JW Insider

Very new aspect for me too. By this i would say how WT Society and JW org application about Matt 24 and many events or "signs" that people can see in very visible and factual way have another meaning. Because, Announcing how The year 1914 and The Kingdom as Heavenly Invisible Fact with Physical and Earthly "evidences" visible to eyes, that making entering in some Special period for human, is Preaching Error.   
Perhaps Matt 24 is possible to use for 1914, as for many other periods in Human History. But Establishing of Kingdom (in 1914??) is not possible to support by "signs", because of reasoning Jesus has told, as you very well pointed out. 

Whoops, I deleted that comment prior to your response, and can't put it back. But in order for yours to make sense, it was this:
JTR: When TheWorldNewsOrg guy (or gal) makes a post it's rarely about JWs or in a category about JWs.

Whoops, I deleted that comment prior to your response, and can't put it back. But in order for yours to make sense, it was this:
JTR: When TheWorldNewsOrg guy (or gal) makes a post it's rarely about JWs or in a category about JWs.

Even on this forum, when anyone brings up what the Watchtower publications said about expectations for 1881, 1910, 1915, 1918, 1925, 1970's, 2000, we sometimes hear an excuse like: "Can we really be blamed for having tried to put a time frame on the time of the end? After all, don't we hear about the disciples in Acts 1:6 asking if Jesus is going to restore the Kingdom to Israel at this time?"
What makes this particular excuse troubling is that we don't expect anointed elders, or Governing Body members say that they believe they should be in a better position than other anointed ones when they are in heaven, perhaps even in a position much closer to Jesus himself. Yet can they really be blamed if they tried to do that? After all, the disciples themselves appeared to have involved themselves in such jockeying for position:
(Matthew 20:20-22) . . .Then the mother of the sons of Zebʹe·dee approached him with her sons, doing obeisance and asking for something from him. 21 He said to her: “What do you want?” She replied to him: “Give the word that these two sons of mine may sit down, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your Kingdom.” 22 Jesus answered: “You do not know what you are asking for. Can you drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They said to him: “We can.”
And of course, Jesus knew it wasn't just the mother asking which is why he addressed the two disciples themselves. But notice that the answer contains a mild rebuke when Jesus says that this is not even his to give, but it is in the Father's jurisdiction:
(Matthew 20:23) . . .but to sit down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
Similarly, Acts 1:7 contains a similar mild rebuke to the question about the time period for end-time events:
(Acts 1:7) 7 He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction.
And of course, similarly, when Jesus' disciples asked him when the temple walls were going to fall, and they asked Jesus to give them a sign for when it would occur, Jesus didn't start out with a time frame, but created a context, starting out with the words:
(Matthew 24:4) 4 In answer Jesus said to them: “Look out that nobody misleads you,
(Mark 13:5) . . .So Jesus began to tell them: “Look out that nobody misleads you.
(Luke 21:8) He said: “Look out that you are not misled,. . .
There is plenty of variation in the details each gospel writer chose to report, but they all agree that these were the very first words out his mouth. And of course, some also emphasize the same "mild rebuke" that we see in Acts 1:7.
(Matthew 24:36) . . .“Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.
(Mark 13:32) 32 “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father.
In fact, Luke includes some of Jesus' words from the Mount of Olives "Sermon" as words that Jesus had already told the Pharisees, when they also asked him "when the Kingdom of God was coming." (Luke 17:20). Jesus response was very clear, that it would not be by things they could observe, not by physical signs.
(Luke 17:20, NLT) One day the Pharisees asked Jesus, “When will the Kingdom of God come?” Jesus replied, “The Kingdom of God can’t be detected by visible signs. "
That's not only a perfectly good translation, it fits exactly what Jesus repeatedly said about persons looking for signs. 
(Matthew 12:39) . . .“A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Joʹnah the prophet.
(Matthew 16:4) 4 A wicked and adulterous generation keeps seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Joʹnah.”. . .
(Mark 8:12) . . .So he sighed deeply in his spirit and said: “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly I say, no sign will be given to this generation.”
This appears to be the same clear reason why Paul could say:
(1 Thessalonians 5:1) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you.
This wouldn't have meant that they couldn't tell that they were already living in revolutionary, troublesome times, hard to deal with, and this should have made it clear that they should be ready at any time for something to happen within their own lifetimes. The biggest evidence that the end of all things was upon them was that Jesus had now already been in their midst performing miracles. But thinking they needed another sign to know that they had to be always ready might just be an indication of a "wicked" inclination. Jesus' disciples wanted a sign to warn them in advance when the walls of the temple were going to fall. Was it going to be in their lifetime? Could they continue to use the temple today? tomorrow? next week? next year? Jesus said they didn't need to know the timing because the end would come as a surprise, when it would be too late to do anything about it. By the time they saw Jerusalem surrounded by Roman armies, it was time to flee. That probably didn't sound rational to them from a human standpoint, since you can't easily flee through an army that's surrounding you. 
I don't believe there is any way to tell whether there is supposed to be some exact parallel in a secondary application to these Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem, or perhaps standing in the holy place itself.  Obviously the GB has long believed that there must be some direct parallel, based originally on some of the old type-antitype traditions, and they are predicting a future scenario that appears to match the first century by drawing on Matthew & Luke and bits of Revelation, Daniel, Zechariah, Ezekiel, etc.
A good question might be whether predicting a future scenario becomes more probable because it can incorporate bits and pieces from several different Bible books, or does it become less probable because it has been built upon bits and pieces of several different Bible books from different contexts. I think we are therefore back to a question of our own trust in those "bragging rights" that make us feel that a higher measure of Jehovah's spirit direction (or inspiration) has been evident among the leadership of this organization.

Your plan might work a bit differently during a category 3+ hurricane. I think you are counting on the fact that Jehovah gets the indication of his presence across to us calmly without needing to blast us with signs:
(1 Kings 19:11, 12) 11 But He said: “Go out and stand on the mountain before Jehovah.” And look! Jehovah was passing by, and a great and strong wind was splitting mountains and breaking crags before Jehovah, but Jehovah was not in the wind. After the wind, there was an earthquake, but Jehovah was not in the earthquake. 12 After the earthquake, there was a fire, but Jehovah was not in the fire. After the fire, there was a calm, low voice.
Sorry, lost my sense of humor there for a minute.

Even on this forum, when anyone brings up what the Watchtower publications said about expectations for 1881, 1910, 1915, 1918, 1925, 1970's, 2000, we sometimes hear an excuse like: "Can we really be blamed for having tried to put a time frame on the time of the end? After all, don't we hear about the disciples in Acts 1:6 asking if Jesus is going to restore the Kingdom to Israel at this time?"
What makes this particular excuse troubling is that we don't expect anointed elders, or Governing Body members say that they believe they should be in a better position than other anointed ones when they are in heaven, perhaps even in a position much closer to Jesus himself. Yet can they really be blamed if they tried to do that? After all, the disciples themselves appeared to have involved themselves in such jockeying for position:
(Matthew 20:20-22) . . .Then the mother of the sons of Zebʹe·dee approached him with her sons, doing obeisance and asking for something from him. 21 He said to her: “What do you want?” She replied to him: “Give the word that these two sons of mine may sit down, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your Kingdom.” 22 Jesus answered: “You do not know what you are asking for. Can you drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They said to him: “We can.”
And of course, Jesus knew it wasn't just the mother asking which is why he addressed the two disciples themselves. But notice that the answer contains a mild rebuke when Jesus says that this is not even his to give, but it is in the Father's jurisdiction:
(Matthew 20:23) . . .but to sit down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
Similarly, Acts 1:7 contains a similar mild rebuke to the question about the time period for end-time events:
(Acts 1:7) 7 He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction.
And of course, similarly, when Jesus' disciples asked him when the temple walls were going to fall, and they asked Jesus to give them a sign for when it would occur, Jesus didn't start out with a time frame, but created a context, starting out with the words:
(Matthew 24:4) 4 In answer Jesus said to them: “Look out that nobody misleads you,
(Mark 13:5) . . .So Jesus began to tell them: “Look out that nobody misleads you.
(Luke 21:8) He said: “Look out that you are not misled,. . .
There is plenty of variation in the details each gospel writer chose to report, but they all agree that these were the very first words out his mouth. And of course, some also emphasize the same "mild rebuke" that we see in Acts 1:7.
(Matthew 24:36) . . .“Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.
(Mark 13:32) 32 “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father.
In fact, Luke includes some of Jesus' words from the Mount of Olives "Sermon" as words that Jesus had already told the Pharisees, when they also asked him "when the Kingdom of God was coming." (Luke 17:20). Jesus response was very clear, that it would not be by things they could observe, not by physical signs.
(Luke 17:20, NLT) One day the Pharisees asked Jesus, “When will the Kingdom of God come?” Jesus replied, “The Kingdom of God can’t be detected by visible signs. "
That's not only a perfectly good translation, it fits exactly what Jesus repeatedly said about persons looking for signs. 
(Matthew 12:39) . . .“A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Joʹnah the prophet.
(Matthew 16:4) 4 A wicked and adulterous generation keeps seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Joʹnah.”. . .
(Mark 8:12) . . .So he sighed deeply in his spirit and said: “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly I say, no sign will be given to this generation.”
This appears to be the same clear reason why Paul could say:
(1 Thessalonians 5:1) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you.
This wouldn't have meant that they couldn't tell that they were already living in revolutionary, troublesome times, hard to deal with, and this should have made it clear that they should be ready at any time for something to happen within their own lifetimes. The biggest evidence that the end of all things was upon them was that Jesus had now already been in their midst performing miracles. But thinking they needed another sign to know that they had to be always ready might just be an indication of a "wicked" inclination. Jesus' disciples wanted a sign to warn them in advance when the walls of the temple were going to fall. Was it going to be in their lifetime? Could they continue to use the temple today? tomorrow? next week? next year? Jesus said they didn't need to know the timing because the end would come as a surprise, when it would be too late to do anything about it. By the time they saw Jerusalem surrounded by Roman armies, it was time to flee. That probably didn't sound rational to them from a human standpoint, since you can't easily flee through an army that's surrounding you. 
I don't believe there is any way to tell whether there is supposed to be some exact parallel in a secondary application to these Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem, or perhaps standing in the holy place itself.  Obviously the GB has long believed that there must be some direct parallel, based originally on some of the old type-antitype traditions, and they are predicting a future scenario that appears to match the first century by drawing on Matthew & Luke and bits of Revelation, Daniel, Zechariah, Ezekiel, etc.
A good question might be whether predicting a future scenario becomes more probable because it can incorporate bits and pieces from several different Bible books, or does it become less probable because it has been built upon bits and pieces of several different Bible books from different contexts. I think we are therefore back to a question of our own trust in those "bragging rights" that make us feel that a higher measure of Jehovah's spirit direction (or inspiration) has been evident among the leadership of this organization.

...  stick your thumb in your mouth and blow hard until your fingers pop up straight, and wiggle ....

Even on this forum, when anyone brings up what the Watchtower publications said about expectations for 1881, 1910, 1915, 1918, 1925, 1970's, 2000, we sometimes hear an excuse like: "Can we really be blamed for having tried to put a time frame on the time of the end? After all, don't we hear about the disciples in Acts 1:6 asking if Jesus is going to restore the Kingdom to Israel at this time?"
What makes this particular excuse troubling is that we don't expect anointed elders, or Governing Body members say that they believe they should be in a better position than other anointed ones when they are in heaven, perhaps even in a position much closer to Jesus himself. Yet can they really be blamed if they tried to do that? After all, the disciples themselves appeared to have involved themselves in such jockeying for position:
(Matthew 20:20-22) . . .Then the mother of the sons of Zebʹe·dee approached him with her sons, doing obeisance and asking for something from him. 21 He said to her: “What do you want?” She replied to him: “Give the word that these two sons of mine may sit down, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your Kingdom.” 22 Jesus answered: “You do not know what you are asking for. Can you drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They said to him: “We can.”
And of course, Jesus knew it wasn't just the mother asking which is why he addressed the two disciples themselves. But notice that the answer contains a mild rebuke when Jesus says that this is not even his to give, but it is in the Father's jurisdiction:
(Matthew 20:23) . . .but to sit down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
Similarly, Acts 1:7 contains a similar mild rebuke to the question about the time period for end-time events:
(Acts 1:7) 7 He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction.
And of course, similarly, when Jesus' disciples asked him when the temple walls were going to fall, and they asked Jesus to give them a sign for when it would occur, Jesus didn't start out with a time frame, but created a context, starting out with the words:
(Matthew 24:4) 4 In answer Jesus said to them: “Look out that nobody misleads you,
(Mark 13:5) . . .So Jesus began to tell them: “Look out that nobody misleads you.
(Luke 21:8) He said: “Look out that you are not misled,. . .
There is plenty of variation in the details each gospel writer chose to report, but they all agree that these were the very first words out his mouth. And of course, some also emphasize the same "mild rebuke" that we see in Acts 1:7.
(Matthew 24:36) . . .“Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.
(Mark 13:32) 32 “Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father.
In fact, Luke includes some of Jesus' words from the Mount of Olives "Sermon" as words that Jesus had already told the Pharisees, when they also asked him "when the Kingdom of God was coming." (Luke 17:20). Jesus response was very clear, that it would not be by things they could observe, not by physical signs.
(Luke 17:20, NLT) One day the Pharisees asked Jesus, “When will the Kingdom of God come?” Jesus replied, “The Kingdom of God can’t be detected by visible signs. "
That's not only a perfectly good translation, it fits exactly what Jesus repeatedly said about persons looking for signs. 
(Matthew 12:39) . . .“A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Joʹnah the prophet.
(Matthew 16:4) 4 A wicked and adulterous generation keeps seeking a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Joʹnah.”. . .
(Mark 8:12) . . .So he sighed deeply in his spirit and said: “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly I say, no sign will be given to this generation.”
This appears to be the same clear reason why Paul could say:
(1 Thessalonians 5:1) . . .Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you.
This wouldn't have meant that they couldn't tell that they were already living in revolutionary, troublesome times, hard to deal with, and this should have made it clear that they should be ready at any time for something to happen within their own lifetimes. The biggest evidence that the end of all things was upon them was that Jesus had now already been in their midst performing miracles. But thinking they needed another sign to know that they had to be always ready might just be an indication of a "wicked" inclination. Jesus' disciples wanted a sign to warn them in advance when the walls of the temple were going to fall. Was it going to be in their lifetime? Could they continue to use the temple today? tomorrow? next week? next year? Jesus said they didn't need to know the timing because the end would come as a surprise, when it would be too late to do anything about it. By the time they saw Jerusalem surrounded by Roman armies, it was time to flee. That probably didn't sound rational to them from a human standpoint, since you can't easily flee through an army that's surrounding you. 
I don't believe there is any way to tell whether there is supposed to be some exact parallel in a secondary application to these Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem, or perhaps standing in the holy place itself.  Obviously the GB has long believed that there must be some direct parallel, based originally on some of the old type-antitype traditions, and they are predicting a future scenario that appears to match the first century by drawing on Matthew & Luke and bits of Revelation, Daniel, Zechariah, Ezekiel, etc.
A good question might be whether predicting a future scenario becomes more probable because it can incorporate bits and pieces from several different Bible books, or does it become less probable because it has been built upon bits and pieces of several different Bible books from different contexts. I think we are therefore back to a question of our own trust in those "bragging rights" that make us feel that a higher measure of Jehovah's spirit direction (or inspiration) has been evident among the leadership of this organization.

I think that one is excellent too. It follows the same general format of showing how the Bible answers the Big Question of how problems on earth will be solved through God's Kingdom. The angle of Truth and Trust in the Bible is the theme. Again, there is nothing stated in this magazine that should produce any unresolved questions. I believe even JTR would have to rate it somewhere near 100 percent useful, rather than his oft-repeated 15/85 rating.
I'm going to try not to get drawn into a 1914 discussion, at least not on this particular thread/topic. But I do understand what you are saying. I'm not sure how far back you are going, because even up to as recently as 2014, there were plenty of references that could have meant what you refer to.
The Isaiah 44/45 (Babylon-Cyrus) prophecy comes across as the most amazing prophecy to outsiders. It's simple, and it's used, of course, in the self-run free study on the JW.ORG website. The only persons for whom it would not work so well are those who believe that "Isaiah II" were chapters tacked onto the original book of Isaiah after the Babylonian exile.
If you listen closely to the Faith In Action -"Out of Darkness" Part 1 video, I think it's clear that Daniel's "prediction" of 1914 is a better example for "insiders." An outsider would have too many unresolved questions:
Most outsiders aren't into this idea that the Bible pinpoints dates for end-times prophecies. They would wonder why wicked Nebuchadnezzar's rulership pictures Jesus' Messianic rulership. They would wonder why we give it an additional application when the scripture itself explicitly says the application is to Nebuchadnezzar, and says nothing about an assumed second application. And they would wonder how we got 1914 from 7 times anyway. It doesn't even say 7 times are 7 years (that takes another scripture from a completely different context). And if it did mean 7 times were 7 years here, it doesn't say that those years were actually 360-day years, which also comes from its use in a different context. And if it did mean that 7 times were 360-day years, it doesn't say that those 7 times 360 have to each be multiplied again by 365.25. That's because the day-for-a-year idea also comes from a different context. And if they looked into it more deeply, they might wonder why we were forced to use a mix of secular dates for some events and pseudo-secular dates for some other events. Some of the dates we accept are the same as the secular dates, and some are 20 years different from the secular dates, but this time in the same context. They might wonder why a Bible prophecy would even rely on secular dates in the first place since the Bible itself never uses a secular date like 539 BCE, 607 BCE, 587 BCE, 33 CE, etc. They might wonder why we inconsistently claim that these "seven times" must be multiplied by 360, then multiplied again by 365.25 days each, when we claim that all uses of the term "three and a half times" in the Bible (Daniel & Revelation) should NEVER be multiplied again by 365.25, but only multiplied by 360. And even then, we allow for round-off in the use of "three and a half times." And if they looked into Babylonian and Jewish calendar systems a bit closer, they might notice that there was no such thing as a period of 7 years that did not contain at least two (sometimes three) intercalary months so that the number of days in ALL 7 year periods would always be closer to 2,568 days, not 2,520. Some of these questions would likely remain unresolved to an outsider, no matter how well we tried to explain them. They work for most those of us on the inside, because we generally trust that all those questions were probably resolved by persons who have a lot more holy spirit available to them than we do. So we just accept that we don't have to ask such questions.
Besides, when I mentioned the "Out of Darkness" video, I am primarily referring to the very fact that this prophecy is used as one that is supposed to prove that Jehovah was using Russell (not Daniel).
At the 44:20 mark in that video, we hear Brother Gerrit Lösch say:
". . . it enhanced their trust that Jehovah was using Brother Russell and his friends to explain truth to others."
At the 44:30 mark in the video, we hear Brother Anthony Morris say:
". . . it's still significant that they could pinpoint that year. That's phenomenal!"
This is hardly about the original prophecy anymore. In effect, this 1914 prophecy is therefore our own "internal" evidence (bragging rights) that there was an element of true inspiration from Jehovah to those who were supposedly "wise" enough to pinpoint that year by jumping through mental hoops that Daniel would have never dreamed of.

I think that one is excellent too. It follows the same general format of showing how the Bible answers the Big Question of how problems on earth will be solved through God's Kingdom. The angle of Truth and Trust in the Bible is the theme. Again, there is nothing stated in this magazine that should produce any unresolved questions. I believe even JTR would have to rate it somewhere near 100 percent useful, rather than his oft-repeated 15/85 rating.
I'm going to try not to get drawn into a 1914 discussion, at least not on this particular thread/topic. But I do understand what you are saying. I'm not sure how far back you are going, because even up to as recently as 2014, there were plenty of references that could have meant what you refer to.
The Isaiah 44/45 (Babylon-Cyrus) prophecy comes across as the most amazing prophecy to outsiders. It's simple, and it's used, of course, in the self-run free study on the JW.ORG website. The only persons for whom it would not work so well are those who believe that "Isaiah II" were chapters tacked onto the original book of Isaiah after the Babylonian exile.
If you listen closely to the Faith In Action -"Out of Darkness" Part 1 video, I think it's clear that Daniel's "prediction" of 1914 is a better example for "insiders." An outsider would have too many unresolved questions:
Most outsiders aren't into this idea that the Bible pinpoints dates for end-times prophecies. They would wonder why wicked Nebuchadnezzar's rulership pictures Jesus' Messianic rulership. They would wonder why we give it an additional application when the scripture itself explicitly says the application is to Nebuchadnezzar, and says nothing about an assumed second application. And they would wonder how we got 1914 from 7 times anyway. It doesn't even say 7 times are 7 years (that takes another scripture from a completely different context). And if it did mean 7 times were 7 years here, it doesn't say that those years were actually 360-day years, which also comes from its use in a different context. And if it did mean that 7 times were 360-day years, it doesn't say that those 7 times 360 have to each be multiplied again by 365.25. That's because the day-for-a-year idea also comes from a different context. And if they looked into it more deeply, they might wonder why we were forced to use a mix of secular dates for some events and pseudo-secular dates for some other events. Some of the dates we accept are the same as the secular dates, and some are 20 years different from the secular dates, but this time in the same context. They might wonder why a Bible prophecy would even rely on secular dates in the first place since the Bible itself never uses a secular date like 539 BCE, 607 BCE, 587 BCE, 33 CE, etc. They might wonder why we inconsistently claim that these "seven times" must be multiplied by 360, then multiplied again by 365.25 days each, when we claim that all uses of the term "three and a half times" in the Bible (Daniel & Revelation) should NEVER be multiplied again by 365.25, but only multiplied by 360. And even then, we allow for round-off in the use of "three and a half times." And if they looked into Babylonian and Jewish calendar systems a bit closer, they might notice that there was no such thing as a period of 7 years that did not contain at least two (sometimes three) intercalary months so that the number of days in ALL 7 year periods would always be closer to 2,568 days, not 2,520. Some of these questions would likely remain unresolved to an outsider, no matter how well we tried to explain them. They work for most those of us on the inside, because we generally trust that all those questions were probably resolved by persons who have a lot more holy spirit available to them than we do. So we just accept that we don't have to ask such questions.
Besides, when I mentioned the "Out of Darkness" video, I am primarily referring to the very fact that this prophecy is used as one that is supposed to prove that Jehovah was using Russell (not Daniel).
At the 44:20 mark in that video, we hear Brother Gerrit Lösch say:
". . . it enhanced their trust that Jehovah was using Brother Russell and his friends to explain truth to others."
At the 44:30 mark in the video, we hear Brother Anthony Morris say:
". . . it's still significant that they could pinpoint that year. That's phenomenal!"
This is hardly about the original prophecy anymore. In effect, this 1914 prophecy is therefore our own "internal" evidence (bragging rights) that there was an element of true inspiration from Jehovah to those who were supposedly "wise" enough to pinpoint that year by jumping through mental hoops that Daniel would have never dreamed of.

Subtle ... and it probably WILL work to keep you from being "burned at the stake" !
... probably.

I think that one is excellent too. It follows the same general format of showing how the Bible answers the Big Question of how problems on earth will be solved through God's Kingdom. The angle of Truth and Trust in the Bible is the theme. Again, there is nothing stated in this magazine that should produce any unresolved questions. I believe even JTR would have to rate it somewhere near 100 percent useful, rather than his oft-repeated 15/85 rating.
I'm going to try not to get drawn into a 1914 discussion, at least not on this particular thread/topic. But I do understand what you are saying. I'm not sure how far back you are going, because even up to as recently as 2014, there were plenty of references that could have meant what you refer to.
The Isaiah 44/45 (Babylon-Cyrus) prophecy comes across as the most amazing prophecy to outsiders. It's simple, and it's used, of course, in the self-run free study on the JW.ORG website. The only persons for whom it would not work so well are those who believe that "Isaiah II" were chapters tacked onto the original book of Isaiah after the Babylonian exile.
If you listen closely to the Faith In Action -"Out of Darkness" Part 1 video, I think it's clear that Daniel's "prediction" of 1914 is a better example for "insiders." An outsider would have too many unresolved questions:
Most outsiders aren't into this idea that the Bible pinpoints dates for end-times prophecies. They would wonder why wicked Nebuchadnezzar's rulership pictures Jesus' Messianic rulership. They would wonder why we give it an additional application when the scripture itself explicitly says the application is to Nebuchadnezzar, and says nothing about an assumed second application. And they would wonder how we got 1914 from 7 times anyway. It doesn't even say 7 times are 7 years (that takes another scripture from a completely different context). And if it did mean 7 times were 7 years here, it doesn't say that those years were actually 360-day years, which also comes from its use in a different context. And if it did mean that 7 times were 360-day years, it doesn't say that those 7 times 360 have to each be multiplied again by 365.25. That's because the day-for-a-year idea also comes from a different context. And if they looked into it more deeply, they might wonder why we were forced to use a mix of secular dates for some events and pseudo-secular dates for some other events. Some of the dates we accept are the same as the secular dates, and some are 20 years different from the secular dates, but this time in the same context. They might wonder why a Bible prophecy would even rely on secular dates in the first place since the Bible itself never uses a secular date like 539 BCE, 607 BCE, 587 BCE, 33 CE, etc. They might wonder why we inconsistently claim that these "seven times" must be multiplied by 360, then multiplied again by 365.25 days each, when we claim that all uses of the term "three and a half times" in the Bible (Daniel & Revelation) should NEVER be multiplied again by 365.25, but only multiplied by 360. And even then, we allow for round-off in the use of "three and a half times." And if they looked into Babylonian and Jewish calendar systems a bit closer, they might notice that there was no such thing as a period of 7 years that did not contain at least two (sometimes three) intercalary months so that the number of days in ALL 7 year periods would always be closer to 2,568 days, not 2,520. Some of these questions would likely remain unresolved to an outsider, no matter how well we tried to explain them. They work for most those of us on the inside, because we generally trust that all those questions were probably resolved by persons who have a lot more holy spirit available to them than we do. So we just accept that we don't have to ask such questions.
Besides, when I mentioned the "Out of Darkness" video, I am primarily referring to the very fact that this prophecy is used as one that is supposed to prove that Jehovah was using Russell (not Daniel).
At the 44:20 mark in that video, we hear Brother Gerrit Lösch say:
". . . it enhanced their trust that Jehovah was using Brother Russell and his friends to explain truth to others."
At the 44:30 mark in the video, we hear Brother Anthony Morris say:
". . . it's still significant that they could pinpoint that year. That's phenomenal!"
This is hardly about the original prophecy anymore. In effect, this 1914 prophecy is therefore our own "internal" evidence (bragging rights) that there was an element of true inspiration from Jehovah to those who were supposedly "wise" enough to pinpoint that year by jumping through mental hoops that Daniel would have never dreamed of.

I guess the first point I could address is how someone with serious unresolved questions and concerns about a couple of our teachings could still participate in promoting our publications and our meetings to interested persons. Won't those persons be faced with unresolved questions too?
This gets to the claim by some that 85 percent of what we present is not worth it, and 15 percent is worth it, but that 15 percent is valuable enough to ignore the 85 percent.
If those were the real numbers then making a convert would be very hard to justify. And in any case we would always have to spend a lot of time telling our Bible students that there are a lot of things we don't understand ourselves. 
But the numbers aren't that bad, because we really don't spend the amount of time on the areas where more people have unresolved questions. For example, let's just look at the two magazines that were common to many of the carts today. One is the Watchtower No.3 2019, and the other is the Awake! No.2 2019.
The Awake! has the cover is "Six Lessons Children Need to Learn." There are short articles on Self-Control, Humility, Resilience, Responsibility, Adult Guidance, and the Need for Moral Values. I am critical of a lot of things, but I found every single word to be well written and useful. It makes a nicely presented way to discuss such important topics with children. Or it just makes it simple to keep a prioritized list of ideas in a parent's mind to remember as they come up. And all of it leads to the fact that Bible principles are the foundation of these lessons, even if might seem at first like mundane lessons about the amount of time spent on entertainment media.
So on to the Watchtower. The basic questions that religion should answer are the same questions that people ask all over the world. They are the questions that don't really overlap with science, and although they might overlap a bit with "philosophy" it's really the place of true religion to show why the Bible's view gives the best and most satisfying answers. 
These are the questions of "What is the meaning of life?" "Is God to blame for suffering?" "What happens when we die?"
Those are the same questions called "Life's Big Questions" on the back of the Awake!
So the Watchtower starts out with an article on "The Sad Reality of Death." Nothing questionable or inappropriate here. Science is mentioned as a possible source of answers, here, and in the next article "The Search For Long Life." The idea is clear and obvious, that "We are Designed to Live" just as the next article shows. Again, I see nothing that any naysayer, except atheists, might find wrong or questionable. In fact, up to this point, atheists might still be following along, too.  After all, it does not overwhelm with scriptures, but uses them in unobtrusive ways.
Now the question of "Why Do We Grow Old And Die" gets into the Biblical aspects, on page 8 of 15. It's all clearly the correct Biblical answer, however. Granted, some religious and science-oriented religious persons can take Adam & Eve as allegorical in some way, which is common. But even so, the rest of the Bible clearly uses the exact example as the explanation about death on earth.
And therefore page 10 begins discussing the hope, when death is conquered. There is a very clear explanation of the Ransom here. Using Scriptures throughout this article. There is a paragraph or two on "When" but it is not done with the idea that "we know something about the date that no one else knows." Someone might wonder why it only mentions "millions" being resurrected, but this isn't said in such a way that we are telling people that it won't be billions, or thousands; it's just presented as a way of stating a happy hope in the resurrection. It mentions the "last days" but exactly the way the scriptures use the expression.
In detailing "How Can You Have More Than This Life?" on page 12, the appeal is to those who want to see a better earth, and who would like to live forever under much better conditions. It's an invitation to learn more. And the next article shows how the road to that better life will produce side effects of contentment, more satisfying priorities, better marriages, and even better health (overall) in this life.
I find BOTH of these entire magazines to be 100 percent valuable, well written, and they touch on no unresolved or unresolvable questions. And we all know that some of our talks and other publications cover this same material exactly as these articles do, sometimes with more examples, more verses, more detail -- but the same ideas.
We are offering exactly what people should be looking for, satisfactory answers to important questions.
When an interested person gets to all the meetings, they will soon discover that time is spent on the meaning of Ezekiel, for example, the history of the organization, and a lot of emphasis on urgency in preaching on account of the times we're living in, and the overall timing of Jehovah's purpose. Some of this material will likely result in questions that they will find ways to resolve, or else just accept and wait for a resolution in time.
But it's not the gist of our preaching and disciple-making. I think most people who come into the organization will remember the Big Questions, and that those were the primary reasons they joined with us. Those questions are answered in a more appealing and satisfying way than other religions are answering them. And we back up our answers with the Bible. Our teachings regarding war, neutrality, Trinity, hellfire, paradise earth, the challenge to Jehovah's sovereignty, etc., will make even more sense to interested persons when they remember that the first attraction was to the way the Bible answered those big questions. Those were the questions that build a primary foundation around the teaching of God's Purpose, Eternal Life, the Ransom, the Resurrection, etc.
So even if chronology and some of the specific prophetic interpretations can result in unresolved questions, for now, it's not like this needs to be such a big part of Witness thinking. We can participate in every major aspect of our worship with joy and without being overly concerned with these unresolved questions. And when they finally are resolved, I'm sure we'll see them as relatively unimportant compared to the big things.

I guess the first point I could address is how someone with serious unresolved questions and concerns about a couple of our teachings could still participate in promoting our publications and our meetings to interested persons. Won't those persons be faced with unresolved questions too?
This gets to the claim by some that 85 percent of what we present is not worth it, and 15 percent is worth it, but that 15 percent is valuable enough to ignore the 85 percent.
If those were the real numbers then making a convert would be very hard to justify. And in any case we would always have to spend a lot of time telling our Bible students that there are a lot of things we don't understand ourselves. 
But the numbers aren't that bad, because we really don't spend the amount of time on the areas where more people have unresolved questions. For example, let's just look at the two magazines that were common to many of the carts today. One is the Watchtower No.3 2019, and the other is the Awake! No.2 2019.
The Awake! has the cover is "Six Lessons Children Need to Learn." There are short articles on Self-Control, Humility, Resilience, Responsibility, Adult Guidance, and the Need for Moral Values. I am critical of a lot of things, but I found every single word to be well written and useful. It makes a nicely presented way to discuss such important topics with children. Or it just makes it simple to keep a prioritized list of ideas in a parent's mind to remember as they come up. And all of it leads to the fact that Bible principles are the foundation of these lessons, even if might seem at first like mundane lessons about the amount of time spent on entertainment media.
So on to the Watchtower. The basic questions that religion should answer are the same questions that people ask all over the world. They are the questions that don't really overlap with science, and although they might overlap a bit with "philosophy" it's really the place of true religion to show why the Bible's view gives the best and most satisfying answers. 
These are the questions of "What is the meaning of life?" "Is God to blame for suffering?" "What happens when we die?"
Those are the same questions called "Life's Big Questions" on the back of the Awake!
So the Watchtower starts out with an article on "The Sad Reality of Death." Nothing questionable or inappropriate here. Science is mentioned as a possible source of answers, here, and in the next article "The Search For Long Life." The idea is clear and obvious, that "We are Designed to Live" just as the next article shows. Again, I see nothing that any naysayer, except atheists, might find wrong or questionable. In fact, up to this point, atheists might still be following along, too.  After all, it does not overwhelm with scriptures, but uses them in unobtrusive ways.
Now the question of "Why Do We Grow Old And Die" gets into the Biblical aspects, on page 8 of 15. It's all clearly the correct Biblical answer, however. Granted, some religious and science-oriented religious persons can take Adam & Eve as allegorical in some way, which is common. But even so, the rest of the Bible clearly uses the exact example as the explanation about death on earth.
And therefore page 10 begins discussing the hope, when death is conquered. There is a very clear explanation of the Ransom here. Using Scriptures throughout this article. There is a paragraph or two on "When" but it is not done with the idea that "we know something about the date that no one else knows." Someone might wonder why it only mentions "millions" being resurrected, but this isn't said in such a way that we are telling people that it won't be billions, or thousands; it's just presented as a way of stating a happy hope in the resurrection. It mentions the "last days" but exactly the way the scriptures use the expression.
In detailing "How Can You Have More Than This Life?" on page 12, the appeal is to those who want to see a better earth, and who would like to live forever under much better conditions. It's an invitation to learn more. And the next article shows how the road to that better life will produce side effects of contentment, more satisfying priorities, better marriages, and even better health (overall) in this life.
I find BOTH of these entire magazines to be 100 percent valuable, well written, and they touch on no unresolved or unresolvable questions. And we all know that some of our talks and other publications cover this same material exactly as these articles do, sometimes with more examples, more verses, more detail -- but the same ideas.
We are offering exactly what people should be looking for, satisfactory answers to important questions.
When an interested person gets to all the meetings, they will soon discover that time is spent on the meaning of Ezekiel, for example, the history of the organization, and a lot of emphasis on urgency in preaching on account of the times we're living in, and the overall timing of Jehovah's purpose. Some of this material will likely result in questions that they will find ways to resolve, or else just accept and wait for a resolution in time.
But it's not the gist of our preaching and disciple-making. I think most people who come into the organization will remember the Big Questions, and that those were the primary reasons they joined with us. Those questions are answered in a more appealing and satisfying way than other religions are answering them. And we back up our answers with the Bible. Our teachings regarding war, neutrality, Trinity, hellfire, paradise earth, the challenge to Jehovah's sovereignty, etc., will make even more sense to interested persons when they remember that the first attraction was to the way the Bible answered those big questions. Those were the questions that build a primary foundation around the teaching of God's Purpose, Eternal Life, the Ransom, the Resurrection, etc.
So even if chronology and some of the specific prophetic interpretations can result in unresolved questions, for now, it's not like this needs to be such a big part of Witness thinking. We can participate in every major aspect of our worship with joy and without being overly concerned with these unresolved questions. And when they finally are resolved, I'm sure we'll see them as relatively unimportant compared to the big things.

This is really nice. I'd like to see a time when those JW.ORG boats area as ubiquitous as Red Cross, etc. That would be a great witness, too. There are times when the logistics can go wrong, too. (I heard about the warehouse of supplies destined for P.R. last year.) As it is, still, I think we normally do a lot better in this regard than nay-sayers say. And there's a lot of willingness to help that can go untapped if we don't speak up and join in with others. This is where we can really "shine" as an organization.

I guess the first point I could address is how someone with serious unresolved questions and concerns about a couple of our teachings could still participate in promoting our publications and our meetings to interested persons. Won't those persons be faced with unresolved questions too?
This gets to the claim by some that 85 percent of what we present is not worth it, and 15 percent is worth it, but that 15 percent is valuable enough to ignore the 85 percent.
If those were the real numbers then making a convert would be very hard to justify. And in any case we would always have to spend a lot of time telling our Bible students that there are a lot of things we don't understand ourselves. 
But the numbers aren't that bad, because we really don't spend the amount of time on the areas where more people have unresolved questions. For example, let's just look at the two magazines that were common to many of the carts today. One is the Watchtower No.3 2019, and the other is the Awake! No.2 2019.
The Awake! has the cover is "Six Lessons Children Need to Learn." There are short articles on Self-Control, Humility, Resilience, Responsibility, Adult Guidance, and the Need for Moral Values. I am critical of a lot of things, but I found every single word to be well written and useful. It makes a nicely presented way to discuss such important topics with children. Or it just makes it simple to keep a prioritized list of ideas in a parent's mind to remember as they come up. And all of it leads to the fact that Bible principles are the foundation of these lessons, even if might seem at first like mundane lessons about the amount of time spent on entertainment media.
So on to the Watchtower. The basic questions that religion should answer are the same questions that people ask all over the world. They are the questions that don't really overlap with science, and although they might overlap a bit with "philosophy" it's really the place of true religion to show why the Bible's view gives the best and most satisfying answers. 
These are the questions of "What is the meaning of life?" "Is God to blame for suffering?" "What happens when we die?"
Those are the same questions called "Life's Big Questions" on the back of the Awake!
So the Watchtower starts out with an article on "The Sad Reality of Death." Nothing questionable or inappropriate here. Science is mentioned as a possible source of answers, here, and in the next article "The Search For Long Life." The idea is clear and obvious, that "We are Designed to Live" just as the next article shows. Again, I see nothing that any naysayer, except atheists, might find wrong or questionable. In fact, up to this point, atheists might still be following along, too.  After all, it does not overwhelm with scriptures, but uses them in unobtrusive ways.
Now the question of "Why Do We Grow Old And Die" gets into the Biblical aspects, on page 8 of 15. It's all clearly the correct Biblical answer, however. Granted, some religious and science-oriented religious persons can take Adam & Eve as allegorical in some way, which is common. But even so, the rest of the Bible clearly uses the exact example as the explanation about death on earth.
And therefore page 10 begins discussing the hope, when death is conquered. There is a very clear explanation of the Ransom here. Using Scriptures throughout this article. There is a paragraph or two on "When" but it is not done with the idea that "we know something about the date that no one else knows." Someone might wonder why it only mentions "millions" being resurrected, but this isn't said in such a way that we are telling people that it won't be billions, or thousands; it's just presented as a way of stating a happy hope in the resurrection. It mentions the "last days" but exactly the way the scriptures use the expression.
In detailing "How Can You Have More Than This Life?" on page 12, the appeal is to those who want to see a better earth, and who would like to live forever under much better conditions. It's an invitation to learn more. And the next article shows how the road to that better life will produce side effects of contentment, more satisfying priorities, better marriages, and even better health (overall) in this life.
I find BOTH of these entire magazines to be 100 percent valuable, well written, and they touch on no unresolved or unresolvable questions. And we all know that some of our talks and other publications cover this same material exactly as these articles do, sometimes with more examples, more verses, more detail -- but the same ideas.
We are offering exactly what people should be looking for, satisfactory answers to important questions.
When an interested person gets to all the meetings, they will soon discover that time is spent on the meaning of Ezekiel, for example, the history of the organization, and a lot of emphasis on urgency in preaching on account of the times we're living in, and the overall timing of Jehovah's purpose. Some of this material will likely result in questions that they will find ways to resolve, or else just accept and wait for a resolution in time.
But it's not the gist of our preaching and disciple-making. I think most people who come into the organization will remember the Big Questions, and that those were the primary reasons they joined with us. Those questions are answered in a more appealing and satisfying way than other religions are answering them. And we back up our answers with the Bible. Our teachings regarding war, neutrality, Trinity, hellfire, paradise earth, the challenge to Jehovah's sovereignty, etc., will make even more sense to interested persons when they remember that the first attraction was to the way the Bible answered those big questions. Those were the questions that build a primary foundation around the teaching of God's Purpose, Eternal Life, the Ransom, the Resurrection, etc.
So even if chronology and some of the specific prophetic interpretations can result in unresolved questions, for now, it's not like this needs to be such a big part of Witness thinking. We can participate in every major aspect of our worship with joy and without being overly concerned with these unresolved questions. And when they finally are resolved, I'm sure we'll see them as relatively unimportant compared to the big things.

There are legitimate concerns that someone can misunderstand, or concerns that many people tend to walk by sight, not by faith. But the expression has been common for years, both inside and outside the Witnesses, that when you approach a house of worship, it becomes a "house of God." I don't believe for a minute that the average JW feels any reverence towards the bricks and mortar of a building. There is sometimes a natural feeling of nostalgia or sentimentality over a place or object that brings back a lot of good memories. So I heard about many Bethelites in Brooklyn who felt really bad about leaving their historical New York buildings. But did any of them actually think that there was something about the physical aspects of the buildings that made them somehow more spiritual? I think that even the brothers who used to give talks about "dedicating" a place "from now until the new world" were probably seeing an opportunity to emphasize the closeness of the end, and the stability and growth of the organization. Even if they perhaps considered the assumption that Jehovah might even protect these buildings as a means of protecting his people, they would definitely have not claimed or felt that there were any such guarantees.
Earlier this month, I was reading a diary of a woman in the early 19th century, 1830's, who takes religion very seriously, even taking her children to up to three different church buildings on a Sunday. It sounds like she was Episcopalian, but attended the Episcopalian, the Methodist and the Baptist sermons and perhaps even their Sunday schools, too, if she could manage it in the day's schedule. She complains about some of the sermons and lessons, and she loves some of the others. But in each case, in each different building, she seems to identity all of them as "the house of God." She even reminds her child that Moses took off his shoes before entering holy ground, so he must remember to take off his hat. In spite of the words, "house of God" I'm sure this woman didn't consider anything special about the actual building. Sometimes when one of the preachers was called away, the preacher from one of the other churches would preach as a substitute, or they would share buildings in an emergency. People can understand the gist of the idea without taking everything so literally.

This is really nice. I'd like to see a time when those JW.ORG boats area as ubiquitous as Red Cross, etc. That would be a great witness, too. There are times when the logistics can go wrong, too. (I heard about the warehouse of supplies destined for P.R. last year.) As it is, still, I think we normally do a lot better in this regard than nay-sayers say. And there's a lot of willingness to help that can go untapped if we don't speak up and join in with others. This is where we can really "shine" as an organization.

There are legitimate concerns that someone can misunderstand, or concerns that many people tend to walk by sight, not by faith. But the expression has been common for years, both inside and outside the Witnesses, that when you approach a house of worship, it becomes a "house of God." I don't believe for a minute that the average JW feels any reverence towards the bricks and mortar of a building. There is sometimes a natural feeling of nostalgia or sentimentality over a place or object that brings back a lot of good memories. So I heard about many Bethelites in Brooklyn who felt really bad about leaving their historical New York buildings. But did any of them actually think that there was something about the physical aspects of the buildings that made them somehow more spiritual? I think that even the brothers who used to give talks about "dedicating" a place "from now until the new world" were probably seeing an opportunity to emphasize the closeness of the end, and the stability and growth of the organization. Even if they perhaps considered the assumption that Jehovah might even protect these buildings as a means of protecting his people, they would definitely have not claimed or felt that there were any such guarantees.
Earlier this month, I was reading a diary of a woman in the early 19th century, 1830's, who takes religion very seriously, even taking her children to up to three different church buildings on a Sunday. It sounds like she was Episcopalian, but attended the Episcopalian, the Methodist and the Baptist sermons and perhaps even their Sunday schools, too, if she could manage it in the day's schedule. She complains about some of the sermons and lessons, and she loves some of the others. But in each case, in each different building, she seems to identity all of them as "the house of God." She even reminds her child that Moses took off his shoes before entering holy ground, so he must remember to take off his hat. In spite of the words, "house of God" I'm sure this woman didn't consider anything special about the actual building. Sometimes when one of the preachers was called away, the preacher from one of the other churches would preach as a substitute, or they would share buildings in an emergency. People can understand the gist of the idea without taking everything so literally.

Most Witnesses are quite satisfied with a midweek meeting, a weekend meeting, and meetings for service, a study night with the spouse or family, and some additional time for talk preparation, additional personal study, prayer, meditation and contemplation. For many, due to various circumstances, it's hard enough to keep up even a minimum in each area mentioned.
But for others, it's obvious that they (we) spend quite a bit of time on this forum, too. And for some, I'm guessing, they spend some time here, and even seek out other places, too, where Witnesses talk or are talked about. It's pretty obvious that when it comes to how we spend our free time, there are much more fruitful pursuits. We could be visiting sick or shut-in brothers and sisters, or just doing something loving for someone else, perhaps even taking on some additional employment to able to help out those who are having financial difficulties. And not to judge anyone of course, because it's likely that many of us already engage in such additional activities, and yet we still find ourselves coming to a forum such as this.
I don't think anyone of us would think we are "witnessing" here, at least not in the typical sense of how we define sacred service. I do think that some think they are "witnessing" when they defend the status quo against those who might raise questions. And some non-JWs and ex-JWs likely think they are "witnessing" by exposing the real truth about the truth, as some would call it. However, when JWs, defenders of JWs, or even non-JWs find they are not resolving questions in their defense of a certain position, there is often a lot of anger that gets shown, and the focus of anger gets all the attention instead of the unresolved question. (Of course, that's probably a tactic for some who would rather not admit that some questions are still unresolved.)
I won't try to address the reasons that other people might be here, but I can repeat my own reasons.
I have unresolved questions of the type that would not be addressed by others in the congregation, nor by the ones responsible for  "creating" those unresolved questions in the first place. JW.ORG is not going to include a "questions and comments" section any time soon, and if they did it would become a complete mess in a hurry. So I use this site as a kind of substitute for a JW.ORG questions and comments section.
Because of that kind of utilization of this forum, I don't include a lot of comments about the areas of agreement because I have no question about them, no issue, and these are the areas where we can comment and speak up freely at the Hall, or to anyone around us who's interested in talking about such things. If this is our situation, however, that kind of skews the impression we might give to others about the Witnesses, why we believe, why we share our beliefs, and how much we appreciate our association with a world-wide brotherhood of fellow believers.
Speaking for myself, I know we've done a bit of this on the JW Closed forum, but perhaps it's a good idea now and then to share our positive public views on this part of the forum, too. When I get a chance, I'll add something more specific to my next post.
 

Most Witnesses are quite satisfied with a midweek meeting, a weekend meeting, and meetings for service, a study night with the spouse or family, and some additional time for talk preparation, additional personal study, prayer, meditation and contemplation. For many, due to various circumstances, it's hard enough to keep up even a minimum in each area mentioned.
But for others, it's obvious that they (we) spend quite a bit of time on this forum, too. And for some, I'm guessing, they spend some time here, and even seek out other places, too, where Witnesses talk or are talked about. It's pretty obvious that when it comes to how we spend our free time, there are much more fruitful pursuits. We could be visiting sick or shut-in brothers and sisters, or just doing something loving for someone else, perhaps even taking on some additional employment to able to help out those who are having financial difficulties. And not to judge anyone of course, because it's likely that many of us already engage in such additional activities, and yet we still find ourselves coming to a forum such as this.
I don't think anyone of us would think we are "witnessing" here, at least not in the typical sense of how we define sacred service. I do think that some think they are "witnessing" when they defend the status quo against those who might raise questions. And some non-JWs and ex-JWs likely think they are "witnessing" by exposing the real truth about the truth, as some would call it. However, when JWs, defenders of JWs, or even non-JWs find they are not resolving questions in their defense of a certain position, there is often a lot of anger that gets shown, and the focus of anger gets all the attention instead of the unresolved question. (Of course, that's probably a tactic for some who would rather not admit that some questions are still unresolved.)
I won't try to address the reasons that other people might be here, but I can repeat my own reasons.
I have unresolved questions of the type that would not be addressed by others in the congregation, nor by the ones responsible for  "creating" those unresolved questions in the first place. JW.ORG is not going to include a "questions and comments" section any time soon, and if they did it would become a complete mess in a hurry. So I use this site as a kind of substitute for a JW.ORG questions and comments section.
Because of that kind of utilization of this forum, I don't include a lot of comments about the areas of agreement because I have no question about them, no issue, and these are the areas where we can comment and speak up freely at the Hall, or to anyone around us who's interested in talking about such things. If this is our situation, however, that kind of skews the impression we might give to others about the Witnesses, why we believe, why we share our beliefs, and how much we appreciate our association with a world-wide brotherhood of fellow believers.
Speaking for myself, I know we've done a bit of this on the JW Closed forum, but perhaps it's a good idea now and then to share our positive public views on this part of the forum, too. When I get a chance, I'll add something more specific to my next post.
 

Well, I suppose we have moved on from the rather outdated notion that in some way the dedication of a building would somehow sanctify or change the nature of the bricks and mortar of the construction in the same way that some in the 1st century felt could occur with regard to meat used in some sort of  idolatrous ritual.
The dedication of a building for a particular purpose is really an act of the users, making that dedication for the time that they find that building suitable for that particular purpose. Once the building no longer suits that purpose and is no longer required by those making the dedication, then it seems quite reasonable that it should be disposed of and any funds obtained as a result should then be used for that same dedicated purpose.  Thinking that the fabric of a building should be used in perpetuity for that same purpose as if it was somehow made "holy" by that dedication is unreasonable . If that notion was applied literally, then no refurbishment could ever take place. No rented or leased building could ever be returned to it owner.
Nice to see more pretentious hooey biting the dust. (However sincerely it was originally meant of course).

TTH has said he has nothing to do with the running of this site. I have no proof, but I'm sure he's telling the truth. He doesn't know me, and I don't know him, and I don't know the Librarian or the admin either. What I know about them is only from what I see in the posts I get. I did get an invitation from a moderator 3 years ago inviting me to use some moderating powers to move posts to new topics, because there were a lot of topics that were started and several persons (with names like Allen Smith) were coming into these topics for no apparent reason other than to spew some vitriolic hatred, judge persons (not views) they disagreed with as apostate, Satanic and deserving of death.
I gladly accepted the moderating powers to move unrelated posts to new topics. It keeps things neater, more organized, and allows for those other ideas to grow into topics of their own. I don't use any function that allows me to delete a post, but it's a function called "Split." For anyone's post, I have a little pulldown, called Options, and in there is a function called "Split." I can start a new "empty" topic first, give it a name, and then when I click on "Split," I enter the location of the new topic, and the post ends up on that page. I have no control over the order, so they just show up by date order, the same order they showed up on the original topic. It's a bit too much effort for the value gained, and I prefer personally to just let topics go all over the place "organically." My own posts (like this one) are off-topic about as often as anyone else's (or more) so it seems like trying to exert control on a topic that is unnecessary, even if it's easier to follow.
I know that I didn't communicate with TTH or anyone else about removing anyone here. It wouldn't make any sense anyway because I'm always AGAINST removing people from any forum. No matter how badly they act, they will just continue to act that badly under another name if they are removed. We all saw that this was the case with Allen Smith, and some of his cursing and cyber-bullying became just as bad under his new names as it had been under his original name. I always spoke up for him, though, because a person can be "censured" by the others without removing his rights to speak up on the forum. Any of us can personally block someone we don't want to hear from. I don't know for sure, but I suspect I have been blocked by some who didn't want to hear what I had been saying.
So I know this is probably not about any of the original "Allen Smith" monikers. I know that I did expose the vote-spamming of @BillyTheKid46 and @Foreigner, but I just now typed their names with an @ in front of them, and they both seem to exist. (I haven't seen tweets from either of them for a couple weeks, though). Perhaps pointing out their spamming with small screen-shot snippets has resulted in a punishment of some kind, but I do not expect their removal. Besides I only pointed out a very small percentage of their spamming, as it related to my own posts. Others here pointed out that they were doing the same to their posts, too.
My own goal in pointing out their spamming was not to get either of them removed, and I hope they have not been removed. I also hate the fact that when someone is removed you can no longer see their posts, and you end up with conversations that no longer make any sense with half the conversation missing.

TTH has said he has nothing to do with the running of this site. I have no proof, but I'm sure he's telling the truth. He doesn't know me, and I don't know him, and I don't know the Librarian or the admin either. What I know about them is only from what I see in the posts I get. I did get an invitation from a moderator 3 years ago inviting me to use some moderating powers to move posts to new topics, because there were a lot of topics that were started and several persons (with names like Allen Smith) were coming into these topics for no apparent reason other than to spew some vitriolic hatred, judge persons (not views) they disagreed with as apostate, Satanic and deserving of death.
I gladly accepted the moderating powers to move unrelated posts to new topics. It keeps things neater, more organized, and allows for those other ideas to grow into topics of their own. I don't use any function that allows me to delete a post, but it's a function called "Split." For anyone's post, I have a little pulldown, called Options, and in there is a function called "Split." I can start a new "empty" topic first, give it a name, and then when I click on "Split," I enter the location of the new topic, and the post ends up on that page. I have no control over the order, so they just show up by date order, the same order they showed up on the original topic. It's a bit too much effort for the value gained, and I prefer personally to just let topics go all over the place "organically." My own posts (like this one) are off-topic about as often as anyone else's (or more) so it seems like trying to exert control on a topic that is unnecessary, even if it's easier to follow.
I know that I didn't communicate with TTH or anyone else about removing anyone here. It wouldn't make any sense anyway because I'm always AGAINST removing people from any forum. No matter how badly they act, they will just continue to act that badly under another name if they are removed. We all saw that this was the case with Allen Smith, and some of his cursing and cyber-bullying became just as bad under his new names as it had been under his original name. I always spoke up for him, though, because a person can be "censured" by the others without removing his rights to speak up on the forum. Any of us can personally block someone we don't want to hear from. I don't know for sure, but I suspect I have been blocked by some who didn't want to hear what I had been saying.
So I know this is probably not about any of the original "Allen Smith" monikers. I know that I did expose the vote-spamming of @BillyTheKid46 and @Foreigner, but I just now typed their names with an @ in front of them, and they both seem to exist. (I haven't seen tweets from either of them for a couple weeks, though). Perhaps pointing out their spamming with small screen-shot snippets has resulted in a punishment of some kind, but I do not expect their removal. Besides I only pointed out a very small percentage of their spamming, as it related to my own posts. Others here pointed out that they were doing the same to their posts, too.
My own goal in pointing out their spamming was not to get either of them removed, and I hope they have not been removed. I also hate the fact that when someone is removed you can no longer see their posts, and you end up with conversations that no longer make any sense with half the conversation missing.