JW Insider

I would like to see this. I truly would. There are too many pundits who do nothing but shriek in sound bites and I don't know what is true. My impression thus far is that computer models predict, and have for some time, great global warming, but the actual data has not backed it up. When data does, it is only at the expense of ignoring data that doesn't.
Shrill alarmists scream Irma was the greatest hurricane ever and we should get used to seeing ones like this all the time. In fact, it is the seventh largest to hit the U.S. and the list of potent hurricanes show they are largely independent of year - they are not particularly increasing in frequency over time. Before Irma, there were 12 years when no hurricanes at all hit the continental U.S.
On the other hand, Andrew Cuomo, the NY governor said - and everyone knows this is true - 100 year floods are now happening every 2 years, so clearly something is happening.
Neither side acknowledges the other's existence and when they do it is to demonize them - typical of the way the world handles things these days.
Both @JW Insiderand @James Thomas Rook Jr. have proven capable of presentation and I do not see how either can hold the Governing Body accountable, though one may try.

@James Thomas Rook Jr.
I thought a simple life would be riding together, gas ?? prices are crazy since Hurricane Irma, but don't know how I could get in the car? ? If I get gas ?? not from Texas why are the prices doubled at the gas ?? tank? Maybe a good thought to share vechiles like you said, ????

Saw this on CNN:
In fact, the Dow has reached a new high, on average, once every seven days since fully recovering from the Great Recession in March 2013. And it's happened under both Trump and former President Barack Obama: The Dow has hit an all-time high in 30 of the last 54 months since fully coming back from the market collapse of 2007-08. And it happened more than 100 times under Obama since 2013. I worked in the financial industry for nearly three decades after Bethel. I have assumed for all these years that there is a kind of "greed machine" going on behind the stock market numbers. We have been in a kind of "bubble" that is driven to ever larger profits by those who invest in the stock market generally. Sure there are many, many losing companies in the markets, but in general the bubble is driven to expand in a way that will always profit the financial industry. Even for those times when the bubble "burst" (e.g., 9/11/2001, 9/29/2008, etc.) there were built in safety measures to only let a certain amount of air out of the bubble instead of letting it truly burst.
I expect that the greed factor is so high that the whole thing can come crashing down at any time and the safety measures will not be able to keep the bubble afloat. But it's only money, so this hasn't stopped me from putting half my 401k into the market since 9/31/2001 and then "swing-trading" the other 50% whenever the market drops or rises by triple-digits. In general, this means keeping an average of about 33% of that other 50% in the market, but moving it to 0% on any day that the market rises by triple-digits, and 100% on a day that the market drops by triple-digits. That might sound backwards, but this is set up to work on funds which only change value at 4:00 pm, so that any decision can be made or over-ridden by only looking at the market for 1 to 5 minutes at about 3:45 pm on weekdays, and ignoring the market at all other times of the day.
There is no peace and security in the stock market.  By definition, a rising stock market actually refers to the confidence that corporations will keep finding greedy new ways to exploit workers, exploit fear, consolidate power, and continue to find ways to squeeze out more profits -- generally always to the detriment of 95% of the world. 

Saw this on CNN:
In fact, the Dow has reached a new high, on average, once every seven days since fully recovering from the Great Recession in March 2013. And it's happened under both Trump and former President Barack Obama: The Dow has hit an all-time high in 30 of the last 54 months since fully coming back from the market collapse of 2007-08. And it happened more than 100 times under Obama since 2013. I worked in the financial industry for nearly three decades after Bethel. I have assumed for all these years that there is a kind of "greed machine" going on behind the stock market numbers. We have been in a kind of "bubble" that is driven to ever larger profits by those who invest in the stock market generally. Sure there are many, many losing companies in the markets, but in general the bubble is driven to expand in a way that will always profit the financial industry. Even for those times when the bubble "burst" (e.g., 9/11/2001, 9/29/2008, etc.) there were built in safety measures to only let a certain amount of air out of the bubble instead of letting it truly burst.
I expect that the greed factor is so high that the whole thing can come crashing down at any time and the safety measures will not be able to keep the bubble afloat. But it's only money, so this hasn't stopped me from putting half my 401k into the market since 9/31/2001 and then "swing-trading" the other 50% whenever the market drops or rises by triple-digits. In general, this means keeping an average of about 33% of that other 50% in the market, but moving it to 0% on any day that the market rises by triple-digits, and 100% on a day that the market drops by triple-digits. That might sound backwards, but this is set up to work on funds which only change value at 4:00 pm, so that any decision can be made or over-ridden by only looking at the market for 1 to 5 minutes at about 3:45 pm on weekdays, and ignoring the market at all other times of the day.
There is no peace and security in the stock market.  By definition, a rising stock market actually refers to the confidence that corporations will keep finding greedy new ways to exploit workers, exploit fear, consolidate power, and continue to find ways to squeeze out more profits -- generally always to the detriment of 95% of the world. 

Saw this on CNN:
In fact, the Dow has reached a new high, on average, once every seven days since fully recovering from the Great Recession in March 2013. And it's happened under both Trump and former President Barack Obama: The Dow has hit an all-time high in 30 of the last 54 months since fully coming back from the market collapse of 2007-08. And it happened more than 100 times under Obama since 2013. I worked in the financial industry for nearly three decades after Bethel. I have assumed for all these years that there is a kind of "greed machine" going on behind the stock market numbers. We have been in a kind of "bubble" that is driven to ever larger profits by those who invest in the stock market generally. Sure there are many, many losing companies in the markets, but in general the bubble is driven to expand in a way that will always profit the financial industry. Even for those times when the bubble "burst" (e.g., 9/11/2001, 9/29/2008, etc.) there were built in safety measures to only let a certain amount of air out of the bubble instead of letting it truly burst.
I expect that the greed factor is so high that the whole thing can come crashing down at any time and the safety measures will not be able to keep the bubble afloat. But it's only money, so this hasn't stopped me from putting half my 401k into the market since 9/31/2001 and then "swing-trading" the other 50% whenever the market drops or rises by triple-digits. In general, this means keeping an average of about 33% of that other 50% in the market, but moving it to 0% on any day that the market rises by triple-digits, and 100% on a day that the market drops by triple-digits. That might sound backwards, but this is set up to work on funds which only change value at 4:00 pm, so that any decision can be made or over-ridden by only looking at the market for 1 to 5 minutes at about 3:45 pm on weekdays, and ignoring the market at all other times of the day.
There is no peace and security in the stock market.  By definition, a rising stock market actually refers to the confidence that corporations will keep finding greedy new ways to exploit workers, exploit fear, consolidate power, and continue to find ways to squeeze out more profits -- generally always to the detriment of 95% of the world. 

Could this be Peace and Security? Never Before Seen! ????Breaking News: Rising shares of Boeing pulled the Dow Jones Industrial Average up to a record high on Thursday! ???
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Answer:  Only for those that do not have a comprehensive understanding and knowledge of history.
They are surprised by EVERYTHING!
They are also doomed to repeat what they do not understand, and live in constant confusion, blown about like a plastic bag in the wind.
 

In fact, the circuit overseer did counsel me about my presentation.

I saved those deleted posts, most of them at least, and I can assure you that you were not deleted for presenting any facts. Perhaps you do not remember, but you were attacking and insulting other posters with a vengeance! In a post above, you say:
Calling people fools and saying that their God is Satan is really quite mild compared to the type of slander, name-calling, attacks and insults you were putting people through. Fortunately, you seem to reserve a good percentage of your venom on me, instead of many of the others, here. Also, you have changed your tone much of the time, so that you now tend more toward a kind of sarcasm and snide comments instead of going right after the person directly. Either way, I hope you stick around (under one of more of your aliases) at least, because the kind of people who are interested in truth and facts can usually figure out why anyone would resort to these diversionary tactics. In that way, the ad hominem attacks actually help. They don't help everyone, of course, but at least such tactics provide a kind of a "touchstone" by which to measure a good rational idea from another kind of idea.

So glad you have posted again, @ImStrugglingBad.
Doesn't this make Jesus' sacrifice redundant? Your death isn't the answer. According to the Christian gospel, it is Jesus' sacrificial blood and one's faith in that that covers over your (and everybody else's) sins.
Romans 3:22-24
"... yes, God’s righteousness through the faith in Jesus Christ, for all those having faith. For there is no distinction. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and it is as a free gift that they are being declared righteous by his undeserved kindness through the release by the ransom paid by Christ Jesus."
Ephesians 2:8
"By this undeserved kindness you have been saved through faith, and this is not of your own doing; rather, it is God’s gift."
Notice the tenses used here: "are being saved" and "have been saved." Jesus has done it for you already. Your death accomplishes nothing. And your existence isn't a sin. It has worth; you have as much entitlement to exist as the rest of us.
Have you explored those links? How do you feel about them? Respond privately if you prefer.
 

Unfortunately, he is stuck with you, the same way he is stuck with me.
Many times he has tried to get out of his contract with me, which he perhaps feels he made too hastily. However, I always show him the forgiveness clause and he has no recourse but to back down - even though he may grumble about it. I have him over a barrel.
I'm kidding, of course, but only partly. There is a forgiveness clause - though, to be sure, we are not to "accept the undeserved kindness of God and miss its purpose." But let God determine when that has happened, not you.
Good. That means you also don't know that he doesn't approve of you. Assume that he does. Focus on the love. The forgiveness clause has him backed into a corner. You have him where you want him.
 
Because you figure Jehovah would understand your feelings and forgive you? He probably would, but the fallacy is to think he will not regarding the current struggles you go through, even if you feel you are getting pasted. Your family will forgive you, too, but they will be crushed - perhaps for life.
 
To the extent you can, lay off on this kind of thinking. We are all basket cases in one way or another - whether in the truth or not. Let God figure it out when and if you have disappointed him. All you really have to do for now is to avoid homosexual acts, which can't be super-hard because they always involve another party. In this respect you are no different from a straight person who is yet single. Viewing pornography is not good, but it is largely not good because it draws you into a funnel that doesn't end and the funnel skews your future ability to relate to a real person. Again, this is no less true of a straight person.
 
No. Even if you are a complete scoundrel in your congregation - and your comments make it very clear that you are not - you are doing a tremendous service right now by bringing something taboo but potentially lethal out in the open and allowing others, many of whom are mature, to comment. It is a thread that may benefit not just you, but they, and also others who may have the same issue as they stumble across it later.
Lay off on the guilt, to the extent you can. Or put it in perspective. Count yourself like Paul who pummeled himself and declared himself a 'miserable man' because what he wanted to do he did not do, and what he did not want to do he did do. What was his issue, anyway? Who's to say he was not gay, facing exactly the same troubles you face? I've no reason to think it is true, but I have no reason to think it is not true. It doesn't matter. It could be true, and that is good enough for you. His exact demon is probably left vague for exactly that reason - to help many persons in many struggles who will see that he is saying "been there, done that" and say "maybe he is talking about my problem."
Maybe even self-abuse is what he is carrying on about. Who can say? Masturbation is not great, but it is in some respects like porn - its the end result of a long habit that will mess you up, not an instance of the habit itself. Recently I read in some city how the cops were busting men for masturbation in the park. These were businessmen in suits on their lunch hour who were married. There were not few of them. Yes, sexual appetite unrestrained leads to the most disturbing conduct, but that is not at all true of a lapse here and there, which can be shrugged off as an "oh, well - life goes on." Lay off on the guilt is what I'm saying. Big as that Bible is, and as many are the things that it condemns, it no where condemns self abuse specifically. You must read it in from other verses having to do with self-control and with wholesome outlook about proper sexual relations. You read it in properly, make no mistake, but you must read it in nonetheless. If it were really a big deal, it would be the 11th commandment. Sometimes I think it is as much a Victorian relic as a biblical one that we carry on about it as much we do.
What are the things that really get God going - from that proverb about the six things that he hates - no, wait - make that seven? He hates anyone spreading contentions among brothers. You doing that? I don't think so. He hates "feet that are in a hurry to run to badness." It seems you are doing all you can to glue yours to the floor. "A false tongue" he hates. You been doing any lying lately? It doesn't look like it here. Oh, and he hates "hands that are shedding innocent blood" How are you doing on that score? Killed anyone lately? I didn't think so. Cut out Proverbs 6:16-19 and mount it next to the yeartext on your bedroom wall. Mount it over the yeartext, if need be. 
Of course you did.
 
If you fail you fail. Find that scripture about the righteous man who falls seven times and yet gets up each time, and put it next to your other new yeartext. You know what 'seven' means in the Bible - it could be a thousand times he messed up. How come he doesn't lose his 'righteous' status at the 5th failing? Because that's how God is with us - none of us are 'clean.' He deals with it. He doesn't have to. We don't sit back and fleece him for it - that's why we carry on a struggle. But go easy on the guilt. "No temptation has taken you that is not common to men," Paul says, and you don't knock every ball out of the park.
The mantra "born gay" is self-defeating. There is little evidence that it is that way. Gayness may be firmly entrenched for as long as one can remember, but that is not the same thing. Who knows what triggers it? In my youth it was accepted wisdom that it came as a result of parental dynamics, a domineering mother and a retreating father - which is far less depressing for someone determined to abide by God's standards because it implies change is possible. That accepted wisdom was never disproved, just as it was never proved in the first place. It was merely drowned out by another model which has also never been proved, but it is the favored model because it validates a lifestyle that some want validated. If there is one thing that has proven crystal clear in recent decades - to the astonishment of most - it is how amazingly fluid sexuality is. It does not respect 'one man-one woman.' It does not respect gender lines. It does not even respect age limits. It jumps the rails at every turn and is only nudged back on track with only great difficulty. 
How to nudge it? Have 'plenty to do in the work of the Lord,' Paul says. Accept that you have homosexual leanings for now and be done with it. You cannot act upon them, you certainly  work against your own interests should you deliberately cultivate them, but the leanings themselves do not disqualify you. They will fade so subtly you will not notice it, probably over much time, in this system or the next, as you routinely rub shoulders with persons who in this regard have their act together. In other regards, you do and they don't, and when you see someone whose feet are "in a hurry to run to badness," you can stick out one of yours and trip them up. They'll thank you for it later. In this way also you can be like one of the genuine members of the Christian body, which works smoothly with the other members. I don't know that is what Paul had in mind but it works,
No, ISB, you are not a washout. You are doing your brothers a tremendous service and the best is yet to come. "Strengthen your brothers when once you return," Jesus said to Peter. He could strengthen them only because he had gone somewhere. Had he never gone on a difficult journey, he could do no more than say "I know just how you feel." "Yeah, sure you do," his intended recipient would say, rolling his eyes. 

Dear @ImStrugglingBad , actually, we ARE all perverted, diseased, and completely inadequate.  If Jehovah didn't approve of you, then he would not be able to approve of ANY of us. Jehovah looks at these thing differently to us, and although our hearts can condemn us, he does not. He knows our imperfections and weaknesses are not our fault and you must believe that too. I heard one brother reason once that Jehovah is the only one who can see our potential, how we will be when all our imperfections are removed from us. That makes sense because Jehovah has that ability to project into the future if he wants. So he can see you perfect in the new world, and that is why you can meet his approval already now. Does that make sense?
So please don't think that you existing brings reproach on him.  On the contrary, you existing gives him another opportunity to call Satan a liar. It's like True Tom said,  in today's society  " It’s a herculean time for a gay person to be “fighting the fine fight.” 
Please, don't give up. Stay with all of his Witnesses who are all trying their best to cope with Satan's world where good is made to be bad, and bad is made to look good.  And when I said seek expert help, I meant especially regarding your suicidal thoughts. Any time you need to talk you can send me a direct message.

I write and a chapter of the 'Irregardless' book is devoted to this topic. Info on my profile page.
I won't post it online because I want to sell books. But if you email me, you or anyone similar gets it free. Even if you buy it, it's just six bucks. But it's free to anyone who suffer $ hardship. 
Here is an excerpt:
Fortunately, none of us are judged on feelings, but rather on deeds. Still, it’s good to get one feelings aligned with God’s standards, if at all possible, because feelings have a way of eventually showing up as deeds. I have only admiration for those Christians with gay leanings who are determined to live in accord with Bible standards. They are determined to stay celibate, if need be for the duration of this system, in their service to God, with faith that it will turn out well for them in the end, that their homosexual leanings will lessen and disappear over time, whether in this system or the next. This, in the face of a cacophony of propaganda that insists: ‘once gay, always gay.’
With any gays among us, it’s like swimming when swept out by the tide. They don’t try to swim against it, exerting all their might to will themselves straight; that’s a great recipe for failure – human sexuality doesn’t work that way. They don’t try to swim with the tide, abandoning themselves as slaves to their feelings. Instead, they swim parallel to it, likely for a long time, in hopes their feelings will eventually modify, allowing them to reach shore. Who else faces a comparable battle? It doesn’t seem quite fair, does it? One might argue that their faith in God is deeper than that of most, since they stay loyal to his arrangements despite the very real testimony of their own bodies. I have zero respect for frothing church types who rail against gays when they themselves have never been called upon to raise their little finger in comparable struggles.
Singleness as a way of life was once a quite common and respectable lifestyle, with no connotations whatsoever of abnormality. Read the classics and that point is easily established. But today, largely through the media, everything is sex, and people have come to define themselves in terms of their sexuality. It’s a herculean time for a gay person to be “fighting the fine fight.”
For once, I will not slam @Ann O'Malybecause she presents options and her utmost concern is for you. Perhaps I should even reexamine and walk back some other slams I have made. 
There is that verse somewhere that says 'I am convinced there is nothing to come between us and God's love (or is it Christ's?) neither this nor that nor a long list of hardships.' I like that verse. 

I'm very sorry you are going through this, @ImStrugglingBad, but please be assured you are not alone. I'm also very sorry about the close friends you've lost. But I'm glad you have had some understanding and support from the congregation - not everyone gets that.
It's worrying that the stress and depression has reached levels so that you want to self-harm. Please, please contact a suicide prevention helpline if you are getting these urges.
https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/help-yourself/lgbtq/
http://oneloveallequal.org/2016/08/24/self-harm-hotlines/
As I said, you are not alone. You might like to read stories of those who have been struggling as you have.
http://www.jwhc.info/a-personal-story.php -This site has a private forum where you may find support from fellow gay JWs. I don't know the quality or vibe of the forum,  so you'll have to figure out for yourself whether it's a healthy and comfortable place to be.
There's also this person's experience you might like to read: http://jwfacts.com/watchtower/blog/gay-jw-hardship.php
You are valuable, wanted, and loved. There will be a way through this. Please hang in there. (((Internet hugs)))

One day you (correctly) highlight the fact that it is the uneducated, unlettered and ordinary persons who can more easily see the wisdom of God's word, and at other times I see you touting someone's education, PhD's, and titles as proof that persons like COJ, for example, should be judged as unworthy of consideration.
Exactly! I believe you are exactly correct on this point. (Although I'm not sure why you brought it up.)
Exactly! Russell could NOT have predicted anything concerning 1874. As far as we know he was even disdainful of Second Adventist chronology until late in 1875 or early 1876. So whatever you meant by the question" "So contrary to an ex-Bethelite assurance in Watchtower knowledge?" you are right to point this out, just as I have, by the way.
A complete non sequitur. Just because I have pointed out the same thing you just did, you were forced to use a kind of "vagueness" about this supposed accusation involving an ex-Bethelite. I'm sure you knew that I have never ever even implied that Russell claimed the end of the world in 1874. So to answer your question about "who then makes a play on words" the answer is quite obvious. You just did! 
And it's this same kind of twisting of words and meanings about which many people have pretended that doctrinal issues have been answered. This is one of the bad things that happens to Witnesses when they have doctrinal questions or believe that they can see a contradiction in some of our traditional teachings that go back to the time of the Bible Students. If the question cannot be answered through bluster and wordplay, then the next step is to just dig in our heels and call the questionable doctrines "spirit directed truth" and associate all concerns and questions as "apostasy."
'Nuff said! Thanks. I didn't see myself, or you, or TTH, or anyone else here claiming to be well versed in English or commanding the language better than any other.

This is a FALSE accusation as was the accusation of the Pharisees and scribes regarding the teachings of Jesus.
Only in that Greber's rendering is perfectly acceptable and conveys the correct meaning of the text. As do other renderings of the passage in question. The Word of God does not need the support of Greber, or any other human authority for that matter.
The reluctance of religionistas to accept that Greber could get a scriptural passage right due to his personal beliefs is quite unfounded and displays a level of prejudice and ignorance of the Word of God. Demon inspired individuals can pronounce God's truths, like it or not. We have a number of scriptural examples of this.
Unfortunately for opponents, this rather baseless accusation only serves to embarass it's proponents and display a remarkable lack of appreciation for Jesus' masterful response to the accusers of his day. "“Every kingdom divided against itself comes to ruin, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand." Matt 12:25 (Consider the context).

Yikes! This thread - MY thread - is 'Why remain a Witness when bad things happen.' This is not why! This will send me running for cover!
Take it out on the street, you and the unreadable @j.r.ewing. Before I tell @The Librarian! THEN you'll BOTH be in big trouble, for she plays no favorites, except if she should take a liking to me.

Time to unload. Confession is good for the soul. I am @JW Insider!!!!!
(no.....just kidding)
It's probably so. Unfortunately, I can barely unravel my own stories.
I'm not even a thinker, really. I am Pastor Ingvist's substitute preacher, specifically selected for his dullness, because the pastor did not want to return from vacation and read his congregation’s disappointment. Instead, he wanted a sub that you would listen to and say: ‘I’ll bet he’s good in the shepherding work.’ Then he would come to your house and you would notice the lack of eye contact and say: ‘maybe he’s a scholar.’ I am not a scholar, either, leave the deep thinking to others – I don’t trust it anyway – but I have a certain knack for refocusing matters and combining ingredients in ways not typically combined, and I am a writer with great command of the language, assuming you are not fussy.

One day you (correctly) highlight the fact that it is the uneducated, unlettered and ordinary persons who can more easily see the wisdom of God's word, and at other times I see you touting someone's education, PhD's, and titles as proof that persons like COJ, for example, should be judged as unworthy of consideration.
Exactly! I believe you are exactly correct on this point. (Although I'm not sure why you brought it up.)
Exactly! Russell could NOT have predicted anything concerning 1874. As far as we know he was even disdainful of Second Adventist chronology until late in 1875 or early 1876. So whatever you meant by the question" "So contrary to an ex-Bethelite assurance in Watchtower knowledge?" you are right to point this out, just as I have, by the way.
A complete non sequitur. Just because I have pointed out the same thing you just did, you were forced to use a kind of "vagueness" about this supposed accusation involving an ex-Bethelite. I'm sure you knew that I have never ever even implied that Russell claimed the end of the world in 1874. So to answer your question about "who then makes a play on words" the answer is quite obvious. You just did! 
And it's this same kind of twisting of words and meanings about which many people have pretended that doctrinal issues have been answered. This is one of the bad things that happens to Witnesses when they have doctrinal questions or believe that they can see a contradiction in some of our traditional teachings that go back to the time of the Bible Students. If the question cannot be answered through bluster and wordplay, then the next step is to just dig in our heels and call the questionable doctrines "spirit directed truth" and associate all concerns and questions as "apostasy."
'Nuff said! Thanks. I didn't see myself, or you, or TTH, or anyone else here claiming to be well versed in English or commanding the language better than any other.

Exactly!
You are probably thinking only of the times when Russell and Rutherford held beliefs that we now consider ridiculous. I was thinking about the times when Russell and Rutherford made statements that were Biblically and logically true. (For example: when Russell pointed out that the wars, earthquakes, pestilence and famine mentioned in Matthew 24 were NOT signs of the last days, but were the kinds of things that "must happen" over the entire course of the 1,800+ years since Jesus mentioned them. Or when Rutherford spoke about how evidence works, and how one piece of evidence is not worth that much, but when two or three pieces of corroborating evidence confirm each other, the likelihood of truth cannot be overlooked, and when that is multiplied half-a-dozen times we have something that might as well be called absolute truth.)
But you should recall, too, that it is the Watchtower, not any of us, who have clumped together the Bible Student ideology with the Witness ideology. The Governing Body is identified as beginning in 1919 among Bible Students. Elijah is now supposed to be a prophetic picture of Russell from the 1870s to 1916 preparing the way for these "Bible Students" to come on the scene 1919. Some of the major Bible Student traditions that have been dropped were not dropped until 1943/4, and one of them in 1961/2. Of course, many of the Bible Student traditions have not been dropped at all. And many of them should not ever be dropped because they were correct from the start.
There is no more need to go back to the problems of ancient times to use them as a justification for making the same mistakes in modern times. The examples were meant for our instruction. When Jesus says to watch out for something it is so the same mistakes are not repeated in future generations.
To some it could sound like you are suggesting that the next generation of Witnesses should break off and form their own association, something like what Rutherford did, or even what you suggest Jesus was doing in breaking off from Judaism.

The 'higher critics' who assume scriptures are human writings until proven otherwise say the same about Paul revising Jesus's teachings. They have him essentially founding another religion. I wonder how that factors in with those who carry on about Rutherford succeeding Russell, or Knorr succeeding Rutherford.
On the other hand, regarding someone on a much lesser level who caused considerable unnecessary chaos in the family, when a C.O. tried to soften it as Jehovah sending just the right personality at just the right time, I said 'Look. I know the line. I'm perfectly willing to spin it and even view things that way - God works with people. But I also want to call a spade a spade. The man is an unbalanced nut.'
Later when my daughter asked the C.O. about his conversation with her dad, the latter replied: "He was ... frank."

It has been typical of AllenSmith, J.R.Ewing, Gnosis Pithos, etc., to rely on a kind of "word salad" or various other types of "plays on words" and twisted and incorrect meaning of words. The problem is that while you probably think that it defends a particular Watchtower tradition, it ends up highlighting the weakness of that same tradition. For example, if the word "people" in the above statement of yours refers to people in the Writing Department at Bethel, then it makes more sense. 
This isn't exactly on topic, but in a way it really is. Consider: 
One of the bad things that can happen to a baptized Witness is that she is reading the Bible, runs across a passage that raises a question, then she studies the Watchtower's answer to that question, and her study reveals one of the contradictions or weaknesses of the traditional explanation or a recent update to that explanation. So she goes to the elders where her question reveals doubts, and because it is a question that the elders are unable to answer, she immediately comes under suspicion of having been influenced by apostates. But because her question is not solidly answered, then the same thing might happen again with a second difficult question, so that a pattern has now emerged and some elders might take this as evidence that she is now most definitely under the influence of apostasy, so they must shift the subject to a question of loyalty and obedience. In her frustration at having the topic changed from answering her question to a question of loyalty, her frustrated demeanor is seen as rebellion and an unwillingness to put herself under the authority of the elders or the Governing Body. She may not be disfellowshipped for this, as she might surely have been between 1979 and 1986, but the perceived haughtiness of the elders' response pushes her away from the congregation and she begins to draw away from close association. Her joy is gone and she now finds it physically and mentally depressing to go to the meetings.
You may not have run across such a case, but I did. It was a sister who moved into our congregation in the 1990's, who attended for a while and then disappeared. When my wife spoke with her, this was her exact explanation for why she had moved into our congregation. She had hoped that the attitude she saw displayed was going to be different, but she saw the same kind of haughtiness among some elders and couldn't "shake" the feeling that it would just happen again.

I also like, somewhere in the meeting last night, the synopsis of God's dealing with Israel:
'I let my people get beat up because they were too bad for too long. But then the nations said: 'Look! God can't protect his own people!' So I beat them up too. And I brought my own people back just to show them.'
It's no more complicated than that with the great God of all creation? No. It's not. Sometimes we overthink things.
Though his wisdom surpasses all understanding and we can see only the fringe of his outer garment, when he chooses to relate to humans, he is breathtaking in his mundane common sense. He's not ashamed of it. He glorifies it.

It sounds like you are saying that A.C. did not depart due to the uncommon traits that Witnesses are known for, but instead that A.C. departed for the common traits that Witnesses are known for, which you admit to be "doctrinal errors" and that such doctrinal errors have been perceived even by our own skeptics. These doctrinal errors area pushed constantly you say by JWI and others, and have caused others to stumble.
I can guess that you probably intended to say something else a little different from the above. But in any case, as the accusation of causing stumbling has been proposed, I would like to offer a more likely alternative about what causes this type of stumbling among us.
What you refer to as doctrinal error that I have proposed, might very well be doctrinal error. It is after all being proposed by an imperfect human with faults common to many of us. And the persons from whom I first learned of such doctrinal alternatives were also imperfect humans with faults common to many of us. However, what I have presented is nothing new, and has been presented for hundreds of years by Bible students and Bible commentators. More specifically, several of the most damaging points to some of our doctrines that I have presented were actually made by Russell himself and Rutherford himself. And of course the absolutely most damaging evidence against some of these doctrinal points was made thousands of years ago, because I have always tried to highlight where these points were made in the Bible itself. If I had to guess, I'd say that this is the point that causes the most problems, as evidenced by the fact that you had no Biblical answers to even one of the points of Biblical evidence.
I could turn around and say that it doesn't even matter who among us presents the Bible evidence for or against a certain belief. It could just as well have been presented as a question about who might have a Bible answer for the information that is presented over on some discussion site by Simon [forgot last name], or a blog by Doug Mason or a book by Carl Jonsson. These are points that we are all going to have to face head-on from the next generation of converts. And we are going to have to face the problem of many younger Witnesses who already know that a couple of the doctrines are on very problematic. "Fortunately" for the Watchtower Society, most current Witnesses and even most current converts don't care to concern themselves with the Scriptural evidence or lack thereof for certain doctrines. But unfortunately this means that the bulk of our publishers are also completely unable to explain the issue or even act like they ever noticed the problem. This will result in an unnecessary stagnation. I see some evidence of it already starting in several countries. 
So what really causes "stumbling" is not the person pointing out a potential problem, which is already pointed out in a hundred other places, going all the way back to the Bible writers themselves, but it's the dogmatic requirement of acceptance of some doctrines that cannot be defended by any of us. Here, on this forum, we have a chance to see if anyone can defend these, or see if are we destined to just accept without evidence. The latter is a dangerous position to be in. But it's also a self-inflicted injury. We need not teach any indefensible doctrines as dogma, we only need to teach them as a possibility that currently makes sense to many people, based on the secular world conditions which at least form a kind of parallel to the expectations that appear to be predicted Biblically. 

It sounds like you are saying that A.C. did not depart due to the uncommon traits that Witnesses are known for, but instead that A.C. departed for the common traits that Witnesses are known for, which you admit to be "doctrinal errors" and that such doctrinal errors have been perceived even by our own skeptics. These doctrinal errors area pushed constantly you say by JWI and others, and have caused others to stumble.
I can guess that you probably intended to say something else a little different from the above. But in any case, as the accusation of causing stumbling has been proposed, I would like to offer a more likely alternative about what causes this type of stumbling among us.
What you refer to as doctrinal error that I have proposed, might very well be doctrinal error. It is after all being proposed by an imperfect human with faults common to many of us. And the persons from whom I first learned of such doctrinal alternatives were also imperfect humans with faults common to many of us. However, what I have presented is nothing new, and has been presented for hundreds of years by Bible students and Bible commentators. More specifically, several of the most damaging points to some of our doctrines that I have presented were actually made by Russell himself and Rutherford himself. And of course the absolutely most damaging evidence against some of these doctrinal points was made thousands of years ago, because I have always tried to highlight where these points were made in the Bible itself. If I had to guess, I'd say that this is the point that causes the most problems, as evidenced by the fact that you had no Biblical answers to even one of the points of Biblical evidence.
I could turn around and say that it doesn't even matter who among us presents the Bible evidence for or against a certain belief. It could just as well have been presented as a question about who might have a Bible answer for the information that is presented over on some discussion site by Simon [forgot last name], or a blog by Doug Mason or a book by Carl Jonsson. These are points that we are all going to have to face head-on from the next generation of converts. And we are going to have to face the problem of many younger Witnesses who already know that a couple of the doctrines are on very problematic. "Fortunately" for the Watchtower Society, most current Witnesses and even most current converts don't care to concern themselves with the Scriptural evidence or lack thereof for certain doctrines. But unfortunately this means that the bulk of our publishers are also completely unable to explain the issue or even act like they ever noticed the problem. This will result in an unnecessary stagnation. I see some evidence of it already starting in several countries. 
So what really causes "stumbling" is not the person pointing out a potential problem, which is already pointed out in a hundred other places, going all the way back to the Bible writers themselves, but it's the dogmatic requirement of acceptance of some doctrines that cannot be defended by any of us. Here, on this forum, we have a chance to see if anyone can defend these, or see if are we destined to just accept without evidence. The latter is a dangerous position to be in. But it's also a self-inflicted injury. We need not teach any indefensible doctrines as dogma, we only need to teach them as a possibility that currently makes sense to many people, based on the secular world conditions which at least form a kind of parallel to the expectations that appear to be predicted Biblically. 

It sounds like you are saying that A.C. did not depart due to the uncommon traits that Witnesses are known for, but instead that A.C. departed for the common traits that Witnesses are known for, which you admit to be "doctrinal errors" and that such doctrinal errors have been perceived even by our own skeptics. These doctrinal errors area pushed constantly you say by JWI and others, and have caused others to stumble.
I can guess that you probably intended to say something else a little different from the above. But in any case, as the accusation of causing stumbling has been proposed, I would like to offer a more likely alternative about what causes this type of stumbling among us.
What you refer to as doctrinal error that I have proposed, might very well be doctrinal error. It is after all being proposed by an imperfect human with faults common to many of us. And the persons from whom I first learned of such doctrinal alternatives were also imperfect humans with faults common to many of us. However, what I have presented is nothing new, and has been presented for hundreds of years by Bible students and Bible commentators. More specifically, several of the most damaging points to some of our doctrines that I have presented were actually made by Russell himself and Rutherford himself. And of course the absolutely most damaging evidence against some of these doctrinal points was made thousands of years ago, because I have always tried to highlight where these points were made in the Bible itself. If I had to guess, I'd say that this is the point that causes the most problems, as evidenced by the fact that you had no Biblical answers to even one of the points of Biblical evidence.
I could turn around and say that it doesn't even matter who among us presents the Bible evidence for or against a certain belief. It could just as well have been presented as a question about who might have a Bible answer for the information that is presented over on some discussion site by Simon [forgot last name], or a blog by Doug Mason or a book by Carl Jonsson. These are points that we are all going to have to face head-on from the next generation of converts. And we are going to have to face the problem of many younger Witnesses who already know that a couple of the doctrines are on very problematic. "Fortunately" for the Watchtower Society, most current Witnesses and even most current converts don't care to concern themselves with the Scriptural evidence or lack thereof for certain doctrines. But unfortunately this means that the bulk of our publishers are also completely unable to explain the issue or even act like they ever noticed the problem. This will result in an unnecessary stagnation. I see some evidence of it already starting in several countries. 
So what really causes "stumbling" is not the person pointing out a potential problem, which is already pointed out in a hundred other places, going all the way back to the Bible writers themselves, but it's the dogmatic requirement of acceptance of some doctrines that cannot be defended by any of us. Here, on this forum, we have a chance to see if anyone can defend these, or see if are we destined to just accept without evidence. The latter is a dangerous position to be in. But it's also a self-inflicted injury. We need not teach any indefensible doctrines as dogma, we only need to teach them as a possibility that currently makes sense to many people, based on the secular world conditions which at least form a kind of parallel to the expectations that appear to be predicted Biblically.