JW Insider

Your definition provides a clue as to why the Governing Body cannot currently claim to be the "faithful and discreet slave." This does not mean that they are not well-meaning in their goal to participate as a class of faithful and discreet slaves. And this does not mean that they will ultimately fail to live up to their goal.
(1 Timothy 3:1-7) . . .If any man is reaching out for an office of overseer, he is desirous of a fine work. 2 The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach, 3 not a drunken brawler, not a smiter, but reasonable, not belligerent, not a lover of money, 4 a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner, having children in subjection with all seriousness; 5 (if indeed any man does not know how to preside over his own household, how will he take care of God’s congregation?) 6 not a newly converted man, for fear that he might get puffed up [with pride] and fall into the judgment passed upon the Devil. 7 Moreover, he should also have a fine testimony from people on the outside, in order that he might not fall into reproach and a snare of the Devil.
I suppose that Rutherford might not have qualified, based on some of these criteria, and I think most of us would agree that Hayden Covington was a "newly converted" man, relatively speaking. But I think we have excellent reasons to accept the current Governing Body members as qualified overseers, and they therefore deserve respect, double honor, deference, benefit of the doubt, and our willingness to follow their leading example, and, as we see how their conduct works out, to imitate their faith.

Yes, the regular JW believes in a rapture (although some still do not yet know that this is what they believe, because the teaching is rarely repeated). The primary scriptures that indicates the "rapture" have now been explained to be a sudden (instantaneous) taking of that person, while still alive, from earth to heaven. The reason we avoid the term "rapture" is because most of Christendom believes that the person keeps their physical body, and we believe that the physical body is instantly turned into a spiritual body at the time of the "rapture."
Other scriptures that seem to refer to a rapture have not been interpreted to refer to this same "rapture" event:
(Matthew 24:39-41) . . .and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken along and the other abandoned. 41 Two women will be grinding at the hand mill; one will be taken along and the other abandoned.
Those verses (and equivalents in Luke) might be another reason that some JWs are not yet aware that they believe in a "rapture." But the recently clarified explanation for the verses below has changed the way we speak about the rapture.
(1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17) . . .because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air. . .
(1 Corinthians 15:51, 52) 51 Look! I tell YOU a sacred secret: We shall not all fall asleep [in death], but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Note the 2015 Watchtower:
*** w15 7/15 p. 18 par. 14 “Your Deliverance Is Getting Near”! ***
So, what is this gathering work that Jesus mentions? It is the time when the remaining ones of the 144,000 will receive their heavenly reward. (1 Thess. 4:15-17; Rev. 14:1) This event will take place at some point after the beginning of the attack by Gog of Magog. (Ezek. 38:11) Then these words of Jesus will be fulfilled: “At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father.”—Matt. 13:43.
Does this mean that there will be a “rapture” of the anointed ones? Many in Christendom believe, according to this teaching, that Christians will be bodily caught up from the earth. Then, they expect that Jesus will visibly return to rule the earth. However, the Bible clearly shows that “the sign of the Son of man” will appear in heaven and that Jesus will come “on the clouds of heaven.” (Matt. 24:30) Both of these expressions imply invisibility. Additionally, “flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s Kingdom.” So those who will be taken to heaven will first need to be “changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.” (Read 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.) Therefore, while we do not use the term “rapture” here because of its wrong connotation, the remaining faithful anointed will be gathered together in an instant of time.

Sorry about this, but I'm going to play the "Bible's Advocate" here for a bit. First of all, there is nothing to disagree with on any of those questions because the answer is given only with Scripture, not interpretation of those Scriptures. Not one of the questions mentions "the generation," nor 1914, nor 1919, nor 1922, nor the United Nations, nor the "great crowd," nor the "other sheep," nor the "anointed," nor the meaning of at least a thousand different prophetic interpretations.
Even the question, about the Governing Body spells out no specific opinion to disagree with, because the term is never mentioned in any of the scriptures:
*** od pp. 201-202 Part 3 Jehovah’s Arrangement of Things ***
12. What is the Governing Body of the Christian congregation, and what role does it fill today?
“Some men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers: ‘Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’ But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was arranged for Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem regarding this issue.”—Acts 15:1, 2.
“As they traveled on through the cities, they would deliver to them for observance the decrees that had been decided on by the apostles and the elders who were in Jerusalem. Then, indeed, the congregations continued to be made firm in the faith and to increase in number day by day.”—Acts 16:4, 5.
“Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! Truly I say to you, he will appoint him over all his belongings.”—Matt. 24:45-47.
If anyone had studied the verses in Matt 24:45-47 carefully, along with the Watchtower's explanation, I would think it should have been obvious to them that the Governing Body cannot currently claim to be that faithful slave of Matt 24:45. So the question itself, when applied to the Scripture, would only go so far as to indicate that the Governing Body, like all good Christians, would only HOPE they are faithfully participating in fulfilling a role of a faithful and discreet slave.
The reason, of course, has already been explained, but I'm always willing to explain again.

" To the extent people think he is a Witness, he paints them as the most intolerant, rigid, and anger-prone people on the planet. " - TTH
That is an incredibly IMPORTANT observation, that I also have considered at great length, as I have seen that many times in the secular world, and occasionally in the Truth.
That is why I personally think it is VERY important that BillyTheKid46 come out of the closet, and declare whether or not his opinions are that of a Jehovah's Witness, and even whether or not he is a Watchtower Lawyer  ... specifically, himself. He is trying to sit on the fence, hide behind his fake avatar, and fake persona.
I have often (every time he starts typing ..) thought that he is a bitter enemy of Jehovah's Witnesses, and an excellent psychologist, and deliberately portrays himself as a petulant, angry, demented, slow and  truly nasty person (when he may in actual fact be NONE of those things ...), in order to with reverse psychology make Jehovah's Witnesses look like all those things ... so that others are deliberately CHASED AWAY from any idea that they might want to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
That's why I started my series of "Weasel" cartoons, to try and "force the issue", of having Billy declare who he REALLY is, behind his anonymous false front .... that he deliberately keeps as a false front to deceive, and mislead.
I hope Billy clarifies this issue, and I would be heavily inclined to accept his clarification at face value, as stated.
Years ago, I told a Brother who had come to visit me, that he might want to consider not doing so, as I was not a very good example of a Jehovah's Witness, officially, and hanging around me might get him in serious trouble with the Elders.
.. I seem to have lost my train of thought ... but there is a lesson in there somewhere ....
Fortunately, I have a stockpile of cartoons to get refocused on ....
 
 

Every time I go to Chipotle's they have an announcement that something is no longer being served. The guacamole for a while, then last week when they put up a sign saying they would not be serving lettuce in their burritos/bowls until further notice . . .
. . . and now I heard that they've pulled pork again.
Oh wait, scratch that . . . [JWI holds an earpiece a little tighter to his ear]. . . I'm just now being told that "pulled pork" is an actual thing. Who knew? So, actually, it's an announcement: Chipotle's: they have "pulled pork" again!

I posted about this just after getting off the phone with someone I knew, but had just recontacted earlier today. The conversation went to a lot of places that I won't go into much more detail about here.  As an engineer, he was involved in cleaning up a shale mine (for gravel), buried barrels of waste at Wallkill, suing the previous owners of "International Nickel" at Warwick for remediation (they owned the land prior), an endangered species, air contamination reports, etc. (Actually it was air contamination laws that pushed the printing from Brooklyn to Wallkill in the first place. Wallkill had none.) I even learned that run-off from a cemetery (i.e. launching pad) from old embalming methods can contain arsenic, and other bad stuff. 
But the brother wanted to make it clear that these were not "scandals" as some might try to make them out to be. The WTS was actually more careful than most corporations about keeping well within the law, and some of the old practices are under different laws today. Whenever a new project is being done, it's a chance to get the owners to fix things according to new law and new knowledge.
One reason I had met up with him earlier today is that on Friday, when flushing the toilets in the first floor men's room at Warwick, all the water was brown in all the toilets, even after flushing them. I took a video in case it was a problem, and can post it, but I won't for obvious reasons. I went to the sink and stopped it up with a napkin to fill it and see if it was also affected. It wasn't. I went to a urinal and it was, although less obvious due to shallower running water. Others saw it to, but I doubted anyone would speak up. I ran down to the first lower floor men's room to check it but it was closed. I filled up a cup from the drinking fountain and saw no sign of contamination.
Today, I went back and checked both bathrooms. No problem anywhere. I asked the engineer what it probably was, and he told me. Nothing to worry about, by the way.

Sorry, won't be to your satisfaction. We'll miss you!
So I just talked to someone who worked in the four major NY locations: Brooklyn, Patterson, Wallkill and Warwick. There were water problems with all 4. Patterson was the worst and they had to retrofit the pipes because of the mineral deposits. It was easily predictable according to the engineers, but the expensive outside engineers were quickly replaced with Bethel insiders. There were runoff problems up in Wallkill and no one can pump water from the aquifer there anyway, so they decided on a reservoir instead of the local Wallkill River. In so doing they discovered new problems for engineers to handle (some self-made over the years). The problems in Warwick were resolved after clean-up of the nickel and related minerals, but the lake water is considered very sensitive for several environmental reasons. Much of the planning had to do with level of water usage, where water comes from for fire dept utilization, what goes into the lake, what comes out of the lake.
All in all, it was the water. Warwick deals with the Sterling Lake and the Sterling Forest State Park and therefore extends their coverage for Water and environmental issues down into the Greenwood Lake and Sterling Forest Lake where the JW HQ sits. They are already connected by a stream between them, too.

I suspect it has more to do with the water issues that Warwick had dealt with in the lakes that begin in their region and spill down toward the WTS HQ. But I can look into it. I now have a contact who worked on these issues with Warwick and Tuxedo Park.

Planning Board too. Nevertheless, even the early articles about it say this: https://shar.es/aaYQ1i
The Watch Tower Society also is providing some on site medical services and have made arrangements with the Greenwood Lake Fire District; it is also working with the Tuxedo Fire District. If any of the Headquarters residents decide to move off site to have children, they then would pay taxes and their children would likely go to the Tuxedo school district.

I am writing this on Sunday 12/9 at about 3:30 PM.
On Thursday night I drove up here to Warwick with relatives. We completed the five exhibits at Warwick, spoke with some Bethelites we knew, and attended the Sunday morning meeting held in the Bethel Auditorium where the "Long Meadow" congregation meets. This is a congregation of about 180 persons, some of whom travel from up to about half-an-hour away, and many (if not most) of the members are Bethelites who live in the HQ complex on site.
Tomorrow we'll go to Wallkill.
The first thing you notice from setting your smartphone maps and GPS routing systems is that the Warwick Bethel is not in Warwick. It's actually all within the borders and limits of Tuxedo Park, NY. If you look at the back of the Warwick Bethel brochure you'll see that 1 Kings Drive, Tuxedo Park, NY 10987 is the actual address. 
The name was picked, I assume, because Warwick is a town just a little farther away, in another zip code (10990), and smaller than Tuxedo Park, but with a name that sounds just a bit more Biblical. It's a name that also sounds a bit more alliterative: as in, "Watchtower at Wallkill" and "Watchtower at Warwick." Wars, Wicks, Walls, and Kills are all found in the Bible, but no Tuxedos of any stripe.
The exhibits were very good. I'll find my previous post that discusses them and try to get it to land below this one.

Every time I go to Chipotle's they have an announcement that something is no longer being served. The guacamole for a while, then last week when they put up a sign saying they would not be serving lettuce in their burritos/bowls until further notice . . .
. . . and now I heard that they've pulled pork again.
Oh wait, scratch that . . . [JWI holds an earpiece a little tighter to his ear]. . . I'm just now being told that "pulled pork" is an actual thing. Who knew? So, actually, it's an announcement: Chipotle's: they have "pulled pork" again!

I am writing this on Sunday 12/9 at about 3:30 PM.
On Thursday night I drove up here to Warwick with relatives. We completed the five exhibits at Warwick, spoke with some Bethelites we knew, and attended the Sunday morning meeting held in the Bethel Auditorium where the "Long Meadow" congregation meets. This is a congregation of about 180 persons, some of whom travel from up to about half-an-hour away, and many (if not most) of the members are Bethelites who live in the HQ complex on site.
Tomorrow we'll go to Wallkill.
The first thing you notice from setting your smartphone maps and GPS routing systems is that the Warwick Bethel is not in Warwick. It's actually all within the borders and limits of Tuxedo Park, NY. If you look at the back of the Warwick Bethel brochure you'll see that 1 Kings Drive, Tuxedo Park, NY 10987 is the actual address. 
The name was picked, I assume, because Warwick is a town just a little farther away, in another zip code (10990), and smaller than Tuxedo Park, but with a name that sounds just a bit more Biblical. It's a name that also sounds a bit more alliterative: as in, "Watchtower at Wallkill" and "Watchtower at Warwick." Wars, Wicks, Walls, and Kills are all found in the Bible, but no Tuxedos of any stripe.
The exhibits were very good. I'll find my previous post that discusses them and try to get it to land below this one.

There is something else I wanted to add to this. It's not that JW's personal views are valueless, but if you look up the definition of "to harbor" you will see that it means something like "keep (a thought or feeling, typically a negative one) in one's mind, especially secretly....with the synonyms  "nurturing" "nursing" "cherishing". It's all about attitude. There may be something that a JW understands differently to the GB/FDS, they just don't see it the same way. If someone understands something differently to the GB/FDS, do you think it would be reasonable to expect that someone to stop seeing it that way just for the sake of it? Or has it more to do with the attitude of that person? For example, someone may not really accept the explanation of the "Generation" although they tried, but just can't. The immature person might want to make a big deal out of it. They may "nurse" their idea until it becomes unbearable and consumes everything else, including all the "truths" they previously cherished. Now the only idea they "cherish" is their own opinion. The mature Christian accepts they may understand things differently and moves on, and waits till things become clearer one way or another. Let's say at some point in the past someone had a personal opinion on a subject which was not the official understanding at the time. Some years later though, the very opinion they had, now becomes the official teaching. Does that mean they were guilty of having the trait of an immature Christian just for having that different opinion? Obviously not. But they would have been an immature Christian had they "harbored" those thoughts to the point of advocating their opinion and becoming consumed by it.
When it's not merely a personal opinion or idea but a clear unambiguous Bible teaching. This is why it's important to know your Bible well. Those who didn't get carried away with 1975 were cognizant of the scripture which clearly says "no one knows the day or hour" no matter what anyone else was saying. Some who did get carried away blamed the org. for their losses. It's up to each person how they react, in the end we stand alone in front of the judgement seat of God and render an account for ourselves, not for anyone else.

That you are not Muslim.

No problem. Your secret is safe with me.

This is a good set of points. (I changed the bullets to numbers for discussion.)
Do you think that all of them have to be true at once? Or can 5 of the 7 bullets be true? Or only 2 of the 7?
Actually it appears that #1 through #6 are characteristic "ingredients" or features that will ultimately lead to #7 which is the actual cult product. That product becomes a support structure that can continue to support and enhance and defend the features of #1 through #6.
But there is also the question of a spectrum rather than black and white labeling. Within that spectrum there are variables for intention, motivation, flexibility, freedom, independent thinking, perceived spiritual value, etc.
I've kept an interest in this topic for years.
In fact, at Bethel I tried to study with some Moonies, who seemed receptive (they weren't). I did it mostly to get into their "community" warehouse, where they offered me crackers, milk, and fruit nectar (and more publications). Since then I've had a couple of LDS elders come by the house and make 4 return visits to try to study with me (I would point out things I found on anti-LDS sites, but woudn't study with them of course). And, working right near the NYC Scientology center in midtown I also took their little Bethel-like presentation tour a couple of times, and even met David Miscavige (from a short distance away) and heard him talk about how they helped 9/11 responders. On May 20, 2011, I spoke at length with a Harold Camping follower who gave me an entire CD/DVD full of proof that the rapture would be on May 21, 2011. I have a cousin who is a staunch Seventh Day Adventist, so I also studied as much of the early historical information about them as I could to try to convince her that the Witnesses had the more correct Adventist path. After trying to study them closely, I decided there was a little bit of "cult" in all of them. Of course, I mean in the pejorative sense that people use the term cult --based mostly on those bullet points you offered.
It's a stretch, but one could even defend or explain why one might call the Catholic Church a cult, because there are several of your bullet point features that are often seen in the lives and activities of some Catholics. The same might go for various political ideologies, even so broad as the United States Republican or Democrat parties, or various others  -- all in the pejorative sense.
But there are also nearly neutral or even nearly positive senses in which scholars use the term cult. Scholars can also look at the history of various religious groups and can speak of the cult of Yahweh in Israel, or the cult of John the Baptist, or the cult of primitive Christianity. This is not intended pejoratively. It's mostly used to help one realize the context in which a religious group survives and "cultivates" itself in a setting where they might be outnumbered by other larger religious groups surrounding them.

No problem. Your secret is safe with me.

This is a good set of points. (I changed the bullets to numbers for discussion.)
Do you think that all of them have to be true at once? Or can 5 of the 7 bullets be true? Or only 2 of the 7?
Actually it appears that #1 through #6 are characteristic "ingredients" or features that will ultimately lead to #7 which is the actual cult product. That product becomes a support structure that can continue to support and enhance and defend the features of #1 through #6.
But there is also the question of a spectrum rather than black and white labeling. Within that spectrum there are variables for intention, motivation, flexibility, freedom, independent thinking, perceived spiritual value, etc.
I've kept an interest in this topic for years.
In fact, at Bethel I tried to study with some Moonies, who seemed receptive (they weren't). I did it mostly to get into their "community" warehouse, where they offered me crackers, milk, and fruit nectar (and more publications). Since then I've had a couple of LDS elders come by the house and make 4 return visits to try to study with me (I would point out things I found on anti-LDS sites, but woudn't study with them of course). And, working right near the NYC Scientology center in midtown I also took their little Bethel-like presentation tour a couple of times, and even met David Miscavige (from a short distance away) and heard him talk about how they helped 9/11 responders. On May 20, 2011, I spoke at length with a Harold Camping follower who gave me an entire CD/DVD full of proof that the rapture would be on May 21, 2011. I have a cousin who is a staunch Seventh Day Adventist, so I also studied as much of the early historical information about them as I could to try to convince her that the Witnesses had the more correct Adventist path. After trying to study them closely, I decided there was a little bit of "cult" in all of them. Of course, I mean in the pejorative sense that people use the term cult --based mostly on those bullet points you offered.
It's a stretch, but one could even defend or explain why one might call the Catholic Church a cult, because there are several of your bullet point features that are often seen in the lives and activities of some Catholics. The same might go for various political ideologies, even so broad as the United States Republican or Democrat parties, or various others  -- all in the pejorative sense.
But there are also nearly neutral or even nearly positive senses in which scholars use the term cult. Scholars can also look at the history of various religious groups and can speak of the cult of Yahweh in Israel, or the cult of John the Baptist, or the cult of primitive Christianity. This is not intended pejoratively. It's mostly used to help one realize the context in which a religious group survives and "cultivates" itself in a setting where they might be outnumbered by other larger religious groups surrounding them.

Yes. I know. I was more talking about myself. I went ahead and posed the question because I personally am only GUESSING that he is a JW. I also think that he is probably quite a bit younger than several of us here, and therefore does not have the personal experience that many of us experienced directly with those predictions for the 1970's and the expectations surrounding 1975. 
I have believed since the first set of posts I read from SM, that he is a JW and is using a kind of "lawyer's honesty" in focusing on the fact that he is a Unitarian, [Primitive Christianity] Restorationist, etc. If you read closely you will notice that these terms are exactly in line with his definition of JWs. JWs are, in fact, both unitarian and restorationist, and most of us should have no problem admitting this.
In fact, what do you think would happen if someone tried to point out some information from so-called "official" Unitarian sites and publications that sounded too different from what Witnesses teach? We shouldn't be surprised to see SM ridicule such sources as "stupid" and point out that he is a "Biblical Unitarian." In other words, one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

The abused child is one of the witnesses to the crime. If the abuser admits his crime, then the abuser becomes the second witness to the crime.
(This only means that the congregation will not automatically take disciplinary action against the accused. It should never be used to avoid or discourage reporting the accusation to authorities.)

Yes. I know. I was more talking about myself. I went ahead and posed the question because I personally am only GUESSING that he is a JW. I also think that he is probably quite a bit younger than several of us here, and therefore does not have the personal experience that many of us experienced directly with those predictions for the 1970's and the expectations surrounding 1975. 
I have believed since the first set of posts I read from SM, that he is a JW and is using a kind of "lawyer's honesty" in focusing on the fact that he is a Unitarian, [Primitive Christianity] Restorationist, etc. If you read closely you will notice that these terms are exactly in line with his definition of JWs. JWs are, in fact, both unitarian and restorationist, and most of us should have no problem admitting this.
In fact, what do you think would happen if someone tried to point out some information from so-called "official" Unitarian sites and publications that sounded too different from what Witnesses teach? We shouldn't be surprised to see SM ridicule such sources as "stupid" and point out that he is a "Biblical Unitarian." In other words, one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Things like this are a good test of peoples' integrity.  
ESPECIALLY when the test has a simple YES or NO answer, and they are aware that they will answer to Almighty God, for lying.  Honest questions deserve honest answers, and unless life or liberty are at stake, are appropriate.
Especially in a discussion room where credibility is so very important ... as we are casually discussing life and death matters.
 


so here goes.....
1.) BillyTheKid46, ... are you now or have you ever been one of Jehovah's Witnesses ? ... and,
2.) are you now, or have ever been a Watchtower Lawyer, or anything similar?
3.) Space Merchant:  Are you now or have you ever been one of Jehovah's Witnesses?
Working on the exchange of information theory of Steven Covey, in "The Seven Habits of Successful People", about emotional "bank accounts" ... that it is immoral to try and make a withdrawal without having enough "deposits" to cover it ... please consider all the personal information about myself I have freely given here, to try and contribute to general understanding ... including my real name, and real picture, ad nauseaum, as enough "deposit" to cover the request for a withdrawal from YOUR emotional bank accounts, for information not already volunteered.
Of course this only works between men of integrity, and will be ridiculed and/or ignored by weasels.
 

This is a good set of points. (I changed the bullets to numbers for discussion.)
Do you think that all of them have to be true at once? Or can 5 of the 7 bullets be true? Or only 2 of the 7?
Actually it appears that #1 through #6 are characteristic "ingredients" or features that will ultimately lead to #7 which is the actual cult product. That product becomes a support structure that can continue to support and enhance and defend the features of #1 through #6.
But there is also the question of a spectrum rather than black and white labeling. Within that spectrum there are variables for intention, motivation, flexibility, freedom, independent thinking, perceived spiritual value, etc.
I've kept an interest in this topic for years.
In fact, at Bethel I tried to study with some Moonies, who seemed receptive (they weren't). I did it mostly to get into their "community" warehouse, where they offered me crackers, milk, and fruit nectar (and more publications). Since then I've had a couple of LDS elders come by the house and make 4 return visits to try to study with me (I would point out things I found on anti-LDS sites, but woudn't study with them of course). And, working right near the NYC Scientology center in midtown I also took their little Bethel-like presentation tour a couple of times, and even met David Miscavige (from a short distance away) and heard him talk about how they helped 9/11 responders. On May 20, 2011, I spoke at length with a Harold Camping follower who gave me an entire CD/DVD full of proof that the rapture would be on May 21, 2011. I have a cousin who is a staunch Seventh Day Adventist, so I also studied as much of the early historical information about them as I could to try to convince her that the Witnesses had the more correct Adventist path. After trying to study them closely, I decided there was a little bit of "cult" in all of them. Of course, I mean in the pejorative sense that people use the term cult --based mostly on those bullet points you offered.
It's a stretch, but one could even defend or explain why one might call the Catholic Church a cult, because there are several of your bullet point features that are often seen in the lives and activities of some Catholics. The same might go for various political ideologies, even so broad as the United States Republican or Democrat parties, or various others  -- all in the pejorative sense.
But there are also nearly neutral or even nearly positive senses in which scholars use the term cult. Scholars can also look at the history of various religious groups and can speak of the cult of Yahweh in Israel, or the cult of John the Baptist, or the cult of primitive Christianity. This is not intended pejoratively. It's mostly used to help one realize the context in which a religious group survives and "cultivates" itself in a setting where they might be outnumbered by other larger religious groups surrounding them.

Instead of just guessing, a person might be able to get closer to the answer just by asking @Space Merchant. Assuming SM responds at all, one can see whether a direct YES or a direct NO appears in the response @Space Merchant gives to the following question:
@Space Merchant, Are you now, or have you ever been, one of Jehovah's Witnesses?

Yes. I know. I was more talking about myself. I went ahead and posed the question because I personally am only GUESSING that he is a JW. I also think that he is probably quite a bit younger than several of us here, and therefore does not have the personal experience that many of us experienced directly with those predictions for the 1970's and the expectations surrounding 1975. 
I have believed since the first set of posts I read from SM, that he is a JW and is using a kind of "lawyer's honesty" in focusing on the fact that he is a Unitarian, [Primitive Christianity] Restorationist, etc. If you read closely you will notice that these terms are exactly in line with his definition of JWs. JWs are, in fact, both unitarian and restorationist, and most of us should have no problem admitting this.
In fact, what do you think would happen if someone tried to point out some information from so-called "official" Unitarian sites and publications that sounded too different from what Witnesses teach? We shouldn't be surprised to see SM ridicule such sources as "stupid" and point out that he is a "Biblical Unitarian." In other words, one of Jehovah's Witnesses.