyenas, for example. This particular choice can therefore end up being misleading. I don't know if I mentioned it before, but I took four years (7 semesters) of Hebrew in college, and I really love this kind of nerdy nit-picking when it comes to translation choices. But it's not that I think it's terribly important in the long run. It's not the kind of "adding to" and "taking away" from the words of a scroll that Revelation warns against.

All that repetition by JB about how the GB could be "taken out" either by God directly or through the hands of humans (and that it would happen sooner or later) was probably interpreted by some here as a semi-veiled threat. I remember exactly what you said at the time, and never took it as all that threatening. But someone did. Perhaps more than one person. And the action taken in removing JB was probably made at an admin level, not by any of those who might volunteer as moderators. I would not have thought you should be kicked out, but a website owner probably could face some kind of legal scrutiny if someone carried through on a threat, and they had let such talk go on.
Personally, I don't want anyone thrown out of here. There are many things I don't like about the content of several of your posts, but I'm sure there are things you don't like about mine, too. I can't believe all those "laughing" emojis I get from you are given because you think I am saying something comedic, especially when it's little more than a scripture quote that you appear to be laughing at.

I defend them as elders who are taking on a huge responsibility in leading some major efforts to distribute Bibles and Bible-based publications around the world to fellow Witnesses and for non-Witnesses, too. I do not defend them as the equivalent of "the faithful and discreet slave." That, to me, and perhaps even according to the words of Brother Jackson of the GB, is a pretty presumptuous and haughty assumption, therefore not in keeping with being faithful and discreet. I am making an assumption that this is a serious error, but it does not discredit all the work they do. It's just a mistake of interpretation. The GB admit that this will sometimes happen. Jesus' anointed disciples made serious mistakes too. And not that this is an excuse, but we see it did not disqualify the work and zeal they showed. Remember how Apollos was zealous and aglow with the spirit, even though he was only acquainted with John's baptism. He even "gave himself" an assignment to go over into Achaia, and Priscilla and Aquila supported it fully.
(Acts 18:24-27) . . .Now a Jew named A·polʹlos, a native of Alexandria, arrived in Ephʹe·sus; he was an eloquent man who was well-versed in the Scriptures. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of Jehovah, and aglow with the spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things about Jesus, but he was acquainted only with the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, and when Pris·cilʹla and Aqʹui·la heard him, they took him into their company and explained the way of God more accurately to him. 27 Further, because he wanted to go across to A·chaʹia, the brothers wrote to the disciples, urging them to receive him kindly. So when he got there, he greatly helped those who through God’s undeserved kindness had become believers;
Where testing the scriptures shows me that the GB are right, I support them fully. But I'm also a bit outspoken if I think they might be wrong.
I have a feeling that you are too quick to jump on any place where someone finds a reason not to support a specific teaching of the GB, and you want to explode that into proof that the GB are completely wrong on all things, when we are talking about very few things out of hundreds of perfectly good interpretations.
You recently asked about a translation issue where I think that the great majority of the 700 verses that were translated with the "prove to be" construct in the NWT were unnecessary, and some potentially misleading -but not linguistically wrong. But this is a translator's choice, and it was used to create a certain gravitas or "sacred" sound, much like quoting the KJV today gives a kind of gravitas or "sacred" sound when used in a sermon of otherwise modern English. (The NWT got rid of 85% of these "prove-to-be" constructs in 2013.)
But how quick would you be to jump on other translators who make translation choices? (Some other translators even made the same [prove-to-be] choice for the "causative" verb rendering in some of the same places found in the NWT.) In reading Joel in the NET version, for example, there are multiple footnotes that admit that words were added that were not in the Hebrew. For example, the note on Joel 2:25:
(Joel 2:25, NET) I will make up for the years1  that the ‘arbeh-locust2  consumed your crops3 
The footnote for "3" says:
3 tn The term “your crops” does not appear in the Hebrew, but has been supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity and smoothness.
They simply added a couple of words to the Bible. In reality, nearly every verse is filled with choices for the translators. Just three verses earlier, it appears that they made a choice that I would disagree with:
(Joel 2:22, NET) Do not fear, wild animals!1  For the pastures of the wilderness are again green with grass.
The footnote says:
1 tn Heb “beasts of the field.”
For me, "beasts of the field," the literal Hebrew, was much more appropriate, because this is especially addressing the problem of animals that pasture, like sheep, goats, and cattle, which are often domesticated beasts. "Wild beasts" might be more consistent with how the NET translated the term elsewhere, but it gives the idea that it includes wild lions and bears and hyenas, for example. This particular choice can therefore end up being misleading. I don't know if I mentioned it before, but I took four years (7 semesters) of Hebrew in college, and I really love this kind of nerdy nit-picking when it comes to translation choices. But it's not that I think it's terribly important in the long run. It's not the kind of "adding to" and "taking away" from the words of a scroll that Revelation warns against.

You mean the wife whom you said deserves sainthood for putting up with you? Give her a flower from me, also, will you?
Maybe @Araunadid not—she’s sort of lazy—but I did. Eight and a half million of them, I asked every one of them, it took all afternoon—just so I would have an answer for you.
You blasted idiot! Don’t sin! Put yourself somewhere that you will be aided not to sin. Put yourself somewhere that you can get your head around just how the ransom of God’s son works. Put yourself somewhere that you can appreciate how Paul can say ‘what I wish to do, I do not do,‘ and yet still say that he has run the race to the finish.
Spurning God’s free gift, are you? Stop doing that! Life was horrible? I won’t challenge that. Yet, what does the Word say of God’s promise? “The former things will not be called to mind.” Where’s the faith?! Even the most horrible nightmare people do not retain in their conscous mind. God cannot do even more than that? If nothing else, your long-suffering wife deserves to see you healed up.
You are a piece of work, 4Jah. You know you are. That does not mean that I am not, as with most others here, and everywhere else. It’s the human reality—a condition of the fallen flesh. Drop this ridiculous obsession against the GB and make peace with the earthly organization. Whatever it takes. It sure doesn’t appear that Witness’s FB page is helping you any, nor her upcoming project to quote the entire book of Jeremiah for the purpose of demonstrating that her rivals suck.

All that repetition by JB about how the GB could be "taken out" either by God directly or through the hands of humans (and that it would happen sooner or later) was probably interpreted by some here as a semi-veiled threat. I remember exactly what you said at the time, and never took it as all that threatening. But someone did. Perhaps more than one person. And the action taken in removing JB was probably made at an admin level, not by any of those who might volunteer as moderators. I would not have thought you should be kicked out, but a website owner probably could face some kind of legal scrutiny if someone carried through on a threat, and they had let such talk go on.
Personally, I don't want anyone thrown out of here. There are many things I don't like about the content of several of your posts, but I'm sure there are things you don't like about mine, too. I can't believe all those "laughing" emojis I get from you are given because you think I am saying something comedic, especially when it's little more than a scripture quote that you appear to be laughing at.

All that repetition by JB about how the GB could be "taken out" either by God directly or through the hands of humans (and that it would happen sooner or later) was probably interpreted by some here as a semi-veiled threat. I remember exactly what you said at the time, and never took it as all that threatening. But someone did. Perhaps more than one person. And the action taken in removing JB was probably made at an admin level, not by any of those who might volunteer as moderators. I would not have thought you should be kicked out, but a website owner probably could face some kind of legal scrutiny if someone carried through on a threat, and they had let such talk go on.
Personally, I don't want anyone thrown out of here. There are many things I don't like about the content of several of your posts, but I'm sure there are things you don't like about mine, too. I can't believe all those "laughing" emojis I get from you are given because you think I am saying something comedic, especially when it's little more than a scripture quote that you appear to be laughing at.

All that repetition by JB about how the GB could be "taken out" either by God directly or through the hands of humans (and that it would happen sooner or later) was probably interpreted by some here as a semi-veiled threat. I remember exactly what you said at the time, and never took it as all that threatening. But someone did. Perhaps more than one person. And the action taken in removing JB was probably made at an admin level, not by any of those who might volunteer as moderators. I would not have thought you should be kicked out, but a website owner probably could face some kind of legal scrutiny if someone carried through on a threat, and they had let such talk go on.
Personally, I don't want anyone thrown out of here. There are many things I don't like about the content of several of your posts, but I'm sure there are things you don't like about mine, too. I can't believe all those "laughing" emojis I get from you are given because you think I am saying something comedic, especially when it's little more than a scripture quote that you appear to be laughing at.

Not exactly. Translation of ancient languages is an art. A lot of choices are based on context. I suppose we could get an online literal word for word translation that additionally has a pulldown menu when a specific word can mean 10 different things, and it could provide the thousands of choices for how to handle idioms and phrases that can change a bit based on context.
And, as Arauna mentioned, the causative (or reflexive resultative) can be translated with "prove to be . . ." The NWT is not the only translation that used this, although most other translators use it much more cautiously, because it can imply something in modern English that is not implied in the actual causative construction. In fact, one of those things it can imply is "proof" and yet it has nothing to do with the word "proof." That is why I brought it up here.
It is often appropriate in giving a certain importance to something that a person of power and prestige might say that is not so appropriate for the average person. And yet it is exactly the same verb construct for both, and consistency in a literal translation should acknowledge this. Also, there is always a certain amount of bias in any translation, and sometimes this bias is good, but even if the bias is in the right direction, it is still better to be as "neutral" as the original language was. If it's important to explain a certain bias in what it means, that can be done through teaching or commentaries.
A person, like Jehovah, with a self-directed purpose, actually means "I will prove to be," in the fullest implication of the words, when He says "I shall be." As a kid, I was once in a convention drama where a character kept telling another character, in a Captain Picard fashion, "May it prove to be so!" It was all pre-recorded, of course, but it was clear that it was more often used for "authority" because it has a more profound sound to it. For Jehovah, and for prophets speaking in his name, it still seems appropriate. And, as Arauna said, it is appropriate for Jehovah's use of ehyeh because Jehovah makes/conducts/reveals himself to display his qualities. This is why the Zondervan NET Bible (Full Notes Edition) has the following for Psalm 18:25 (and 2 Samuel 22):

Note E says:

 

Not exactly. Translation of ancient languages is an art. A lot of choices are based on context. I suppose we could get an online literal word for word translation that additionally has a pulldown menu when a specific word can mean 10 different things, and it could provide the thousands of choices for how to handle idioms and phrases that can change a bit based on context.
And, as Arauna mentioned, the causative (or reflexive resultative) can be translated with "prove to be . . ." The NWT is not the only translation that used this, although most other translators use it much more cautiously, because it can imply something in modern English that is not implied in the actual causative construction. In fact, one of those things it can imply is "proof" and yet it has nothing to do with the word "proof." That is why I brought it up here.
It is often appropriate in giving a certain importance to something that a person of power and prestige might say that is not so appropriate for the average person. And yet it is exactly the same verb construct for both, and consistency in a literal translation should acknowledge this. Also, there is always a certain amount of bias in any translation, and sometimes this bias is good, but even if the bias is in the right direction, it is still better to be as "neutral" as the original language was. If it's important to explain a certain bias in what it means, that can be done through teaching or commentaries.
A person, like Jehovah, with a self-directed purpose, actually means "I will prove to be," in the fullest implication of the words, when He says "I shall be." As a kid, I was once in a convention drama where a character kept telling another character, in a Captain Picard fashion, "May it prove to be so!" It was all pre-recorded, of course, but it was clear that it was more often used for "authority" because it has a more profound sound to it. For Jehovah, and for prophets speaking in his name, it still seems appropriate. And, as Arauna said, it is appropriate for Jehovah's use of ehyeh because Jehovah makes/conducts/reveals himself to display his qualities. This is why the Zondervan NET Bible (Full Notes Edition) has the following for Psalm 18:25 (and 2 Samuel 22):

Note E says:

 

Not exactly. Translation of ancient languages is an art. A lot of choices are based on context. I suppose we could get an online literal word for word translation that additionally has a pulldown menu when a specific word can mean 10 different things, and it could provide the thousands of choices for how to handle idioms and phrases that can change a bit based on context.
And, as Arauna mentioned, the causative (or reflexive resultative) can be translated with "prove to be . . ." The NWT is not the only translation that used this, although most other translators use it much more cautiously, because it can imply something in modern English that is not implied in the actual causative construction. In fact, one of those things it can imply is "proof" and yet it has nothing to do with the word "proof." That is why I brought it up here.
It is often appropriate in giving a certain importance to something that a person of power and prestige might say that is not so appropriate for the average person. And yet it is exactly the same verb construct for both, and consistency in a literal translation should acknowledge this. Also, there is always a certain amount of bias in any translation, and sometimes this bias is good, but even if the bias is in the right direction, it is still better to be as "neutral" as the original language was. If it's important to explain a certain bias in what it means, that can be done through teaching or commentaries.
A person, like Jehovah, with a self-directed purpose, actually means "I will prove to be," in the fullest implication of the words, when He says "I shall be." As a kid, I was once in a convention drama where a character kept telling another character, in a Captain Picard fashion, "May it prove to be so!" It was all pre-recorded, of course, but it was clear that it was more often used for "authority" because it has a more profound sound to it. For Jehovah, and for prophets speaking in his name, it still seems appropriate. And, as Arauna said, it is appropriate for Jehovah's use of ehyeh because Jehovah makes/conducts/reveals himself to display his qualities. This is why the Zondervan NET Bible (Full Notes Edition) has the following for Psalm 18:25 (and 2 Samuel 22):

Note E says:

 

And if you look at the NWT for related words, you will see something of further interest. In the related words below, the first number is the frequency in the pre-2013 NWT, and the second number is the NWT (revised).
prove 360/57, proved 273/30, proven 0/0, proves 23/1, proving 20/7 proof 21/8, proofs 2/1
for a total of 699 "proof" words, reduced to only 104. A drop of "7 times."
Except for the word "proof(s)" itself, the vast majority of these terms are carryovers from a favorite verb construction credited to F.W.Franz, apparently because he wanted to translate Jehovah's use of "ehyeh" to Moses with "I will prove to be" rather than just "I am." So to be consistent, he sometimes even took mundane phrases similar to "I will speak" and translated them as "I will prove to be speaking."
In other words, Jesus never says "prove yourselves cautious as serpents" he just said "be cautious as serpents."
Jesus never said: "On this account, prove yourselves ready," he just said "On this account, be ready."
And Jesus didn't say: ". . . prove yourselves my disciples," he just said ". . .you shall be my disciples." (Although in this last case the full construction is: "My Father is glorified in that you are bearing much fruit and [so that?] you shall be my disciples." So a translator might be justified in either adding the word "true" to disciples, or using "prove to be" because of the probable implication of the entire construction where the usual word for "and" can sometimes imply "so that.")
Although 600 of the 700 verb constructions were dropped in 2013, there was no real reason to keep the other 100 as carryovers, either. It was mostly a quirk of the old NWT where it gave an important "sound" to the phrase, but with very few times when it translated the true meaning of the verse. That's why in current Bible reading, the revised NWT simply removes the following cases of "prove" or "prove to" and just leaves it as "be."
(Exodus 10:7) . . . After that Pharʹaoh’s servants said to him: “How long will this man prove to be as a snare to us? . . .
(Exodus 12:5)  The sheep should prove to be sound, a male, a year old, for YOU. . . .
(Exodus 16:5) . . .And it must occur on the sixth day that they must prepare what they will bring in, and it must prove double what they keep picking up day by day.”

And if you look at the NWT for related words, you will see something of further interest. In the related words below, the first number is the frequency in the pre-2013 NWT, and the second number is the NWT (revised).
prove 360/57, proved 273/30, proven 0/0, proves 23/1, proving 20/7 proof 21/8, proofs 2/1
for a total of 699 "proof" words, reduced to only 104. A drop of "7 times."
Except for the word "proof(s)" itself, the vast majority of these terms are carryovers from a favorite verb construction credited to F.W.Franz, apparently because he wanted to translate Jehovah's use of "ehyeh" to Moses with "I will prove to be" rather than just "I am." So to be consistent, he sometimes even took mundane phrases similar to "I will speak" and translated them as "I will prove to be speaking."
In other words, Jesus never says "prove yourselves cautious as serpents" he just said "be cautious as serpents."
Jesus never said: "On this account, prove yourselves ready," he just said "On this account, be ready."
And Jesus didn't say: ". . . prove yourselves my disciples," he just said ". . .you shall be my disciples." (Although in this last case the full construction is: "My Father is glorified in that you are bearing much fruit and [so that?] you shall be my disciples." So a translator might be justified in either adding the word "true" to disciples, or using "prove to be" because of the probable implication of the entire construction where the usual word for "and" can sometimes imply "so that.")
Although 600 of the 700 verb constructions were dropped in 2013, there was no real reason to keep the other 100 as carryovers, either. It was mostly a quirk of the old NWT where it gave an important "sound" to the phrase, but with very few times when it translated the true meaning of the verse. That's why in current Bible reading, the revised NWT simply removes the following cases of "prove" or "prove to" and just leaves it as "be."
(Exodus 10:7) . . . After that Pharʹaoh’s servants said to him: “How long will this man prove to be as a snare to us? . . .
(Exodus 12:5)  The sheep should prove to be sound, a male, a year old, for YOU. . . .
(Exodus 16:5) . . .And it must occur on the sixth day that they must prepare what they will bring in, and it must prove double what they keep picking up day by day.”

And if you look at the NWT for related words, you will see something of further interest. In the related words below, the first number is the frequency in the pre-2013 NWT, and the second number is the NWT (revised).
prove 360/57, proved 273/30, proven 0/0, proves 23/1, proving 20/7 proof 21/8, proofs 2/1
for a total of 699 "proof" words, reduced to only 104. A drop of "7 times."
Except for the word "proof(s)" itself, the vast majority of these terms are carryovers from a favorite verb construction credited to F.W.Franz, apparently because he wanted to translate Jehovah's use of "ehyeh" to Moses with "I will prove to be" rather than just "I am." So to be consistent, he sometimes even took mundane phrases similar to "I will speak" and translated them as "I will prove to be speaking."
In other words, Jesus never says "prove yourselves cautious as serpents" he just said "be cautious as serpents."
Jesus never said: "On this account, prove yourselves ready," he just said "On this account, be ready."
And Jesus didn't say: ". . . prove yourselves my disciples," he just said ". . .you shall be my disciples." (Although in this last case the full construction is: "My Father is glorified in that you are bearing much fruit and [so that?] you shall be my disciples." So a translator might be justified in either adding the word "true" to disciples, or using "prove to be" because of the probable implication of the entire construction where the usual word for "and" can sometimes imply "so that.")
Although 600 of the 700 verb constructions were dropped in 2013, there was no real reason to keep the other 100 as carryovers, either. It was mostly a quirk of the old NWT where it gave an important "sound" to the phrase, but with very few times when it translated the true meaning of the verse. That's why in current Bible reading, the revised NWT simply removes the following cases of "prove" or "prove to" and just leaves it as "be."
(Exodus 10:7) . . . After that Pharʹaoh’s servants said to him: “How long will this man prove to be as a snare to us? . . .
(Exodus 12:5)  The sheep should prove to be sound, a male, a year old, for YOU. . . .
(Exodus 16:5) . . .And it must occur on the sixth day that they must prepare what they will bring in, and it must prove double what they keep picking up day by day.”

And if you look at the NWT for related words, you will see something of further interest. In the related words below, the first number is the frequency in the pre-2013 NWT, and the second number is the NWT (revised).
prove 360/57, proved 273/30, proven 0/0, proves 23/1, proving 20/7 proof 21/8, proofs 2/1
for a total of 699 "proof" words, reduced to only 104. A drop of "7 times."
Except for the word "proof(s)" itself, the vast majority of these terms are carryovers from a favorite verb construction credited to F.W.Franz, apparently because he wanted to translate Jehovah's use of "ehyeh" to Moses with "I will prove to be" rather than just "I am." So to be consistent, he sometimes even took mundane phrases similar to "I will speak" and translated them as "I will prove to be speaking."
In other words, Jesus never says "prove yourselves cautious as serpents" he just said "be cautious as serpents."
Jesus never said: "On this account, prove yourselves ready," he just said "On this account, be ready."
And Jesus didn't say: ". . . prove yourselves my disciples," he just said ". . .you shall be my disciples." (Although in this last case the full construction is: "My Father is glorified in that you are bearing much fruit and [so that?] you shall be my disciples." So a translator might be justified in either adding the word "true" to disciples, or using "prove to be" because of the probable implication of the entire construction where the usual word for "and" can sometimes imply "so that.")
Although 600 of the 700 verb constructions were dropped in 2013, there was no real reason to keep the other 100 as carryovers, either. It was mostly a quirk of the old NWT where it gave an important "sound" to the phrase, but with very few times when it translated the true meaning of the verse. That's why in current Bible reading, the revised NWT simply removes the following cases of "prove" or "prove to" and just leaves it as "be."
(Exodus 10:7) . . . After that Pharʹaoh’s servants said to him: “How long will this man prove to be as a snare to us? . . .
(Exodus 12:5)  The sheep should prove to be sound, a male, a year old, for YOU. . . .
(Exodus 16:5) . . .And it must occur on the sixth day that they must prepare what they will bring in, and it must prove double what they keep picking up day by day.”

Yes. That is the point. And it was not just the statement about Covid19 that I was responding to in the speech, even though it was the only example I focused on.
If an example of good guidance proves that Jehovah is with the GB, then someone could just as easily point out that examples of bad guidance must be proof that Jehovah is not with the GB. Most of us who have been Witnesses over a long period of time will recall how a continuing theme of our meetings, especially the book study, for years had always been about how examples of bad guidance in Christendom is proof that they are being guided only by Satan. This can result in the same hypocrisy. But worse, it can make brothers, like the speaker above, feel that he must try to hide negative information away from the average Witness who can't face anything negative. It has made brothers like him in responsible positions try to declare that false doctrines had a good purpose in the past to filter out those who were weak. (This has been done for several of the big falsehoods like 1925, superior authorities, 1975 expectations, etc.)
If it ends up making us call what is good, bad, and what is bad, good, then we should point that out.

I haven't really changed my mind on the original position either, but if more Glockentin-style utilization appears, I will think its use has evolved. NOT necessarily that it was the original intention. I fear that we are discussing a very narrow "improper" usage of the topic among a much larger and obvious "proper" usage of the example. If I don't respond fully, it's because I think some will just become more confused in thinking that this is a complete rejection of the usefulness of the excellent counsel and leadership of the GB and their response over Covid-19.