JW Insider

Even before C.T.Russell was born, commentaries on Bible prophecy included  dozens of potential dates. Nearly 200 years ago, a couple of them even included 1914 as potentially significant time period. The "1914 presence" doctrine, however, is only about 75 years old.
All the ideas behind the Watch Tower's version of the 1914 doctrine have already been discussed for decades now, and all of them, so far, have been shown to be problematic from a Scriptural point of view. Since the time that the doctrine generally took its current shape in 1943, the meanings and applications of various portions of Matthew 24 and 25 have already been changed, and the timing of various prophesied events and illustrations have changed. Most recently, the meaning and identification of the "faithful and discreet slave" has changed. And the definition of "generation" has changed about half-a-dozen times. This doesn't mean that the current understandings are impossible, of course, only that it has become less likely from the point of view of reason and reasonableness.
Besides, for most of the years of teaching this doctrine, we have had the flexibility of extending the "1914 generation" from a possible 40 years, up to 70, then 75, then 80 years. And this has been applied to teenagers who saw 1914, 10-year-olds who saw 1914, then even newborns who saw 1914. With every one of these options already tried and stretched to their limits, we finally were forced to convert the meaning of generation from its most common meanings and give it a new "strained" meaning that has no other Biblical parallel. (See Exodus 1:6; Matthew 1:17; 16:4; 23:36; Luke 11:50)
But that flexibility is still seen as the last reason for hope that the Watch Tower Society might have still been correct in hanging on to 1914. Since the Bible says that a lifespan is 70 or 80 years and 1914 + 80 = 1994, the "generation" doctrine in its original form (1943) could remain stable until about 1994. Of course, a lifespan could technically reach to 120 years or more, and Gen 6:3 even gives vague support to the idea that the "1914 generation" could last 120 years, until 2034.
The current alternative solution is to make the generation out of the length of two lifespans, which technically could be double 120 years, or nearly 240 years from 1914. That would have had the potential to reach to the year 2154 (1914+240) except for the caveat that it can, by its new definition, only refer to anointed persons who discerned the sign in 1914 and whose lives overlapped (technically, by as little as one second) with the lifespan of another anointed person representing the second group. If persons from each group don't really discern their own "anointing" until age 20, for example, this would effectively remove 40 years from the overall maximum. 1914+120-20+120-20 = 2114. We could also assume a possible lifespan of more than 120 years, but otherwise, the new two-lifespan generation could potentially make the generation last 200 years. This "technical maximum" is not promoted currently, because for now we look at examples like Fred Franz who was part of that original generation already anointed and who saw the sign, and the typical example of an anointed brother who was apparently "anointed" prior to Franz' death in 1992 would be someone like Governing Body member, Brother Sanderson, who was born in 1965, baptized in 1975, and was already a "special pioneer" in 1991. His is currently 52.
However, the generation problem is just one more problem now which we can add onto the list of all the other points that make up the 1914 doctrine. Here are several points related to 1914 that appear problematic from a Scriptural point of view:
All evidence shows the 1914 date is wrong when trying to base it on the destruction of Jerusalem. (Daniel 1:1; 2 Chron 36:1-22; Jer 25:8-12; Zech 1:12, 7:4; Ezra 3:10-13) Paul said that Jesus sat at God's right hand in the first century and that he already began ruling as king at that time. (1 Cor 15:25) Jesus said not to be fooled by the idea that wars and rumors of wars would be the start of a "sign" (Matt 24:4,5) Jesus said that the "parousia" would be as visible as lightning (Matt 24:27). He spoke against people who might say he had returned but was currently not visible. (Matt 24:23-26) Jesus said that his "parousia" would come as a surprise to the faithful, not that they would discern the time of the parousia decades in advance. (Matt 24:36-42) Jesus said that the kingdom would not be indicated by "signs" (Luke 17:20, almost any translation except NWT in this case) The "synteleia" (end of all things together) refers to a concluding event, not an extended period of time (Matt 28:20) Jesus was already called ruler, King and even "King of Kings" in the first century. (1 Tim 6:15, Heb 7:2,17; Rev 1:5; 17:14) Wicked, beastly King Nebuchadnezzar's insanity and humiliation does not represent Jesus as the "lowliest one of mankind." (Heb 1:5,6; 2:10,11; Daniel 4:23-25; cf. Heb 2:7; 1 Pet 3:17,18) The demise of a Gentile kingdom cannot rightly represent the time of the rise of the Gentile kingdoms (Daniel 4:26,27) The Gentile kings did not meet their demise in 1914. (Rev 2:25,26) The time assigned to the Gentile Times that Jesus spoke about in Luke 21:24 is already given as 3.5 times, not 7 times (Revelation 11:2,3) The Devil was already brought down from "heaven" in the first century. (1 John 2:14,15; 1 Pet 5:8; Luke 10:18; Heb 2:14) The Bible says that the "last days" began in the first century. (Acts 2:14-20; 2 Tim 3:1-17; 1 Peter 3:3-5; Heb 1:2, almost any translation except NWT in this case.)

That Elizabeth Warren is one fine woman, isn't she? Wise. Balanced.

People making the effort to come to meetings should see our weekly arrangements as an oasis from the daily cares and problems heaped upon them from Satan's system. Each of us should take it as a personal responsibility to make the meetings refreshing and something to look forward to for the rest of our spiritual family, where they will be valued, loved, comforted and appreciated. It starts with us and the love we have and the way we express it. Our elder body doesn't have any "lists" of who attends every meeting although we have a schedule to visit certain ones. But aside of that, we can do what we already know we should be doing individually. Of course, greeting new ones or those we haven't seen in a while, but more. As a memory aid, it may help to make notes during the meeting of what comments, parts etc we can sincerely express appreciation for afterwards. I need to write down what was said and how it helped me in order to say something like: "I'm glad I came to the meeting tonight. Your comment about (...) is something really helpful to me/I learned something/I never thought of it that way..." Or something like that. I learned something from serving in the foreign language field. We all love our brothers and sisters, but some cultures are more expressive in how they show it - which contributes to a warm, accepting and loving atmosphere. I have also seen cliques become a problem in some congregations and so it is important to widen out. Elders especially can set the tone for the congregation. True they have a lot of things to attend to, but it shouldn't be "all business" - only talking to other elders after the meeting - which can look like a clique in itself. True we can't speak to every individual during every meeting, but when we speak to others, our focus should be on them, even if it means pulling up a chair and sitting beside them while they express themselves (usually for older ones). When we learn about the love Jehovah and Jesus express toward us, it's natural that we would want to imitate them in how we treat our brothers and sisters. It is nice to see the concern reflected in some of the comments here of how inclusive we should be of those who are different.

You highlighted the above portion of the Insight article. But notice that Hebrews speaks about the same combination of both King and Priest and says:
(Hebrews 8:1) . . .Now this is the main point of what we are saying: We have such a high priest as this, and he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,
Notice that the verse puts it in the past tense, that Jesus already filled this combination position being both a priest and already sitting on the throne. This was the main point of what he was saying! That's what made the manner of Jesus' priesthood different from the manner of Aaron, but the same as the manner of Melchizedek, king of righteousness and king of peace.

That's the very reason I already posted that I thought you might ignore the verse in First Timothy that not only says he is "king," but that he is "king of kings."
(1 Timothy 6:15) . . .He is the King of those who rule as kings. . .
 
 

Response: This is a very strange claim from someone who appears to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Jesus was the one who said he was speaking about Jerusalem. And the Watchtower has even made a video showing that first-century Christians knew that it was about Jerusalem. It followed a passage about a judgment visitation upon Jerusalem at the end of Matthew 23. It's the answer to a question the disciples had about 'when these stones would actually come tumbling down and no stone be left upon another one.' They had been pointing to the literal stones of the temple buildings.
I suppose you are focusing mostly on the term "great earthquakes" in Luke's version of the Olivet Sermon. Luke's version even adds the phrase "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies." etc. So why do you think there were no great earthquakes that they might hear about? Luke also wrote Acts and he says:
(Acts 16:26) 26 Suddenly a great earthquake occurred, so that the foundations of the jail were shaken.. . .
Do you really think this was the only one? What about this one?
(Matthew 28:2) 2 And look! a great earthquake had taken place, for Jehovah’s angel had descended from heaven and had come and rolled away the stone, and he was sitting on it.
What about this one?
(Matthew 27:51-54) 51 And look! the curtain of the sanctuary was torn in two, from top to bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split. 52 And the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the holy ones who had fallen asleep were raised up 53 (and people coming out from among the tombs after his being raised up entered into the holy city), and they became visible to many people. 54 But when the army officer and those with him keeping watch over Jesus saw the earthquake and the things happening, they grew very much afraid and said: “Certainly this was God’s Son.”
Historical records corroborate with more examples . . .
The Pompeii/Vesuvius earthquake preceding the big eruption in 79 CE was in 62 CE. What about food shortages?
(Acts 11:27, 28) 27 In those days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 One of them named Agʹa·bus stood up and foretold through the spirit that a great famine was about to come on the entire inhabited earth, which, in fact, did take place in the time of Claudius.
In fact, you should probably remember some articles in the Watchtower that basically said that all the items Jesus mentioned were fulfilled in some way in the generation from 33 to 70 C.E., including even the preaching of the good news in the entire inhabited earth:
(Colossians 1:23) . . .that good news that you heard and that was preached in all creation under heaven. . . .
(1 Timothy 3:16) 16 Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, . . .
(Acts 17:6) . . .“These men who have overturned the inhabited earth are present here also. . .
(Romans 10:17, 18) . . .what is heard is through the word about Christ. 18 But I ask, They did not fail to hear, did they? Why, in fact, “into all the earth their sound went out, and to the ends of the inhabited earth their message.”
*** w88 10/1 p. 3 The Sign—Not Just Past History ***
Did that generation experience fulfillment of “the sign”? Yes. The Bible refers to “a great famine” as well as three earthquakes, two of them ‘great earthquakes.’ (Acts 11:28; 16:26; Matthew 27:51; 28:1, 2) According to secular history, other earthquakes and food shortages occurred during that period. It was also a time of wars, two of which were fought by Roman armies against the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The second siege of Jerusalem resulted in terrible famine and pestilence, leading up to the destruction of the city and its temple in the year 70 C.E. The site in Jerusalem where the temple used to be stands as mute witness to those terrible first-century events.
*** w78 8/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
That prophecy had a future application beyond what occurred to Jerusalem and on the Jews in 70 C.E., but it also was true as to the history of that city and nation.
These words are in Jesus’ prophetic reply to the apostles’ question about his future presence and the conclusion of the system of things. (Matt. 24:3, 21; Mark 13:19) Jehovah’s Witnesses have often pointed out that much of what Jesus there foretold had two fulfillments: First, a limited fulfillment in the developments leading up to and including the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish system of things in 70 C.E. . . . In that prophecy Jesus emphasized the need to keep alert and to be ready. He said: “Keep praying that your flight may not occur in wintertime, nor on the sabbath day; for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again.”—Matt. 24:20, 21.
For Christians living in Jerusalem and Judea who would be directly affected by the end of the Jewish system of things, the warning to keep alert was vital. The Roman armies surrounded the city in 66 C.E., but then unexpectedly withdrew. That was the specific signal that Jesus had mentioned in Luke 21:20-22. And history tells us that obedient Christians responded by fleeing from the city of Jerusalem and from Judea. So it is reasonable to apply also to the literal city of Jerusalem and Judea what Jesus next said, about the “great tribulation.”
The destruction brought by the Romans in 70 C.E. was more extensive and terrible than when the Babylonians destroyed the city of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. Also, the tribulation in 70 C.E. brought the permanent destructive end to the Jewish-built city and temple and the system of worship centered around it. So Jesus was correct in prophetically describing the events in 70 C.E. as “great tribulation such as has not occurred [on that city, nation and system of things] since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again.” . . . The worldwide fulfillment in one generation of Jesus’ prophecies about unprecedented war, famine, earthquakes and so on, confirm that the limited fulfillment on Jerusalem before 70 C.E. was but a type of what we are experiencing.
 
Granted, we have changed emphasis on some of these verses and where they originally applied and which might apply only after 70 C.E., but much of it is just as true as when it was first written.

I take this as a kind of rhetorical question. I think you have already pointed out why much of what happens on the human side of organizations is exactly what we would expect to happen. Similar issues came up in the first century congregations.
Each of us has a responsibility to question. But not everyone is in a position to take their own questions seriously, due to having already put that responsibility onto others. But that's also a natural consequence of our imperfection. So it's not ours to judge the level of understanding of anyone else. It's not ours to judge who was put in charge of much, or who thought they were put in charge of much. But in any case the principle is true. It shows up again when James says that "not all of you should become teachers." It shows up in Hebrews 13:17 "for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account." And Hebrews 5:12 shows that it's unavoidable that we will also have the need to rely on teachers. 
(Hebrews 5:12-14) 12 For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong.
But none of these scriptures are specifically about the persons who publish and promote our doctrines. These scriptures are about all of us: all elders, and all others, too. All of us are expected to be stewards.
(1 Peter 4:10) 10 To the extent that each one has received a gift, use it in ministering to one another as fine stewards of God’s undeserved kindness that is expressed in various ways.
(1 Corinthians 4:2) 2 In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful.
So the principle is surely for all of us. Faithfulness is expected of all of us. And the greater the responsibility, the more seriously we should take it. We may push off our responsibilities onto others, but ultimately:
(Galatians 6:4-6) 4 But let each one examine his own actions, and then he will have cause for rejoicing in regard to himself alone, and not in comparison with the other person. 5 For each one will carry his own load. 6 Moreover, let anyone who is being taught the word share in all good things with the one who gives such teaching.

An interesting theory. But it would mean that every Witness who thinks that our Bible chronology is not ambiguous is a Witness for the wrong reasons. Therefore, according to your theory, it is vitally important that all Witnesses and potential Witnesses be made aware that the chronology is ambiguous.
So, I guess I can't tell if you are thanking me or criticizing me for doing something you believe is so important.

It's a bit off-topic, and I don't mean to pile on here, but this experience was also true for me. I learned to really like some of the same brothers more than some of the stuffier ones. I knew that three of the members of the Governing Body had come out of a previous era were still quite prolific in Rutherford-style swearing. One brother accidentally let slip the S*** word during morning worship. (I'd say for sure it was Jackson, but this might be considered too serious if I got it wrong.) Brother Swingle rarely seemed to hold back, and even thought it was OK to use the N***** word to address brothers of a certain persuasion (never during morning worship). But he was also one of the most down to earth and honest brothers I have ever known. Fred Franz would also use off-color language for effect, to grab your attention, but none of his words were ever vulgar. Franz wore a T-shirt to present the morning worship for three days in a row that had the word "hell" on it. It said "Where in the hell is . . . ?" [with the name of some little "podunk" town, somewhere.] But he wore it only because Brother Sydlik had just announced the previous week that all Bethelites needed to start wearing suit clothes to morning worship and treat it more like a congregation meeting. Franz was clearly sending a message.
I was there during the personal Bible study policing, but I was also there in the Art department during the same time periods that some of the supposed "subliminal art" stuff was supposedly slipped through. I can say for sure that during those years this was all complete "hogwash." There was no such thing. And I knew the brothers in the Art department for the next 10 years, and all the rest of the claims were equally garbage. It's part of the mindset where people see what they want to see. Of course, stupid things happen. Perhaps a brother in one of the filmed dramas thought it would be funny to turn his necklace cross upside-down? Who knows? (More likely it was an accident.)
I haven't pioneered for several years now, but this is the key for me, too. I know that some people have wondered what kind of cognitive dissonance would allow someone who knows about certain items of "deceit" to also go in service with our publications and even study with persons until they reach a decision about baptism. But our goal should be to focus on the more important work of applying Bible principles, and the changes that Jehovah's spirit can accomplish. It outweighs everything else.
I'm glad you are taking some time, and am sorry recent events shut down your local assembly venues. However, if I get time, I will still try to address some of the points you have made that I never responded to yet. So, don't feel that I'm fishing for a response from you, or trying to bait you into coming back. I'll wait patiently with bated breath. Enjoy the fishing.

(2 Peter 2:4) . . .Certainly God did not refrain from punishing the angels who sinned, but threw them into Tarʹta·rus, putting them in chains of dense darkness to be reserved for judgment.
When did God put the angels that sinned into Tartarus?
(1 Peter 3:18, 19) . . .He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit. 19 And in this state he went and preached to the spirits in prison,
When did Jesus preach to the spirits in prison?
(1 Timothy 3:16) 16 Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, was believed upon in the world, was received up in glory.’
Was this the same time he "appeared to angels"?

Remember that most quotes from the "OT" are from the LXX though, not the Hebrew text. Where the LXX and the Hebrew differ a little bit in the sense of the translation, the NT makes use of the sense found in the LXX. Some of the points made in the NT when quoting the OT, make very little sense if you stick with the Hebrew, but make perfect sense if you go by the Greek LXX.
Also, we have no proof yet that it was all, or even most of the copies of the LXX in the first century that had a form of the divine name. Perhaps it was rare, and the reason the NT never contains a form of the divine name is because these were EXACT quotes from the OT LXX. There is some evidence that the removal of the divine name had already gone into effect BEFORE the first century. We even see that one of the latest books of the Bible, Esther, never uses the divine name. This is also true of several of the Dead Sea Scroll documents. (And it's also true of almost ALL the oldest known versions of every additional Jewish book written between Esther and the Dead Sea Scrolls, including Maccabees, etc.)
And by the way, if Revelation 1:8 contains an OT quote, it would be quoting Isaiah 48:12.
(Isaiah 48:12) . . .Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I have called. I am the same One. I am the first; I am also the last. The divine name is not found in Isaiah 48:3-15, so any quote of Isaiah 48:12 should NOT have the divine name in it.

Agreed .... Congress is an animal with about a thousand legs, and almost no brain. Their ability to NOT solve "Heath Care" shows that getting elected does not make them competent.

I kind of agree.
I also agree that he was not a very effective president. But sometimes when I get bored and just want to see if JTR is healthy, I think about posting something that praises either Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama. 
I think that Obama was one of our most brilliant politicians ever. I think that Carter was one of the most sincere. But brilliance as a politician has nothing to do with how well they effected policy. I think he was almost as bad as Reagan, Bush I, Bush II on that count.
Deep down there is almost no difference in the two major political parties. The American people are easily fooled into thinking that one party is twice as good as the other, depending primarily on their prejudices about rich, poor, big gov't, small gov't, race, class, religion, intervention, military, oil, climate, "American interests," etc. But the undercurrent of dissatisfaction is beginning to trump all those issues as 95% of everyone begins to realize that they have been disenfranchized by reverse socialism: transfer of wealth into the hands of the top 1% merely by playing on fears that are easily drummed up to play upon the stupidity and prejudices of the 95%.

I kind of agree.
I also agree that he was not a very effective president. But sometimes when I get bored and just want to see if JTR is healthy, I think about posting something that praises either Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama. 
I think that Obama was one of our most brilliant politicians ever. I think that Carter was one of the most sincere. But brilliance as a politician has nothing to do with how well they effected policy. I think he was almost as bad as Reagan, Bush I, Bush II on that count.
Deep down there is almost no difference in the two major political parties. The American people are easily fooled into thinking that one party is twice as good as the other, depending primarily on their prejudices about rich, poor, big gov't, small gov't, race, class, religion, intervention, military, oil, climate, "American interests," etc. But the undercurrent of dissatisfaction is beginning to trump all those issues as 95% of everyone begins to realize that they have been disenfranchized by reverse socialism: transfer of wealth into the hands of the top 1% merely by playing on fears that are easily drummed up to play upon the stupidity and prejudices of the 95%.

As I said before.... Carter was too decent, too much of a sincere Christian, to be an effective Ceasar.   (He was not a Witness but one can detect that he reads his Bible and this in turn has an inevitable effect on the personality.)
The Ceasars used to give free bread to the masses and gory entertainment to keep them busy. The elite looked down on the poor masses....... while their own wealth and status increased. What has changed in Satan's world-wide system?

True, all BIG frogs in a small pond compared to Jehovah.

It's a very large country. I'd be more persuaded if the courthouse curtains ripped in two.

( I know your are just quoting a report here, @Librarian)
This baseless dishonesty reminds me of the spirit shown in the despicable treatment Armeniens received at the hands of the crumbling Ottoman Empire during the First World War period. 
United States Ambassador Henry Morgenthau remembers that Interior Minister, Mehmet Talaat Pasha, asked him to assist in persuading the New York Life Insurance Company and other firms that had issued policies to now “vanished” Armenians to escheat their benefits to the Ottoman state, since the "disappeared" persons were Ottoman subjects and no living heirs were to be found.
In Chap. 25 of his memoir, Morgenthau recounts the following exchange in the late summer of 1915: "One day Talaat made what was perhaps the most astonishing request I had ever heard. The New York Life Insurance Company and the Equitable Life of New York had for years done considerable business among the Armenians. The extent to which this people insured their lives was merely another indicator of their thrifty habits. “I wish,” Talaat now said, “that you would get the American life insurance companies to send us a complete list of their Armenian policy holders. They are practically all dead now and have left no heirs to collect the money. It of course all escheats to the State. The Government is the beneficiary now. Will you do so?” This was almost too much and I lost my temper “You will get no such list from me,” I said, and I got up and left him." (Ambassador Morgenthau's Story. Henry Morgenthau. Dobleday, Page and Company. 1918).
(The fact that it took some 90 years, until 2004 to actually settle the policy issue is another story entirely. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/20m-settlement-for-armenians/)

Well - it's very touching but it's hardly rocket science. There are not 500 people in a Kingdom Hall. There are usually under 100. I look around, and when I see someone I don't know, I walk up and talk to them.

For whatever it is worth, when I was an elder, I kept my own personal check list of all attendees. During the course of the meeting I would discreetly (I hope) look about and place a check/no check by everyone's name. It is too easy to fall through the cracks when there are many things to occupy one's attention. To the extent possible, I wished to avoid that.
I stopped serving for a variety of reasons and forgot all about my lists. Two decades later, I visited my daughter's congregation and sat next to her. There in her lap was a list on which she was discretely entering check marks.
I don't claim that we are always good at human interaction. But we are head and shoulders above the world in general where people ask: "so, what do you do?" and if there is no interesting job or interest in something contemporary and silly, have no idea how to interact afterwards and sort of look forward to slipping away.
Some of it comes with age. But if age has conspired to make one self-centered, that does not help, either. Everyone is self-centered to some degree. More than any group I know, JW's help people to break away from that.

It is not rocket science of course. Unfortunately there exist some members of the congregation who are a little "different" and because of that don't get included, and sometimes get outright ignored by the majority. A brother once told me about his wife and two sons. His wife had severe depression, but despite that, would come and sit at the back of the hall. From what he said, I gathered the friends pretty much ignored her. Maybe because they just didn't know what to say to her. Maybe because she was "weird". Unfortunately, it also seems that no one paid much attention to her sons either. Sadly, both her sons left the truth, and one remarked that with the true religion there is supposed to be love, and he didn't feel any love. Of course, that may have just been an excuse, but I know for a fact that there can be many cliques inside a congregation and if you happen not to fit in one, you can be very much on your own, and feel it. Cliques are a natural phenomenon. Mother's with young children hang out with other mothers with young children. Teenagers hang out with other teenagers etc. We have 3 older sisters in our congregation who ALWAYS sit together, so much so that one elder called them the 3 amigos from the platform. But there are some friends that just don't fit anywhere. That is why it's so important to "widen out" and put in special effort to include them. Which means real effort on our part, because it may mean not only inviting that "weird" family to our party, but also paying attention to them on a regular basis....

So sorry. I was concerned about the source, and KNEW instantly that it was not from an apostate source. In fact, it sounded familiar. You probably know that there are a couple of Witnesses who write some very good poetry from the heart. They share their poems on facebook pages and probably some other Witness-run web pages.
As JTR said, it wouldn't matter if this was found on an apostate web page, and I would not have been concerned if you had found it there, either. That's because I can tell you have such a good heart and a kind of youthful excitement about the Christian brotherhood (and "sisterhood") even though you also have a spiritual maturity at the same time. So I suspect you are pretty much immune to things that might disappoint and discourage other people.
I think you are doing a great job of putting up great positive items of interest. I have a background that includes being an researcher, editor, proofreader, so I'm sorry if it looks like I focus on mistakes. It's been my "job" since I was 19 years old, and I stayed in related occupations for nearly 30 of the next 40 years.
I didn't see any silly or weird mistakes in what you posted, although it would have been better if you had said "source unknown" because it looks like you are saying that you were the source when you give no other.

So sorry. I was concerned about the source, and KNEW instantly that it was not from an apostate source. In fact, it sounded familiar. You probably know that there are a couple of Witnesses who write some very good poetry from the heart. They share their poems on facebook pages and probably some other Witness-run web pages.
As JTR said, it wouldn't matter if this was found on an apostate web page, and I would not have been concerned if you had found it there, either. That's because I can tell you have such a good heart and a kind of youthful excitement about the Christian brotherhood (and "sisterhood") even though you also have a spiritual maturity at the same time. So I suspect you are pretty much immune to things that might disappoint and discourage other people.
I think you are doing a great job of putting up great positive items of interest. I have a background that includes being an researcher, editor, proofreader, so I'm sorry if it looks like I focus on mistakes. It's been my "job" since I was 19 years old, and I stayed in related occupations for nearly 30 of the next 40 years.
I didn't see any silly or weird mistakes in what you posted, although it would have been better if you had said "source unknown" because it looks like you are saying that you were the source when you give no other.

@Queen Esther,
Do you have any idea who wrote this?
I have a friend on facebook who is a witness that loves to write poetry but this isn't hers. I did a quick check on Google and it only comes up from 2009 on an "apostate" site and no where else. The ex-JWs who posted it and commented on it were mostly making fun of it, but it really does come from a serious place as JTR pointed out, too. Thanks for posting.

Importend is the learning point of that story and not the source where I got it !  I am never on any apostate page !  I remember this story from the past...  and read it now again. Why you guys watching to any silly, weird mistakes?  I'm since 20 years a baptized JW and working since 6 years together with our Librarian, WITHOUT any problems !  Best wishes from Germany