JW Insider

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'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.

As a professional photographer, I know that photos taken fractions of a second apart can make people and dynamics look completely different ... and keep my camera on "continuous" shooting bursts 5 pictures to the second. 
Now that "film" is free, with digital cameras when I shoot a wedding sometimes I take two or three thousand pictures for that very reason.  My 64GB SD card will take more than 10,000 high resolution pictures before I have to change the card.  I do take along spare cameras and six fully charged batteries.
A fraction of a second can make all the difference!

The Daily Signal published another photo, taken moments apart:
No particular tension in this one. 

It makes one wonder how much is real and how much is selected just to convey a desired effect.

Here's a relevant quote:
Angela Merkel is now the leader of the free world, not Donald Trump  -https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/angela-merkel-donald-trump-democracy-freedom-of-press-a7556986.html
The US President isn’t motivated by protecting liberal democracy or freedom, his sole ideology is Trumpism: corporate autocracy with a populist facade. And he surrounds himself with white nationalists even more hostile to liberal democracy than he is
Also see the Daily Mail article from a couple of years ago: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3303677/Putin-declared-powerful-man-world-Forbes-magazine-Angela-Merkel-replacing-President-Obama-second-place.html
Putin is declared the most powerful man in the world by Forbes magazine... with Angela Merkel replacing President Obama in second place
Vladimir Putin is declared world's most powerful for third year in a row German Chancellor Angela Merkel steals runner-up from Barack Obama First year a sitting U.S. President has not made it into the top two   
It's a comment on how much power the US has supposedly lost due loss of trust in the US Gov't for negotiating power. Trump's pulling out of prior international agreements indicates to nations that the US cannot be trusted to keep an agreement, and therefore the US loses powerful leverage as a player among other nations. Germany keeps control over international monetary policy in a way that the US can no longer manage. And the potential drain on the "full faith and credit of the US Govt" backing our Treasury bonds. (The way we [USA] try to sell our debt to other countries to pay for things like Trump's trillion dollar tax cut to favor the wealthy. As it is we will have to raise interest rates on Treasury bonds to entice foreign countries to fund this trillion dollars.)

Here's a relevant quote:
Angela Merkel is now the leader of the free world, not Donald Trump  -https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/angela-merkel-donald-trump-democracy-freedom-of-press-a7556986.html
The US President isn’t motivated by protecting liberal democracy or freedom, his sole ideology is Trumpism: corporate autocracy with a populist facade. And he surrounds himself with white nationalists even more hostile to liberal democracy than he is
Also see the Daily Mail article from a couple of years ago: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3303677/Putin-declared-powerful-man-world-Forbes-magazine-Angela-Merkel-replacing-President-Obama-second-place.html
Putin is declared the most powerful man in the world by Forbes magazine... with Angela Merkel replacing President Obama in second place
Vladimir Putin is declared world's most powerful for third year in a row German Chancellor Angela Merkel steals runner-up from Barack Obama First year a sitting U.S. President has not made it into the top two   
It's a comment on how much power the US has supposedly lost due loss of trust in the US Gov't for negotiating power. Trump's pulling out of prior international agreements indicates to nations that the US cannot be trusted to keep an agreement, and therefore the US loses powerful leverage as a player among other nations. Germany keeps control over international monetary policy in a way that the US can no longer manage. And the potential drain on the "full faith and credit of the US Govt" backing our Treasury bonds. (The way we [USA] try to sell our debt to other countries to pay for things like Trump's trillion dollar tax cut to favor the wealthy. As it is we will have to raise interest rates on Treasury bonds to entice foreign countries to fund this trillion dollars.)

The most powerful person in the free world.
 
And she's staring down at Donald Trump.
 
It looks like, John Bolton, the most dangerous man in the free world was there, too.

When I was 16, an 18 year old friend played parts his favorite Cheech and Chong album for me. I recall about three things from the album that were funny and not too embarrassing to tell. One of them was an imaginary conversation between two dogs walking down to the street when one of them has to do his duty. The other dog is impressed by the shape and symmetry of the production. The conversation includes: "Wow! Did I do that?" and the response "Yeah! You're a real Rembrandt!"
The fact that this is in Rotterdam seemed to trigger the fecetious memory.

The wanted poster supposedly uses the phrase: "McLean uses Kingdom Halls as cover to hide and may be in a Kingdom Hall near you!" Not to take anything away from the man's crimes, but this struck me as a "gloss" intended to speak more directly to JWs. So I checked it against the actual wanted poster and the phrase does not show up there https://www.usmarshals.gov/investigations/most_wanted/mclean/mclean15.pdf
That and a few other small things on the picture above makes it look like this was a specially made version just to share with JWs. (There are multiple typos, misspellings, and capitalization problems on the updated wanted poster, which don't show up on any of the actual wanted posters.)

The wanted poster supposedly uses the phrase: "McLean uses Kingdom Halls as cover to hide and may be in a Kingdom Hall near you!" Not to take anything away from the man's crimes, but this struck me as a "gloss" intended to speak more directly to JWs. So I checked it against the actual wanted poster and the phrase does not show up there https://www.usmarshals.gov/investigations/most_wanted/mclean/mclean15.pdf
That and a few other small things on the picture above makes it look like this was a specially made version just to share with JWs. (There are multiple typos, misspellings, and capitalization problems on the updated wanted poster, which don't show up on any of the actual wanted posters.)

Is it possible that in raking over old "manna" we are sure to find "worms"? Exodus 16:20.

C.T.Russell therefore claimed it was appropriate to refer to the 144,000 (in which he included himself) as "The Christ" and "The Eternal Father" and "God manifest in the flesh." In fact, this was not just about creating titles, so that, for example, the 144,000 could say they were "the Prophet Greater than Moses."
C.T.Russell actually claimed he was a part of the sacrifice made on behalf of the world. He claimed he was a part of the Atonement that would that would justify mankind. He was very literally included in the "Savior" of mankind. In fact, Russell taught that Christ was not his Mediator. Not the Mediator of the 144,000. At first, for nearly 30 years, he taught this topic correctly, but then he received "new light" by which he claimed that this idea of Jesus as Mediator of the 144,000 was now part of the"smoke of the dark ages." 
In our issue of 1906, p. 26, we said, "Our Lord Jesus in his own person has been the Mediator between the Father and the 'household of faith' during this Gospel Age." This statement is incorrect. No Scripture so declares. It is a part of the smoke of the dark ages which we are glad now to wipe from our eyes.  The book "What Pastor Russell Said?" p. 99-100:
CHURCH—Re Need of a Mediator. Q99:1 QUESTION (1907)—1—Do we as individuals need Christ as our mediator before we become members of His Body? ANSWER.—I answer that if we had needed Christ as a Mediator, then God would have provided Him as a mediator, and the fact that God did not provide Him as our mediator, proves that we do not need Him as such. The Scriptures never speak of a mediator except from the standpoint of a covenant. . . .  If we are faithful we will be members of the mediator class of that new covenant. In other words, you and I are invited to become members of the mediator of the new Covenant. . . .  We are under the original covenant, which required no mediator. The church does not need a mediator. This was repeated several times until Russell died, and was even kept on as official doctrine under Rutherford. It shows up in the October 15, 1921 Watch Tower, but was officially changed in the April 1, 1934 Watchtower. In time, of course (1979) it was changed to mean that ONLY the 144,000 could have Jesus as their mediator, even though up to 1974 it had finally been applied to all mankind. 
But the main point, related of course, was that the 144,000 are included in the sacrifice and atonement. This was taught even from the first few Watch Tower magazines. (e.g., Watch Tower September 1880, p.139). Tabernacle Shadows had said:
the followers of Jesus are represented by this "Lord's goat," but also that their sacrifice, reckoned in with their Head, Jesus, constitutes part of the world's sin-offering. . . .  yet even now, any member of the "Royal Priesthood" may say to those who believe and repent, "Thy sins are forgiven thee"--as did our Head, by faith looking forward, as he did, to the completion of the sacrifices for sins (p.77,100) The 144,000 were referenced in the expression "Christ and his joint-sacrificers." In the WT February 15, 1909 issue:
Thus the sacrifice of Christ, Head and Body, has progressed for over eighteen centuries. We believe that the consummation is near at hand. When the High Priest shall have accepted the last member of his Body, and shall have finished the sacrificing, he will apply, beyond the vail, the blood, his own blood—the blood of his members—on the mercy-seat, on behalf of all the people. This was not just Russell of course. It was also a teaching under Rutherford until 1939, just a couple years before he died. For example, the Watch Tower in May 15, 1928, p. 147:
". . . the blood of Christ, including the body members', is presented and used to make atonement for the sins of the people." and in 1935, p. 284:
"The slaying of the Lord's goat and the carrying of its blood into the holiest of all to be sprinkled on the mercy seat there foreshadowed the sacrificial death of that class who would constitute members of the body of Christ, and therefore constitute a part of Christ. . . " The essential part of this teaching still lasted through the writings under Rutherford, Knorr, and Frederick Franz:
*** w51 1/15 p. 56 par. 25 Participation with Demons Forbidden ***
So for the members of the body of the Christ to have ‘life in themselves’ means to share the privilege with Jesus of bestowing the benefits of his sacrificed life upon obedient mankind during the thousand years of his kingdom. They will become his heavenly bride, “the Lamb’s wife.” As such they will mother the earthly children of the “Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace”, Jesus Christ. (Rev. 19:7-9; 21:9, 10; Isa. 9:6) So the “little flock”, the “bride” class, are the exclusive ones that drink the blood of the Son of man as well as feed on his flesh. *** w78 3/1 p. 10 Memorializing Christ’s Death—How Much Longer? ***
It was the opportunity to gain inherent life with the Christ in the heavens, “life in yourselves.” (John 6:53) By reigning with him in heaven they could pass on to mankind the life-giving benefits of his sacrifice. Same as the 1985 edition of "Reasoning from the Scriptures:"
Thus those who are granted to have "life in themselves" like Christ will share with him in imparting to mankind the life-giving benefits of the ransom sacrifice. In 1986, this expression was no longer applied just to the anointed but could include those who come out of the Millennium. (w86 2/15).

I can tell it's not Brother Barber, but I never met Ernie Beavor. Remember this about him though, as G.A. already mentioned:
*** w01 2/1 p. 15 par. 7 Are You Living Up to Your Dedication? ***
One such individual was Ernest E. Beavor of England. He became a Witness in 1939 at the beginning of World War II, and he gave up a flourishing press photography business in order to take up the full-time ministry. Because of maintaining his Christian neutrality, he went to prison for two years. His family stood by him, and in 1950 his three children attended the Watchtower Bible School of Gilead for missionary training, in New York. Brother Beavor was so zealous in his preaching activity that friends called him Armageddon Ernie. He loyally lived up to his dedication, and right down to his death in 1986, he proclaimed the imminence of GodÂ’s war of Armageddon. He did not view his dedication as a limited-time contract with God! This is something like the way he looked in 1980. The pic above could be 6 years later, or earlier.

 

It’s with a Heavy Heart I close this account. Governing Body is now asking us to stay away from Social Media. I will only have a account for Education of Health and Emotional Support. Jehovah Bless!

I referenced the idea of solving a mystery because the Revelation book includes this event under the heading (Chapter 34): "AN AWESOME MYSTERY SOLVED."
I listened to Knorr's talk recorded in Cleveland, found here (https://archive.org/details/PeaceCanItLastByNathanKnorr)while following along in the "Peace -- Can it Last?" booklet which says inside the booklet that it is a transcript of the talk. It is not actually a transcript, although it's possible that it was intended as one. The booklet states:
The above is the text of the speech "Peace — Can It Last?" delivered by the president of the WATCH TOWER SOCIETY, Sunday, September 20, 1942, at the public meeting of the New World Theocratic Assembly. This unique Assembly included more than eighty simultaneous conventions in cities in America, British Isles, Sweden, Central and South America, West and South Africa, and Hawaii. The president spoke at the key convention in Cleveland, Ohio, and his speech was conducted by a network of telephone lines direct to like conventions in fifty-one other cities in the United States, besides being radio-east over WBBR. The combined attendance in the United States at the lecture was 126,000. The speech is here published in behalf of the millions of persons of good-will who did not hear. But the transcript contains many items of interest that were either skipped by Knorr, or were not part of the original transcript he read from. I'll mark in red the portions that were skipped in the speech.
 
But the war precedes a peace; and in a radio address at Philadelphia, broadcast around the world, concerning postwar leadership, the attorney general of the United States said (July 3, 1942): "It seems to me a wholesome thing that men are thinking in 1942 of ways to win a peace, and acting on their thoughts — yes, even now, while the war is yet to be won. It means that at last the realization has come to us that world war and world peace cannot be dissociated as parts of the same great upheaval. The problems of peace and of war are interdependent." (New York Times, July 4, 1942) Shortly thereafter the ex-president of the nation said in a broadcast from San Francisco: "Whatever the modifying views of our associates in war may be, Americans should have formulated the kind of peace that THEY want. They must make up their minds BEFORE the war ends; otherwise others will make the peace, and not us." (New York Times, July 13, 1942) And in his recent book, on "The Problems of Lasting Peace", it is written: "The purpose of this war, the most terrible of three centuries, is to make a lasting Peace. We must first win the war. But we will not win lasting peace unless we prepare for it. And we can prepare only by full and free public discussion, by the cold surgery of analysis." In May it was revealed that thirty-five government agencies were then engaged in postwar planning. (Stated by T. E. D., May 9, 1942) International discussions, and likewise public forums, are being held on postwar problems. Therefore the question is a timely and urgent one, "Peace — Can It Last?" The answer depends upon how the peace problems are solved. The greatest religious head in "Christendom" claims it his right to hold the world domination, and he is moving to exercise his power and influence in the peace conference, even offering the Vatican in which to hold it. By reason of his concordat with the Fascist dictator of Rome in 1929 he is now a temporal ruler as well as a religious one. The Hierarchy and the religious population which he rules as god declare that the Peace Treaty of 1919 failed because the pope was not in on it. He now appears in a peace role, pluming himself for a suitable place or voice in the coming Peace Conference. If he gains it, and if the Treaty of Vienna of 1815 is followed as to primacy of diplomatic representatives, then he or his official representative should preside as the "dean" of all the conferees. Says one of his American archbishops: "The only enduring peace that will restore the world to sanity and to a sense of the dignity of human personality is the peace of Pope Pius XII." And a monsignor in a radiocast from Washington, D.C., says: "He [that is, Pacelli] whose name is rooted in peace will be the one who will restore peace to the world; for when peace does come it will come, not in the way the world expects or plans it, but in an utterly unsuspected way." — Mgr. F. J. S., February 8, 1942. A United Press dispatch of July 15, from Vichy, France, was therefore of peculiar interest to Americans who believe only in peace by victory, and no negotiated peace with a gangster, and which dispatch reads: "Diplomatic circles said tonight that the Vatican was preparing a peace encyclical, to be published in mid-August, defining Pope Pius XII's ideas of a basis for a negotiated peace and postwar world planning." "An earlier United Press dispatch from Vichy, which apparently had some bearing on this report, was completely censored out except for the statement that 'there was a noticeable rapprochement of the Vatican and non-Catholic powers' recently." (New York Times, July 16,1942) Whom these "non-Catholic powers" include can be surmised, when this fact is remembered, that despite the break between Italy and the United States the secretary of the personal envoy of the president is meantime acting as the representative of this country to the Vatican. The political statesmen of the world are also looking ahead to the peace, anxiously. Some fear the peace worse than they do the war, fearing for a great postwar slump, unemployment, dislocation of industry, communications' breakdown, international debt tangle, anarchy and revolutions in various places, famine and pestilence, and other evils. They hope that the mistakes and blunders of 1919 and following years will not be repeated. A great struggle is foreseen to "lift the living standards from one end of this planet to the other". The Nazi dictator has led his hordes on in world aggression Math the promise of, to quote him, "a social state which must and shall be a model of perfection in every sphere of life"; and the pope has published to the world a five-point program for world peace. Those of a democratic mind hope for a United States of the world, a "family of nations", a "world association" based on the United Nations, including a "world legion". Says one spokesman: "An international constitution and government will be a postwar necessity." Others argue for a "World Bill of Rights". Others say the evidence shows that the hopes of the world are for the League of Nations again; and one college official says that the World Court for international arbitration must be made the key in a revived League. One of the president's own cabinet members says: 'A world organization, with the United Nations as its base, will determine the peace, and the postwar world will be policed by the allied powers.'  Those rulers and representatives of the people charged with the task of arranging the postwar conditions have a tremendous responsibility, not only before the people, but also before the great Universal Ruler, Jehovah God. One thing to notice, too, is that this is the part of the speech about the victor in the war. Yet, the speech itself doesn't really  come close to mentioning who will be the victor of the war. It even apparently chides the United States for thinking that a peace can only come if the Allied Powers are the victor. And he chides the harlot, Babylon the Great, whose capital is in Vatican City for being ready to ride on the back of whomever shows himself as victor. But it might not have been noticed that Knorr was merely reading various quotes about how various leaders planned to be involved in a post-war peace. Rightly, Knorr never took sides in this -- even in another spot when he mentioned the king of the north and king of the south, he didn't predict which side would come out on top.
More importantly, when Knorr uses the expression "based on the United Nations" he is referring to an existing entity, not one that only appears first in planning stages in 1944 and then shows up for real in 1945. That's why he can quote a cabinet member in the next sentence who already refers to the United Nations as an existing entity when he says: "A world organization, with the United Nations as its base, will determine the peace, and the postwar world will be policed by the allied powers." Knorr did not predict that the allies would win; allied powers predicted (of course) that the allied powers would win. I think it's fair to say that Knorr probably thought the allied powers would win. But a "United Nations" of some kind would be the only hope of a more lasting peace no matter who won.
The United Nations was actually named by F.D.Roosevelt at the Arcadia Conference and adopted on January 1, 1942. It was already in the news, and it was obvious that the writer of this speech was well aware of these various proposals in the news. (The writer was not Knorr, apparently, as evidenced by the way Knorr reads and misreads several items which sometimes indicates a lack of understanding as to the intended meaning.) But Knorr does not commit to any particular one of these names or organizations as the particular one that would end up reviving an organization like the League of Nations after the war.

Sometimes, the Watchtower publications have pointed back to a time when the Watchtower predicted World War One (WWI) in 1914 and then also predicted that the United Nations would rise up to replace the League of Nations. These two "predictions" have even been paired together and presented nearly back-to-back in our publications. They were even brought up again at the 2014 convention and the 2009 convention. The reason the Watchtower has reviewed these two ideas from our history is probably already obvious and clear, and it has been clearly stated, too.
One of the most recent reviews of the history of Jehovah's Witnesses contains very similar claims, and is found in one of the videos, now also available on tv.jw.org: https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/VODOrgHistory/pub-ivfa2_x_VIDEO
These online transcripts appear fairly accurate:
Video Transcript Jehovah's Witnesses Faith in Action Part 1 Out of Darkness.pdf Video Transcript Jehovah's Witnesses Faith in Action Part 2 Let the Light Shine.pdf Here is the relevant part about 1914:
—Geoffrey W. Jackson—
They realized that 1914 had a significance, —Gerrit Lösch—
When World War I broke out in July, they felt vindicated and it strengthened their faith in the Bible, and in Jehovah’s prophetic Word. Also, it enhanced their trust that Jehovah was using Brother Russell and his friends to explain truth to others. —Anthony Morris III—
Just looking at the sign of the times that Jesus told us to look at is enough, but it's still significant that they could pinpoint that year. That's phenomenal. Here is the relevant part about the UN and League of Nations:
—Narrator—
. . . And soon, they would boldly proclaim a Bible prophecy that pointed to the outcome of that war. ——Chapter 4: "Taught By Jehovah"——
—Narrator—
The year was 1941. Having taken the lead for 25 momentous years, J. F. Rutherford had become seriously ill and was about to make his final public appearance. . . . The second World War was raging. Some felt that these events could lead directly into Armageddon. In spite of this, in 1942, Nathan H. Knorr—the one next appointed to take the lead among Jehovah's Witnesses—spoke at a convention about a Bible prophecy that indicated that significant events had to occur first. —Knorr (reenactment)—
This international war is not 'the battle of the great day of God Almighty.' Before Armageddon comes, the Scriptures show, a peace must come. —John Wischuk—
There was no peace on the horizon, and yet we said, "Peace—Can It Last?" —Narrator—
Knorr centered attention on Revelation 17:8, which indicates that a figurative wild beast would come into existence, would cease to exist, but then would come back to life. Knorr then drew his listeners' attention to the defunct League of Nations. —Knorr (reenactment)—
The League is in effect in a state of suspended animation and needs to be revived if it is ever to live again. It has gone into the abyss of inaction and ineffectiveness. It "is not." Will the League remain in the pit? Again the Word of God gives answer: The association of worldly nations will rise again. —Narrator—
That association did rise again three years later as the United Nations. —Anthony Morris III—
They didn't know it was going to be called the United Nations, and we don't make that claim. But they knew it was coming out.  
[Should be noted that Morris is claiming something that they "KNEW" in advance but he is also correcting a common claim that not only did Knorr predict the rise of the League of Nations three years ahead of time, but that he even used the term "United Nations." As one person writes on a website "Knorr prophesied in 1942 that the League of Nations would rise out of the abyss. Knorr used the expression 'United Nations.' How could he have known the exact name of the new incarnation, when it wasn't established until 1945?"]
Witnesses got these ideas about a correctly predicted prophecy from an article published a few years later under Knorr's administration in 1960. These quotes should be compared with the actual transcript of the speech Knorr made on September 20, 1942, which was made available as a booklet, and can be found here: http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/booklets/peace.html
The July 15, 1960 Watchtower, page 444, said this:
"In 1942 the “faithful and discreet slave” guided by Jehovah’s unerring spirit made known that the democracies would win World War II and that there would be a United Nations organization set up." You can also see a reference to the 1942 event in the Revelation book (p.248) on WOL at jw.org: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101988034
You can also read the following about it in the April 15, 1989 Watchtower, p.14 https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101988034
By divine providence, Jehovah’s Witnesses received enlightenment on that mystery in 1942. . . . Nathan H. Knorr, president of the Watch Tower Society, gave the public talk, “Peace—Can It Last?” Therein he reviewed Revelation 17:8, . . . . Was that Bible-based forecast fulfilled? Truly it was! In 1945 the international “wild beast” emerged from its abyss of inactivity as the United Nations. See also the Kingdom Come book  kc chap. 17 pp. 162-173 and and interesting version of events found in a 1981 Watchtower about why this "insight" was given w81 12/15 pp. 28-30
The Proclaimers book states it like this on page 192-3 (  jv chap. 14 pp. 188-201 )
This time, it involved the United Nations, successor to the League. While World War II was still under way, in 1942, Jehovah’s Witnesses had already discerned from the Bible, at Revelation 17:8, that the world peace organization would rise again, also that it would fail to bring lasting peace. This was explained by N. H. Knorr, then president of the Watch Tower Society, in the convention discourse “Peace—Can It Last?” Boldly Jehovah’s Witnesses proclaimed that view of the developing world situation. In 1993 the idea was stated as follows:
“The Disgusting Thing” 12, 13. What was “the disgusting thing,” and—as foreseen by the faithful and discreet slave—when and how was it reestablished? 12 When the end of the second world war was in sight, there was another development. “They will certainly put in place the disgusting thing that is causing desolation.” (Daniel 11:31b) This “disgusting thing,” which Jesus also mentioned, had already been recognized as the League of Nations, the scarlet-colored wild beast that according to Revelation went into the abyss. (Matthew 24:15; Revelation 17:8; see Light, Book Two, page 94.) It did this when World War II broke out. However, at the New World Theocratic Assembly of Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1942, Nathan H. Knorr, third president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, discussed the prophecy of Revelation 17 and warned that the beast would rise again from the abyss. 13 History bore out the truth of his words. Between August and October 1944, at Dumbarton Oaks in the United States, work was begun on the charter of what would be called the United Nations. The charter was adopted by 51 nations, including the former Soviet Union, and when it came into force on October 24, 1945, the defunct League of Nations in effect came out of the abyss. There are several more examples, but this should suffice. I am struck by how often the point is emphasized that these were Knorr's words, "his words" and that they were a Bible-based forecast "foreseen" and "discerned" and "known" in advance through "divine providence" and "enlightenment" and men being "guided by Jehovah's unerring spirit." This is an odd focus on the insights and discernment of men. These expressions are also dangerously presumptuous in that they are so often applied to the one or two times when it seems something was foreseen correctly, but there is no balanced way of discussing the reasons that literally dozens of predictions were made incorrectly and have been dropped as "old light."
But, as many Witnesses already know, there is something even deeper that is wrong with these claims of accuracy in discernment. The claims are inaccurate! It turns out that this was not really even predicted in advance. A close look at the original transcript of Knorr's talk actually solves the mystery of why he used the term United Nations in his speech. It's because he gave the speech AFTER official work on the United Nations had already begun.

Balance is always good, and I know that's probably what you are looking for. There will be some who make note of an error (aka "bellyache") to deny the elders assigned to the GB any credibility at all, and there will be some who make note of an error (aka "bellyache") just to remind us where we should ultimately look to always find credibility. And to some, making note of any error on the part of respected elders is the equivalent of apostasy and poison.
We don't disdain any older men or dismiss them for their failures, because we all fail many times, and if any of us were given the same responsibility I dare say we would fail as soon as we started.
But does this mean we should not take notice of the errors of even our most respected elders? How would we know if they meet the qualification "free from accusation" if we always ignored any accusations?
I think the answer is found in the Bible in just about every place where elders and those who take the lead are mentioned. We are asked not to severely criticize, but never asked not to criticize. Notice:
(1 Timothy 5:17-21) 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. 18 For the scripture says, “You must not muzzle a bull when it is threshing out the grain,” also, “The worker is worthy of his wages.” 19 Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 Reprove before all onlookers those who practice sin, as a warning to the rest. 21 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to observe these instructions without any prejudice or partiality. Paul instructs a very young elder, Timothy, to be careful about accepting an accusation against an older man, but not to ignore it, and in fact to accept it if the evidence is verifiable. So when Paul goes on to say he should "reprove before all onlookers" those who practice sin, the context is reproving "ALL" even if they be older, more respected elders. In fact, Paul adds the counsel that he needs to observe these instructions "without prejudice or partiality."
What is even more interesting to me, is that the other famous time when Paul mentions counseling older men without prejudice or partiality, he is referring to reproving the "Governing Body." That's in fact, the very context of Galatians, where we teach that those highly respected elders that Paul spoke about here were the Governing Body at Jerusalem. Normally, when Paul speaks of accusing an older man, he does not speak in abusive terms, but when it comes to the Governing Body, all bets are off. Note another paraphrase of Galatians which actually reflects very accurately what Paul was conveying:
(1:6-9) "There are certain people from the Governing Body at Jerusalem that are causing you trouble, and I'm surprised that you weren't able to see through the distortion. Sure, you might say, but they are the Governing Body at Jerusalem, 'Why should we question them?' Because, I say, I don't care if it's we or even an angel out of heaven speaking declaring anything different from the Biblical good news, let him be accursed. Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed. (1:10-20 ) Now you might say, but Paul, surely even you had to accept the authority of the Governing Body at Jerusalem, didn't you? How could you have an apostleship if the Governing Body didn't approve it? But that's not true at all! That's crazy! You think it's men whom I need the approval of, or God? You think this message I've been preaching came through the Governing Body? No! When God chose to reveal the good news to me, I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. In fact, it was THREE WHOLE YEARS before I even saw ONE member of the Governing Body, Peter. And even then, I only stayed with him for two weeks. And I didn't see ANY of the other apostles, just James. I swear, I'm not lying! Nobody even got to know me around Jerusalem and Judea. (2:1-4) I never met with the Governing Body until I had already been preaching for FOURTEEN YEARS! And even then it was because I had a revelation to tell THEM. It wasn't that the Governing Body had anything useful to tell me! The whole reason I went is because the Governing Body was making a serious mistake. (Galatians 2:4-14) 4 But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us; 5 we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you. 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary, when they . . .  recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and me the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the nations but they to those who are circumcised. 10 They asked only that we keep the poor in mind, and this I have also earnestly endeavored to do. 11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. 13 The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense, so that even Barʹna·bas was led along with them in their pretense. 14 But when I saw that they were not walking in step with the truth of the good news, I said to Ceʹphas . . .
Of course, on the one hand we are supposed to be "imitators of Paul." But when it comes to imitating the way in which Paul found fault with the Governing Body, we would more likely hear: "Who do you think you are? The apostle Paul?" So there is probably some lesson and some balance that we are supposed to get out of this message in Galatians. But in any case, it's up to all of us as Christians to remain alert to what the respected older men are saying, because they are needed to take the lead in the example they set for the rest of us. We would never get in any trouble if they told us, this week we take the message to streetcorners, this week we take it to Russia, this week we take it from house to house, this week we give food and supplies to victims of this or that natural disaster, this week we collect coats for the homeless, soup for the unemployed, this week we will clean the Halls, this week we will meet in a convention. The primary thing to watch, just as with the Galatians, is whether the message is being distorted.
(1 Timothy 6:3, 4) 3 If any man teaches another doctrine and does not agree with the wholesome instruction, which is from our Lord Jesus Christ, nor with the teaching that is in harmony with godly devotion, 4 he is puffed up with pride and does not understand anything. He is obsessed with arguments and debates about words. . . . (Titus 2:1, 2) 2 You, however, keep on speaking what is consistent with wholesome teaching. 2 Let the older men be moderate in habits, serious, sound in mind, healthy in faith, in love, in endurance.
(1 Timothy 4:1, 2) 4 However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron.
(1 Timothy 3:7) 7 Moreover, he should also have a fine testimony from outsiders so that he does not fall into reproach and a snare of the Devil.
etc. etc.

You should not think I am speaking specifically of you. (Nor should you think I am not) I am deliberately vague, not pointing fingers because A. I don't want to point fingers, and B. I don't want to come off as cocksure as though I know who to point them at. It is a general observation I make that fits in with the overall topic of this thread, but should not be taken as aimed at anyone specifically.
Moreover, I am considerably grateful to you. You have set me straight on several points over the months and the writings I have released are much better for it.
P.S. I am allowed to put verse in today's vernacular. That doesn't mean you are.  (are YOU the Librarian's favorite pupil, or am I?)

Balance is always good, and I know that's probably what you are looking for. There will be some who make note of an error (aka "bellyache") to deny the elders assigned to the GB any credibility at all, and there will be some who make note of an error (aka "bellyache") just to remind us where we should ultimately look to always find credibility. And to some, making note of any error on the part of respected elders is the equivalent of apostasy and poison.
We don't disdain any older men or dismiss them for their failures, because we all fail many times, and if any of us were given the same responsibility I dare say we would fail as soon as we started.
But does this mean we should not take notice of the errors of even our most respected elders? How would we know if they meet the qualification "free from accusation" if we always ignored any accusations?
I think the answer is found in the Bible in just about every place where elders and those who take the lead are mentioned. We are asked not to severely criticize, but never asked not to criticize. Notice:
(1 Timothy 5:17-21) 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. 18 For the scripture says, “You must not muzzle a bull when it is threshing out the grain,” also, “The worker is worthy of his wages.” 19 Do not accept an accusation against an older man except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 20 Reprove before all onlookers those who practice sin, as a warning to the rest. 21 I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to observe these instructions without any prejudice or partiality. Paul instructs a very young elder, Timothy, to be careful about accepting an accusation against an older man, but not to ignore it, and in fact to accept it if the evidence is verifiable. So when Paul goes on to say he should "reprove before all onlookers" those who practice sin, the context is reproving "ALL" even if they be older, more respected elders. In fact, Paul adds the counsel that he needs to observe these instructions "without prejudice or partiality."
What is even more interesting to me, is that the other famous time when Paul mentions counseling older men without prejudice or partiality, he is referring to reproving the "Governing Body." That's in fact, the very context of Galatians, where we teach that those highly respected elders that Paul spoke about here were the Governing Body at Jerusalem. Normally, when Paul speaks of accusing an older man, he does not speak in abusive terms, but when it comes to the Governing Body, all bets are off. Note another paraphrase of Galatians which actually reflects very accurately what Paul was conveying:
(1:6-9) "There are certain people from the Governing Body at Jerusalem that are causing you trouble, and I'm surprised that you weren't able to see through the distortion. Sure, you might say, but they are the Governing Body at Jerusalem, 'Why should we question them?' Because, I say, I don't care if it's we or even an angel out of heaven speaking declaring anything different from the Biblical good news, let him be accursed. Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed. (1:10-20 ) Now you might say, but Paul, surely even you had to accept the authority of the Governing Body at Jerusalem, didn't you? How could you have an apostleship if the Governing Body didn't approve it? But that's not true at all! That's crazy! You think it's men whom I need the approval of, or God? You think this message I've been preaching came through the Governing Body? No! When God chose to reveal the good news to me, I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. In fact, it was THREE WHOLE YEARS before I even saw ONE member of the Governing Body, Peter. And even then, I only stayed with him for two weeks. And I didn't see ANY of the other apostles, just James. I swear, I'm not lying! Nobody even got to know me around Jerusalem and Judea. (2:1-4) I never met with the Governing Body until I had already been preaching for FOURTEEN YEARS! And even then it was because I had a revelation to tell THEM. It wasn't that the Governing Body had anything useful to tell me! The whole reason I went is because the Governing Body was making a serious mistake. (Galatians 2:4-14) 4 But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us; 5 we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you. 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary, when they . . .  recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and me the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the nations but they to those who are circumcised. 10 They asked only that we keep the poor in mind, and this I have also earnestly endeavored to do. 11 However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. 13 The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense, so that even Barʹna·bas was led along with them in their pretense. 14 But when I saw that they were not walking in step with the truth of the good news, I said to Ceʹphas . . .
Of course, on the one hand we are supposed to be "imitators of Paul." But when it comes to imitating the way in which Paul found fault with the Governing Body, we would more likely hear: "Who do you think you are? The apostle Paul?" So there is probably some lesson and some balance that we are supposed to get out of this message in Galatians. But in any case, it's up to all of us as Christians to remain alert to what the respected older men are saying, because they are needed to take the lead in the example they set for the rest of us. We would never get in any trouble if they told us, this week we take the message to streetcorners, this week we take it to Russia, this week we take it from house to house, this week we give food and supplies to victims of this or that natural disaster, this week we collect coats for the homeless, soup for the unemployed, this week we will clean the Halls, this week we will meet in a convention. The primary thing to watch, just as with the Galatians, is whether the message is being distorted.
(1 Timothy 6:3, 4) 3 If any man teaches another doctrine and does not agree with the wholesome instruction, which is from our Lord Jesus Christ, nor with the teaching that is in harmony with godly devotion, 4 he is puffed up with pride and does not understand anything. He is obsessed with arguments and debates about words. . . . (Titus 2:1, 2) 2 You, however, keep on speaking what is consistent with wholesome teaching. 2 Let the older men be moderate in habits, serious, sound in mind, healthy in faith, in love, in endurance.
(1 Timothy 4:1, 2) 4 However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron.
(1 Timothy 3:7) 7 Moreover, he should also have a fine testimony from outsiders so that he does not fall into reproach and a snare of the Devil.
etc. etc.

That's the only good reason to share such "items" in the first place. I think it's why Br. Jackson himself evidently mentioned it. All of us could use a reminder now and then about where our true foundation lies. When and if a rug is pulled out from under us, we have a should have a cushion to fall back upon. That "cushion" would be our relationship with Jehovah upon whom we can throw our burdens.

My friend is a private person. He no doubt wants to live his life in peace. it would be most innapropriate for me to identify him. No. I will not. His identity is safe with me. 
But the name of the GB member was John Barr.

I think you are right. It was around 1980. And remember that team (group) mentioned in the Awake! magazine you quoted?
*** g84 4/22 pp. 22-23 MEPS—An Exciting Leap Forward in Publishing ***
Industry Changes That Led to MEPS As many readers know, the publishing industry has been revolutionized by new methods of production during the past 20 years or so. Ever since the last century, operators of linotype machines turned hot, molten lead into single one-piece lines of metal type. These lines of metal type, called slugs, were then arranged into pages by a compositor. From these pages of metal type, molds were made for casting heavy lead printing plates that were used on rotary letterpresses. In the early 1960’s, by far the majority of newspapers, magazines and books were printed on letterpresses. Today practically none are. The method of printing with type produced from hot lead became obsolete almost overnight. Any factories using hot lead, if they wanted to continue printing, were soon forced to change with the industry. Thus practically all printing of newspapers, magazines and books is now done on lithographic offset presses. In January 1978, printing on rotary offset presses was begun at the headquarters printery of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Brooklyn, New York. The first publication was the color-illustrated My Book of Bible Stories. In offset printing the image to be printed is not raised as it is in letterpress, but it is on the same plane, or level, as the surface that surrounds it. This method of printing is accomplished by taking a photograph of the printed page and then using the film produced to make thin offset printing plates. To make these thin offset printing plates to produce My Book of Bible Stories and other literature published by the Watchtower Society, photographs had to be taken of proofs of linotype-produced pages. The film negatives were then merged with negatives of the pictures or illustrations. It was this slow, mechanical, prepress system of producing type from hot lead that needed to be replaced by some faster method. A group of Jehovah’s Witnesses investigated how to do this. That investigative "group" was pretty much completely disfellowshipped. T.Cabeen, R.Watters and a lot of their pressroom friends had the nerve to bring rosy reports about offset, plus the very successful experiment with the "Bible Stories" book that their same team had finished. This angered C.Chyke, R.Wheelock, M.Larson, etc. It meant that a younger generation was about to take over. By 1978, there was a bit of a backlash already, and then it also was known that Tom Cabeen, who spearheaded the offset printing work, was a good friend of R.Franz -- and B.Schroeder and T.Jaracz and G.Smalley were already gunning to get R.Franz and friends out of there after the success of the Aid Book. So as this younger group was pushing for further expansion of offset, some of the old guard wanted to prove them wrong and make some more of the biggest investments ever in letterpress. To them it would be like proving Jehovah right and proving Satan wrong. By late 1979, however, they finally took the biggest prize embarrassment (the world's largest letterpress press) off all factory tours so that no one would get a picture of it. It's mention was removed from the printed tour brochure.

I think you are right. It was around 1980. And remember that team (group) mentioned in the Awake! magazine you quoted?
*** g84 4/22 pp. 22-23 MEPS—An Exciting Leap Forward in Publishing ***
Industry Changes That Led to MEPS As many readers know, the publishing industry has been revolutionized by new methods of production during the past 20 years or so. Ever since the last century, operators of linotype machines turned hot, molten lead into single one-piece lines of metal type. These lines of metal type, called slugs, were then arranged into pages by a compositor. From these pages of metal type, molds were made for casting heavy lead printing plates that were used on rotary letterpresses. In the early 1960’s, by far the majority of newspapers, magazines and books were printed on letterpresses. Today practically none are. The method of printing with type produced from hot lead became obsolete almost overnight. Any factories using hot lead, if they wanted to continue printing, were soon forced to change with the industry. Thus practically all printing of newspapers, magazines and books is now done on lithographic offset presses. In January 1978, printing on rotary offset presses was begun at the headquarters printery of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Brooklyn, New York. The first publication was the color-illustrated My Book of Bible Stories. In offset printing the image to be printed is not raised as it is in letterpress, but it is on the same plane, or level, as the surface that surrounds it. This method of printing is accomplished by taking a photograph of the printed page and then using the film produced to make thin offset printing plates. To make these thin offset printing plates to produce My Book of Bible Stories and other literature published by the Watchtower Society, photographs had to be taken of proofs of linotype-produced pages. The film negatives were then merged with negatives of the pictures or illustrations. It was this slow, mechanical, prepress system of producing type from hot lead that needed to be replaced by some faster method. A group of Jehovah’s Witnesses investigated how to do this. That investigative "group" was pretty much completely disfellowshipped. T.Cabeen, R.Watters and a lot of their pressroom friends had the nerve to bring rosy reports about offset, plus the very successful experiment with the "Bible Stories" book that their same team had finished. This angered C.Chyke, R.Wheelock, M.Larson, etc. It meant that a younger generation was about to take over. By 1978, there was a bit of a backlash already, and then it also was known that Tom Cabeen, who spearheaded the offset printing work, was a good friend of R.Franz -- and B.Schroeder and T.Jaracz and G.Smalley were already gunning to get R.Franz and friends out of there after the success of the Aid Book. So as this younger group was pushing for further expansion of offset, some of the old guard wanted to prove them wrong and make some more of the biggest investments ever in letterpress. To them it would be like proving Jehovah right and proving Satan wrong. By late 1979, however, they finally took the biggest prize embarrassment (the world's largest letterpress press) off all factory tours so that no one would get a picture of it. It's mention was removed from the printed tour brochure.

Sigh...I'm not even going to go there with my cute story of how I wrote my friend a 'happy anniversary' card, and it was the GB member of the same first and last name who sent me a gracious, chatty reply. You will probably tell me that he wrote it from prison.

I do recall an announcement, I think quoted quite  publically, as at a district convention or circuit assembly, around 1980, to the effect that Bethel just finished massive expenditures on letterpress upgrades just before the entire industry switched to offset printing, making much equipment instantly obsolete.
I hate to think how of you will hand me my head on a platter with that one.