JW Insider

That "succinct" answer is a perfect example of the "skirting" I referred to earlier:
Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Feel That They Are the Only People Who Will Be Saved?
    No. Many millions who lived in centuries past and who weren’t Jehovah’s Witnesses will have an opportunity for salvation. The Bible explains that in God’s promised new world, “there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) Additionally, many now living may yet begin to serve God, and they too will gain salvation. In any case, it’s not our job to judge who will or won’t be saved. That assignment rests squarely in Jesus’ hands.—John 5:22, 27. First of all the more generally correct answer is YES, not NO. The question was do Jehovah's Witnesses FEEL that they are the only people who will be saved? In my opinion, millions of them do feel exactly that way, whether or not this matches the official position. In cleaning out 50 years of my parents house for the last week I have read a lot of my deceased grandmother's correspondence with elders, pioneers, and good friends she had all over the world. I was struck by the way assemblies attended in many different nations were often summarized. These ranged from the 1950's up to about 2010. Included in so many of them were expressions like: "Isn't it great to be associated with the only people whom Jehovah will spare through this old system."
Also if we look at the exact wording of the succinct answer you referred to, notice that it never says that anyone other than Jehovah's Witnesses will be saved through Armageddon. The answer is given as "NO" for only two reasons. The first reason is because many non-JWs from centuries past will have an opportunity for salvation through the resurrection. Presumably they will become Jehovah's Witnesses during the 1,000 year reign as we also teach that we will teach them. I'm sure you have also heard convention speakers talking about how in the resurrection we will hear stories from faithful men and women of Bible times, but then we will have the opportunity to teach them what Jehovah has been doing with us.
The second reason for saying the answer is "NO" also speaks vaguely about who may survive Armageddon: "Additionally, many now living may yet begin to serve God." (It's the new motto for the old "Millions" campaign.) This also does not say specifically that any non-JWs may survive Armageddon. Most Witnesses apparently presume that this means that our preaching work may result in more non-JWs becoming JWs.
This brings up another point about the idea that something nearly miraculous is yet to be seen in countries like China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, India, etc. Expecting that something like this might have to happen first is counter to the idea that the end may come at any time like a thief in the night. The end could happen 5 minutes after you fall asleep tonight, or before I click "Submit Reply." But that couldn't be true if we need to see a miraculous new distribution of JWs around the world, first.

That "succinct" answer is a perfect example of the "skirting" I referred to earlier:
Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Feel That They Are the Only People Who Will Be Saved?
    No. Many millions who lived in centuries past and who weren’t Jehovah’s Witnesses will have an opportunity for salvation. The Bible explains that in God’s promised new world, “there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) Additionally, many now living may yet begin to serve God, and they too will gain salvation. In any case, it’s not our job to judge who will or won’t be saved. That assignment rests squarely in Jesus’ hands.—John 5:22, 27. First of all the more generally correct answer is YES, not NO. The question was do Jehovah's Witnesses FEEL that they are the only people who will be saved? In my opinion, millions of them do feel exactly that way, whether or not this matches the official position. In cleaning out 50 years of my parents house for the last week I have read a lot of my deceased grandmother's correspondence with elders, pioneers, and good friends she had all over the world. I was struck by the way assemblies attended in many different nations were often summarized. These ranged from the 1950's up to about 2010. Included in so many of them were expressions like: "Isn't it great to be associated with the only people whom Jehovah will spare through this old system."
Also if we look at the exact wording of the succinct answer you referred to, notice that it never says that anyone other than Jehovah's Witnesses will be saved through Armageddon. The answer is given as "NO" for only two reasons. The first reason is because many non-JWs from centuries past will have an opportunity for salvation through the resurrection. Presumably they will become Jehovah's Witnesses during the 1,000 year reign as we also teach that we will teach them. I'm sure you have also heard convention speakers talking about how in the resurrection we will hear stories from faithful men and women of Bible times, but then we will have the opportunity to teach them what Jehovah has been doing with us.
The second reason for saying the answer is "NO" also speaks vaguely about who may survive Armageddon: "Additionally, many now living may yet begin to serve God." (It's the new motto for the old "Millions" campaign.) This also does not say specifically that any non-JWs may survive Armageddon. Most Witnesses apparently presume that this means that our preaching work may result in more non-JWs becoming JWs.
This brings up another point about the idea that something nearly miraculous is yet to be seen in countries like China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, India, etc. Expecting that something like this might have to happen first is counter to the idea that the end may come at any time like a thief in the night. The end could happen 5 minutes after you fall asleep tonight, or before I click "Submit Reply." But that couldn't be true if we need to see a miraculous new distribution of JWs around the world, first.

I didn't watch the video. I might have but for some reason the sound wasn't very loud and I was in a noisy place. I just wanted to say that I thought that it was good that you expressed your opinion about it. Jack Ryan is not a JW and I assume he put it here for JWs to discuss. It might have been to try to embarrass JWs and/or it might have been to get JWs to think about policies that might be dangerous. I am getting a sense (after hearing about a recent rally of ex-JWs) that perhaps the suicide rate for ex-JWs really is much higher than the normal population, and it doesn't really surprise me that much. It also doesn't surprise me that the suicide rate for ex-soldiers is very high, but for different reasons.

About October 1, 4026 B.C.E. ?
*** w89 8/1 p. 10 par. 2 God Purposes That Man Enjoy Life in Paradise ***
To recognize that, look back at the newly created Adam when he first received consciousness, when he examined his own body and all that he saw and heard and felt around him, when he realized with a start that he was alive! This occurred some 6,000 years ago, in the year 4,026 before our Common Era, according to the count of time given in the Holy Bible. . . . The time would be about October 1, since mankind’s most ancient calendars began counting time near that date.

I enjoy it too..... @James Thomas Rook Jr.     We cry always any dates out...  but forget, that all people imperfect !  The Org.  also the GB ! Always counting & calculate that makes NO sense.  We're SO tiny,. without the Bible we would know and recognize NOTHINGS !!  
 

My 1991 Flock book has notes in the margins expressing the instructor's warnings about the danger of media contact. And, of course, it contains exactly the same text handwritten on the blank page 143 that every elder at the time was asked to write in their own Flock book.
I'll type out my handwritten notes as dictated during "school" with respect to what goes on an S77 or S79 form. I think it's easy to see from this (and comments from the instructor(s)) that protecting the reputation of the WTS is always considered very important.
I see much value in many of the points that were added. I think most people would be able to read this idea of "protecting the Society" between the lines, even if they didn't hear the words and attitude of the instructor. Here are my handwritten notes:
Avoid expressions on these forms:     S77, S79 form
1) "anything alluding or naming one of the Society's attorneys"
2) any mention of the legal dept
3) any comments referring to the direction from the Society
4) any comments mentioning anyone other than the committee itself as a possible influence in the decision reached
5) any comment that might suggest to someone with a critical eye that the committee did not reach its decision on its own but, instead, somehow yielded to the influence of an outside party
6) any comments indicating that the elders mishandled the case, or committed any error in the investigation of the judicial committee process.
Every time these forms are mentioned in the Flock book, the reference to the "blank" page 143 was to be written in the margin as a reminder. Still, as just one example, page 114 (or 115) in most "schooled" Flock books will also have a marginal handwritten note as stated by the instructor that says (with respect to reinstatements, especially):
"It would be best to check with Branch Office before making the exception."
I should add that the above information we were to write on page 143 comes after several chapters of very specific direction from the Society about various ins and outs of the judicial process, exactly how to judge the difference in "levels" of sexual immorality, porneia, and other types of wrongdoing, repentance, etc. And it comes immediately on the blank page just before the chapter called "Jehovah's People Theocratically Organized for His Name." The purpose of the chapter is to strengthen the idea that all this direction properly comes from the Society which is already somewhat contradictory in spirit to points 3, 4, and 5 above.
The text of the chapter includes many of the following points which are basically correct, but they also add greatly to the sense that Jehovah's Name must be protected through protecting the name (or reputation) of the organization:
Today, this involves a "stewardship from God," an arrangement administered through a "faithful and discreet slave." Local congregations throughout the earth are not organized according to democratic principles but are under God-governed, theocratic control. We must recognize and submit to this theocratic rulership. The anointed remnant has been entrusted with all of the Master's belongings. Overseers serve as earthly representatives under the direction of the steward class. Theocratic submission requires recognition of this orderly arrangement. God's laws are based on righteous principles, and they are enforceable by an organization or an agency.

I have suffered from both types of liars, too. But I don't think Stephen Lett is either. He was a District Overseer that included my present circuit. I've seen him up close in front of a congregation and at assemblies, although I can't say I have seen him interact closely with elders or other individuals. But he was known to be a man full of a lot of love and concern for others.
When it comes to defending something he loves -- and he loves the organization -- he is prone to the same kinds of mistakes that all humans make. They will often "spin" and exaggerate and filter out negative details to try to put the thing they love in the best light possible. Most people do this naturally when it come to speaking about their children, their spouses, and other loved ones. If you listen closely to what he said, it was also obvious that it was calculated to be a true statement. He didn't say that we have no trouble with such crimes, or that we are better than other religions. He said that we don't protect sexual predators and a claim that we protect predators is a lie that finds its source in apostate lies.
It turns out that he was trying to generalize, and probably spoke from a belief he holds to be true.
I believe he is wrong in some serious ways, but I don't know that he knew he was wrong. I think he thought he was right. I do have direct evidence that we have upheld policies that have protected criminals more than we have protected the victims of these criminals. This may have even protected criminal elders more than others persons in congregations where such crimes have been committed. I think that even now there are policies and procedures that tend to protect criminals more than they protect children, but the written policy is almost as good as it can be made under the restrictions of the two-witness policy (as we currently think we must apply it).

I have suffered from both types of liars, too. But I don't think Stephen Lett is either. He was a District Overseer that included my present circuit. I've seen him up close in front of a congregation and at assemblies, although I can't say I have seen him interact closely with elders or other individuals. But he was known to be a man full of a lot of love and concern for others.
When it comes to defending something he loves -- and he loves the organization -- he is prone to the same kinds of mistakes that all humans make. They will often "spin" and exaggerate and filter out negative details to try to put the thing they love in the best light possible. Most people do this naturally when it come to speaking about their children, their spouses, and other loved ones. If you listen closely to what he said, it was also obvious that it was calculated to be a true statement. He didn't say that we have no trouble with such crimes, or that we are better than other religions. He said that we don't protect sexual predators and a claim that we protect predators is a lie that finds its source in apostate lies.
It turns out that he was trying to generalize, and probably spoke from a belief he holds to be true.
I believe he is wrong in some serious ways, but I don't know that he knew he was wrong. I think he thought he was right. I do have direct evidence that we have upheld policies that have protected criminals more than we have protected the victims of these criminals. This may have even protected criminal elders more than others persons in congregations where such crimes have been committed. I think that even now there are policies and procedures that tend to protect criminals more than they protect children, but the written policy is almost as good as it can be made under the restrictions of the two-witness policy (as we currently think we must apply it).

About October 1, 4026 B.C.E. ?
*** w89 8/1 p. 10 par. 2 God Purposes That Man Enjoy Life in Paradise ***
To recognize that, look back at the newly created Adam when he first received consciousness, when he examined his own body and all that he saw and heard and felt around him, when he realized with a start that he was alive! This occurred some 6,000 years ago, in the year 4,026 before our Common Era, according to the count of time given in the Holy Bible. . . . The time would be about October 1, since mankind’s most ancient calendars began counting time near that date.

Through one man sin entered into the world.—Rom. 5:12.
Adam was the “one man” through whom sin and death “entered into the world.” Thus “by the trespass of the one man death ruled as king.” Paul added that “the abundance of [God’s] undeserved kindness” came about “through the one person, Jesus Christ.” (Rom. 5:12, 17) And that undeserved kindness has resulted in good for all mankind. “Through the obedience of the one person [Jesus] many will be made righteous.” Actually, God’s undeserved kindness can lead to “everlasting life through Jesus Christ.” (Rom. 5:19, 21) Jehovah was not obliged to have his Son come to earth to provide the ransom. Moreover, imperfect, sinful humans did not of themselves merit, or deserve, what God and Jesus did in providing a ransom by which forgiveness was possible. So our being forgiven and offered the prospect of living forever is truly a kindness that is undeserved. We should highly value the gift of God’s undeserved kindness and let it affect our life daily. w16.12 1:1, 6, 7
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/dt/r1/lp-e/2018/6/21

This one is for  @Gone Away . Isn't that the Northenden, Manchester Assembly Hall?

This one is for  @Gone Away . Isn't that the Northenden, Manchester Assembly Hall?

Would a Hebrew have understood the prohibition on pork as meaning he had to avoid "major" pig fractions (ham, bacon, ribs) but "minor" pig fractions like pickled feet and fried pork rinds were ok?

I had no idea. But I like the game so I looked it up:
"South Bronx Kingdom Hall at 1140 Teller Ave. KH on [first] Floor, CO [Circuit Overseer] apartment above. This was the home of the Melrose Congregation.  Appears to be 1960's.

After the St. Louis convention of August 6-10, 1941, where J. F. Rutherford addressed his largest visible public audience of 115,000, also releasing the new book Children and making known for the first time that universal domination was the great issue . . . https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1955803
*** w69 10/15 p. 637 Appreciating Jehovah’s Mercy and Loving-Kindness ***
And think of the enormous quantities of literature that are distributed within a day or two at our large conventions! This has always fascinated me. At St. Louis in 1941, for example, more than 125,000 copies of the book Children were distributed along with almost half a million of the booklet “Comfort All That Mourn." I'm at my mom and dad's house today in California, helping them pack and move, and just held a copy of the Children book that my father got at this same assembly.
 

After the St. Louis convention of August 6-10, 1941, where J. F. Rutherford addressed his largest visible public audience of 115,000, also releasing the new book Children and making known for the first time that universal domination was the great issue . . . https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1955803
*** w69 10/15 p. 637 Appreciating Jehovah’s Mercy and Loving-Kindness ***
And think of the enormous quantities of literature that are distributed within a day or two at our large conventions! This has always fascinated me. At St. Louis in 1941, for example, more than 125,000 copies of the book Children were distributed along with almost half a million of the booklet “Comfort All That Mourn." I'm at my mom and dad's house today in California, helping them pack and move, and just held a copy of the Children book that my father got at this same assembly.
 

After the St. Louis convention of August 6-10, 1941, where J. F. Rutherford addressed his largest visible public audience of 115,000, also releasing the new book Children and making known for the first time that universal domination was the great issue . . . https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1955803
*** w69 10/15 p. 637 Appreciating Jehovah’s Mercy and Loving-Kindness ***
And think of the enormous quantities of literature that are distributed within a day or two at our large conventions! This has always fascinated me. At St. Louis in 1941, for example, more than 125,000 copies of the book Children were distributed along with almost half a million of the booklet “Comfort All That Mourn." I'm at my mom and dad's house today in California, helping them pack and move, and just held a copy of the Children book that my father got at this same assembly.
 

Let's say you want a cover for an International magazine, that graphically depicts the fact that the Russian Federation is now in the business of BANNING BIBLES !
FIRST: hire some very creative photographers with the latest expensive equipment .. in this case a $50,000 medium format digital camera and articulated support, and a pot load of lighting equipment, and a studio ... and oh yeas... write a check for about $20,000.
SECOND: Get a pickup truck and go down to your local big game taxidermist and rent a stuffed Russian bear.
THIRD: build some supports under the stuffed bear, and figure out angles and lighting  ... and get a copy of the specific Bible that the Russkies are banning ... in this case ... the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
FOURTH: Make claw marks on the NWT, using great skill and creativity.
FIFTH: Make sure the photo is PERFECTLY lit, with a PERFECT background, and PERFECT angle.  You are probably in your second day of taking the ONE picture you want.
SIXTH: compose and crop the picture so that the magazine staff can add commentary, and of course their "mast", or name of the magazine.
SEVENTH: Deliver the photo by hand to the editor of the magazine, get your check COD, and go to THEIR bank and cash it. THIS is the most important part!!
Graphically .... it looks something like this .......
 

Hey!! I placed that Bible with them. And to think I imagined I was going to return and have a nice Bible discussion with them.
http://www.newsweek.com/behind-scenes-newsweeks-international-june-1-cover-art-960456
If I had known they were going to do that, I would have placed with them one of the old green ones (with dinosaur on the inside flap)

I'm guessing that in the first picture Angela Merkel is saying: "Did you hear the one about the Japanese man who  . . . . ?"
That could explain the second picture.

I have no doubt that is the real story.
#HowManyJapaneseDoesItTakeToUnscrewALightBulb

Probably by selecting just the right one, you could suggest of any wedding that they will be divorced in two weeks.

 
Remember focal plane shutters on film cameras where you could get dramatically different flash/available light balanced  pictures, depending on whether or not the "x" (electronic flash setting) was set to "at first curtain", or "at second curtain"?
I took a photo of a basketball player, years ago, jumping to put the ball in the basket, with a strong flash, and the combination of blurred available light and secondary flash  at about a 15th of a second, and the photo looked like his white front teeth, trailing the flash image,  were about 12 feet long, in an arc.
I bet some interesting photos could be made of GB member, Brother Stephen Lett, in action.
I used to rely on GB cards, but found that some were typical, and some were anti-typical, and I could never make any sense of the overlapping photos.
For those in Rio Linda, that is ultra-dry Gobi Desert humor.

I'm guessing that in the first picture Angela Merkel is saying: "Did you hear the one about the Japanese man who  . . . . ?"
That could explain the second picture.

Here's my opinion. It's a bit more generous.
It was never intended to be a "report." It was someone using their imagination. They were imagining what a newspaper could look like right after Armageddon. Have you ever read a futuristic novel?
It's not so different from this title and first line of Song 134:
See Yourself When All Is New Just see yourself, just see me too; Just see us all in a world that is new. Think how you'll feel, how it will be . . . . These are actually good exercises for all of us. Sometimes if something doesn't seem real, we can imagine very specific actions we would take if it were real. In some cases a mental "run-through" can help us see if we truly have faith in something, or if it doesn't make sense. I think the person showed creativity in a similar way to one who writes a novel.
Edited to add: It's like the final video from the convention as seen here: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/56951-jw-convention-2018-final-video-english-version/?tab=comments#comment-91008
It's sensational, and it's not a true report. But it isn't intended to be. It's intended to exercise your imagination.