JW Insider

They do…but they are probably putting the brothers first as they may be tortured for not complying with the Ukraine instructions that all men of faith MUST take up arms….

Germany knew that the Lusitania was carrying munitions for England, and they put an ad in the London times telling them that they were it was their intention to sink the Lusitania but the British command, the Admiralty decided that the Lusitania could sneak by because the wolf packs were operating in a different part of the Atlantic at the time.
Also the Americans were trying to pretend they were neutral, and for a long time neither would admit that the Lusitania Was carrying the nations munitions. They also adamantly declared that the Lusitania was not carrying munitions.
The British admiralty decided to charge the captain of the Lusitania with dereliction of duty and incompetence as a scapegoat because they knew the ship had been blown up with a single German torpedo, Which detonated the munitions on board the ship and it sank in 15 minutes.
They promulgated the lie that the ship was sunk with three German torpedoes because with one German torpedo, and no munitions, it would not have sunk in 15 minutes.
That was the official report of the British Admiralty judges, but the Captain of the Lusitania who incidentally had survived and was pulled from the water unconscious and was hospitalized, in his trial he was eventually exonerated.
After World War I was over, the truth came out, but they deliberately falsified testimony and ignored evidence to try and get the United States into the war, which was OK with Woodrow Wilson.

I think many people who have an ax to grind with enemies will shoot each other during chaos.  I am not naïve as to the capabilities of lawless people. 

I don't necessarily agree with this man's opinions, but what he says reminds me of similar reports in recent years from Bosnia, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, etc. Unfortunately, these kinds of issues do occur too frequently, and on top of the horrors (and errors) of war.

@Patiently waiting for Truth and so it begins - ‘You’re Afraid!’: Ukrainian Woman Berates Boris Johnson to His Face for Not Stopping Putin...
That being said, granted Boris' involvement with SWIFT, it will effect you, and in regards to that situation it enables Boris to take drastic action (should he got down that route) of which Russia can easily put the spotlight on the UK. I hope you realize what No-Fly-Zone are, and how that can cause not so pleasant ramifications.
Although British folks are not Americans, perhaps some are, they adhere to Western Ideologies, therefore, the UK is indeed Pro-West, especially when it comes to NATO. Then there is the negative ideologies of which somehow everyone are being Racist towards Russians; to cause more harm in a crisis, the latter divides the people, therefore, it makes some, even the likes of the Wild Beast, who made some moves, to quickly swoop in to cause damage, for such ones, they are also unaware, and they may not as resilient as you. As mentioned, even with a neutral stance, the indirect action can still cause some damage for the unexpected.
Also if I were you, I recommend you start changing your passwords, there's been talks in the Truther community about Cyberattacks, so much so the MSM is actually pinning the Hacks on some groups who may not be truly involved, hence propaganda. Last thing you need is to end up in the Black Market during an Information War.

All governments have the 'sword' or else they cannot maintain the peace and good order.  Note what the apostle Paul said in the Christian era at Romans chapter 13 verses 1 and 4:
1 " Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. ....4  for it is Gods minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword.  It is God's minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad."
In the 20th century BCE when Joseph was administering Egypt I would think that things were even stricter.  Also in the period when he Jewess Esther was Queen of Persia (some time between the period 493 to 475 BCE) use of the sword was fairly liberal; one could not come in to the King unless he/she were invited. They did so under the penalty of death.
When Adam an Eve listened to Satan and sinned, God knew that human kings/governments would come on the scene.  That is why he told Samuel, that the Israelites did not reject him, Samuel, it was Jehovah whom they rejected when they asked for a king.  As early as Genesis 49 we see prophecy relating to the the coming of royal offspring eventually leading the Jesus, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, who was to be the root of David.  His throne would eventually be a heavenly throne and has in fact become so.
Therefore what human kings/governments do is allowed by God to keep order on earth.
There is no record, as far as I remember,  of Joseph's dealings with ordinary citizens  but whatever he did seemed was fair and in good taste. He was later given total power over everyone in the Egyptian realm except for Pharaoh himself. Pharaoh recognized in 30-year-old Joseph the man wise enough to administer affairs during the time of plenty and the time of famine.  Joseph was therefore constituted second ruler in Egypt, Pharaoh giving Joseph his own signet ring, fine linen garments, and a necklace of gold and other trappings of high office.   
Fast forward to when his brothers came to Egypt to buy food, he sent them back to fetch his younger brother and gave them a series of tests to see if their murderous attitude had changed.   He then revealed himself to them, hugged them and cried profusely and told them: "Now do not feel hurt and do not be angry with yourselves because you sold me here; because for the preservation of life God has sent me ahead of you.  For this is the second year of the famine in the midst of the earth, and there are yet five years in which were will be no plowing time or harvest. Consequently God sent me ahead of you in order to place a remnant for you men in the earth and to keep you alive by a great escape. So now it was not you who sent me here, but it was the true God."  Genesis 45;1-8; 14,15.
Being a ruler did not stop him from being a servant of God; even if he had to order the execution of thieves it would not have stopped him from being righteous in God's eyes, because God had given that authority to the state.  
That Joseph was approved by God is seen in the fact that the twelve tribes of spiritual Israel mentioned in Revelation  7 verse 8, includes his name, whereas in the literal twelve tribes of Israel  his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, are mentioned.  Also in the Christian Greek Scriptures Joseph is included in the "great cloud" of Witnesses whose faith is worthy of imitation.  It mentioned at verse 22 of chapter 11 of Hebrews that "By faith Joseph, nearing his end, spoke of the exodus of the sons of Israel, and he gave instructions concerning his bones. We see his actual request at Genesis 50:24,25. That this was carried out we see in the record at Joshua 24:32: "The bones of Joseph, which the Israelites had brought up out of Egypt, were buried in Shechem in the portion of the field that Jacob had acquired from the sons of Hamor,  Shechem's father, for 100 pieces of money; and it became the inheritance of the sons of Joseph."
I wanted to include God's approval of the worship of the Syrian war chief Naaman on becoming a worshipper of the True God but don't wish to be too long. Check the record at 2 Kings 5:15-18. 
 However, for Christians it is a little different.  The apostle Paul goes further than Jesus in explaining the spirit of the Christian law. Since Jesus's ransom  sacrifice, all nations are one under Christ. When Peter cut off the high priests ear in the garden of Gethsemane at the time of Jesus' arrest, Jesus healed it and restored the ear and rebuked Peter., saying those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword. He had told Christians to be neutral in John 17:15-17, namely "..They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world."  That the character of a soldier was not in keeping with the character of a Christian, the apostle Paul wrote to Titus and Timothy: 1 Tim 3:2, 3: 2 "The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach, 3  not a drunkard, not violent (or a smiter - footnote), but reasonable, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money...". 
History of the first century Christians show they did not take jobs which entailed violence of any sort, but they cooperated with those who had the sword by obeying the laws of the land.  (Romans 13)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

It seems to me that with Putin its all about the Donbas, and making himself and Russia great again, and with America it’s all about the money/resources (according to the video). I have heard it said (besides this video) that America was intentionally egging on this Russia/Ukraine conflict for its own benefit. If this were the case, why did Putin fall for it? Or if not aware of this until later, why hasn’t he pointed a finger at America, and accuse America of “starting" the war?  (or did he?). Even listening to Maria Zakharova’s (Spokeswoman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia) emotional rant (in response to a British journalist’s question) about how no one cared when the UK killed innocent civilians in Iraq etc. and didn’t care about innocent civilians (children, women and the elderly) killed in the Donbas region by "Nazi" militants for 8 years.
So all I seem to have heard from the Russian side is the Donbas reason. Wouldn’t this be the perfect opportunity to talk about the pipeline and how America does not care about people but only cares about money? So, I am wondering if this is completely true.
Pardon my ignorance on this topic.

There is no American Thinking. If a bomb lands on your doorstep, you associate that with American thinking? Clearly not. As is with Dmitar, you yourself buy Bread, and eat it too.
Eating and or buying Bread does not make you part of the Globalist Monopoly, which is interconnected with various branches of the government.
Yes, but there are the ones who will stand with the Christ at Zion. The sheep, are the Christians who will take up the earth God has made, hence new creation. If everyone is chosen, the earth will not be associated with God's promise concerning what is to come.
The Chosen and the Christians are of the same house though, the spiritual house.
Hence the remark, now you spin a contradiction. As is prior to JWs even existing, there were chosen ones. Acts 2 is as clear as day (33 A.D.).
Perhaps Digitally, but not Physically. This is liken to your choice of Realism also.
News is propaganda. However a legitimate threat calls to question some verses in Proverbs of which one must apply. I am 100% sure if UK sounds the AIR-RAID, you would move before the panic, or perhaps get stuck in the panic, since Bojo was among the many who pushed SWIFT sanctions and is among the leaders who angers the second group under the UN banner.
As stated before if a Lion or a Serial Killer is in your neighborhood, there is no doubt you will examine the situation and plan an exit.
Likewise, Romans surrounding Jerusalem, a similar case, so to speak.
1. The situation of Ukraine has nothing to do with GB or JWs.
2. No one is taking a political side. If you want to speak about taking sides, one can recall you quickly being fooled by media in some instances where you drew question, i.e. the time you asked who Qanon was, clearly you have no political backing, but was concerned.
As far as I can see, no one, not even you, shown to favor the paradigm, however, some of you, have been tricked by MSM.
That being said, God's people do not dwell on politics, however, when those of politics do take action, it can cause an indirect action, therefore, God's people act.
Hence the Proverb - The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and pay the penalty.
By their works, but a Christian to be devoid of concern will end up like those in 2016.
Babylon has made several moves, so did the Wild Beast, if you are unaware, you are just as much of a victim here, and you would not know your works will be associated with them, hence the Alt-Right article which, if I remember, fooled some, even you, for if that can get you, you would most likely be swayed by the Beast or the Harlot.
That being said, Ukraine and Russia is corrupt, as is their puppet gov't, and their actions will effect people who are not involved - even you, that is, if Bojo continues to run his remarks to anger those who could easily take action on the UK. Ukrainian politicians are putting Boris to task, which will effect you, since your country is not only part of NATO, but also in the EU, as is the proponent to the events surrounding SWIFT.
That said, misleading information is a problem also, ironic how Witness reacts to you since she attest to misinformation. But unfortunately such false info is boosting corrupt morale for the paradigm which will harm people who do not want to get involved.

It is like that scene from The Fugitive, when the sinister doctor tells Sam Gerard and crew that they’ll never catch Richard Kimble because “he is too smart.”
“Well…we’re smart, too,” one of them replies and he gets a chorus of agreement from his fellows, all asserting how smart they are.
So be instructed by this Dimitar. We also are all very smart. Very very smart. So smart that we would have to get dumber to get any smarter.
And there are others you haven’t listed here. They’re smart, too. 

Yet it spins a contradiction because of the events that took place before the Christian Great Awakening, even beyond that, for, it wouldn't make sense from what they also said that they were others who are chosen.
That being said, you might what to address that elsewhere, for this thread is vastly different.
That being said, @Dmitar is correct, the notation related to this thread and anything connect has nothing to do with America alone and or being American. Remember, NATO is a collective, which includes those associated with the US and UK.

Well this is true because the propaganda stories they are pushing, for instance, The Ghost of Kyiv. Even the Fact-Checkers are dancing around that one when in reality, the so called ghost is associated with a video game. Likewise with the event of Snake Island where in order to push Ukrainian morale, and push more Russian hate is that they preach that The Russians killed the Ukrainians stationed there when in reality, they were captured.
Putin is laser focused on Ukraine, however, his ally, China, has been pushing the blame game on the US, despite the fact the super powers all brought themselves into this situation. Then you got NATO.
That being said, as of now, people are faking stories about Ukraine in order to gain a profit (also exploiting the horde of propaganda pieces), using platforms like TikTok, Facebook, etc to leech money off of people's emotions.
This may seem to be the case for both sides not only seek power, but also profit. So fighting over gas and energy is not a surprise. Even more due to the crippling Economy.
That being said, as of now, it is very difficult to go through a lot of these stories because one need to really discern what is true or false.

Possibly even the Book of Mormon itself.  Merrill writes:
”The Book of Mormon went on sale March 26 1830. On April 2nd the Rochester Daily Advertiser printed the first review of the volume. “The Book of Mormon has been placed in our hands. A viler imposition was never practiced. It is an evidence of fraud, blasphemy, and credulity shocking both to Christians and to moralists. The author and proprietor is Joseph Smith junior, a fellow who by some hocus pocus acquired such influence over a wealthy farmer of Wayne County that he later mortgaged his farm for $3000 which he paid for printing and binding... the blasphemous book.”
His wife was deeply suspicious of Smith and his visions. She was vehemently against that farmer, Martin Harris was his name, mortgaging his farm to finance the printing. Harris himself balked at the price tag of the printer, but writes Merrill: “When Harris hesitated Joseph came up with a divine “revelation” ordering him to finance the publication whereupon Harris mortgaged his farm and his wife left him.”
Yeah, I did such things back then but I wouldn’t now. My guess is you would not either. Possibly I should, but they’re just kids far away from home, under enormous pressure to stay where they are. (as @xero’s book makes clear). I am not in position to benefit them but i am in position to mess them up. So if I disagree, I am not forceful about it.
I heard or read somewhere some top Mormon honcho say how much he appreciated when people are nice to their missionaries. ‘I can do that,’ I thought, and I have behaved that way since. In a small town festival in Pennsylvania, my wife and I came across a couple of them at their station. I just engaged them in chat. To their obligatory thrusts I said who and what I was and that an effort to sway me elsewhere would go nowhere. After that I just asked about them, who they were, where they came from, are they homesick, and so forth.
The title character of xero’s—the book is autobiographical—is thwarted from abandoning his assignment, something he really really wants to do. “Have you prayed about it?” a higher up want to know. He replied that he had. ‘What did the Holy Spirit say to you?’ was the follow-up question. He replied that the Holy Spirit had said it was okay. “The Holy Spirit doesn’t work that like!” was his answer.
The book’s author spins his own talk alongside that of Joseph Smith. He has done his homework, spinning some non-Mormon historical details that only someone familiar with the region’s development (which I am) would know.

I appreciate your perspective and @Arauna and @Thinking, too, of course, because you have all put a lot of thought and study into the application of the prophecies. I thought I would get into more hot water than I did by mentioning how arbitrary our identification can seem, and even how non-neutral it can seem.
@TrueTomHarley pointed out that even the world sees the pushing between the two antagonistic world powers, US and Russia. Of course, that's what world powers will always do. It's the nature of the beast(s).
I think that the GB is correct to point out that conflicts between major powers (like Russia and the US, for example) really do fit the kind of pushing that we see described by Daniel about the King of the North and King of the South. But I also don't think it matters that we think we can identify each of them specifically.
It's pretty obvious to me that Daniel 11 is making a specific point about the Seleucid and the Ptolemaic empires, and how that would affect the lives of those who tried to remain faithful among Jehovah's people while "caught in the middle" -- in the Land of Decoration. There is no specific reason, imo, to try to make it any one specific modern drama between two specific powers. Jesus already made use of Daniel 11, showing how it would apply again with Rome.
But I can't see what difference it should make to us if USA/UK and allies are somehow more like Rome, or if Russia and its allies are the ones more like Rome. Is Russia the current entity that is more like the Seleucid empire, or more like the Ptolemaic empire? Is that really the point? Or is it that we should keep our faithfulness when stuck in a world caught between such beasts? I think the point is that we don't take sides with either, we stay alert, use discernment, don't stumble, and we don't think of using violence:
(Daniel 11:14) . . .“And the violent ones among your people will be carried along to try making a vision come true; but they will stumble.
And most importantly, to know that the ultimate solution is our faith in God's kingdom as the only hope even during the worst of all tribulations:
(Daniel 12:1) . . .“During that time Miʹcha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people. And there will occur a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book.

It's just my personal opinion, but discussion can help a Christian be informed. A person might think that in order to be neutral, it would mean that we should state that the policies of India in 1948, or Peru in 1943, were just as good or bad as the policies of Hitler's Germany in 1941. Neutrality does not mean we remain so uninformed that we can't tell the difference, or that we can't distinguish good from bad, or bad from worse, or mediocre from less mediocre.
Jesus called Herod "that fox." Is it really wrong for a Christian to discuss why Jesus might have called him that?
In Acts, Luke discusses political corruption, a possible bribe that Felix was looking for, and a political motive for some of his actions:
(Acts 24:24-27) . . .Some days later Felix came with Dru·silʹla his wife, who was Jewish, and he sent for Paul and listened to him speak about the belief in Christ Jesus. 25 But as Paul talked about righteousness and self-control and the judgment to come, Felix became frightened and answered: “Go away for now, but when I have an opportunity I will send for you again.” 26 At the same time he was hoping that Paul would give him money. For that reason, he sent for him even more frequently and conversed with him. 27 But when two years had elapsed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus; and because Felix desired to gain favor with the Jews, he left Paul in custody.
Was Luke being non-neutral in exposing some political motives and corruption?
Someone could argue, that all of those examples are history, or that the examples had a direct effect on God's people. But then again, what happened last week, even yesterday, is also history. And Jehovah's people are still being effected by world events.

It's just my personal opinion, but discussion can help a Christian be informed. A person might think that in order to be neutral, it would mean that we should state that the policies of India in 1948, or Peru in 1943, were just as good or bad as the policies of Hitler's Germany in 1941. Neutrality does not mean we remain so uninformed that we can't tell the difference, or that we can't distinguish good from bad, or bad from worse, or mediocre from less mediocre.
Jesus called Herod "that fox." Is it really wrong for a Christian to discuss why Jesus might have called him that?
In Acts, Luke discusses political corruption, a possible bribe that Felix was looking for, and a political motive for some of his actions:
(Acts 24:24-27) . . .Some days later Felix came with Dru·silʹla his wife, who was Jewish, and he sent for Paul and listened to him speak about the belief in Christ Jesus. 25 But as Paul talked about righteousness and self-control and the judgment to come, Felix became frightened and answered: “Go away for now, but when I have an opportunity I will send for you again.” 26 At the same time he was hoping that Paul would give him money. For that reason, he sent for him even more frequently and conversed with him. 27 But when two years had elapsed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus; and because Felix desired to gain favor with the Jews, he left Paul in custody.
Was Luke being non-neutral in exposing some political motives and corruption?
Someone could argue, that all of those examples are history, or that the examples had a direct effect on God's people. But then again, what happened last week, even yesterday, is also history. And Jehovah's people are still being effected by world events.

I agree that Joseph Smith was anything but Charles Taze Russell. But you don't have to dig very deep among early LDS to find a lot of things they should be ashamed and embarrassed about, but they seem oblivious to it.
A couple of their young elders (there's an oxymoron) wanted to study with me around 1995, and I let them come back about 6 times before they tired of me. The Internet was just a startup operation then, but one of the first things I did when I discovered it was to collect a ton of info on them. Our local town library also had a small collection of anti-Mormon books.
I wanted to discuss all these things with the Mormon elders, and one of them was aware of some of the claims, and he apparently mortified his partner, who stopped coming back with him on visit number 3. Normally, they give up on critics and questioners immediately, but I found that if I prefaced every criticism with "I have prayed about this question  . . . " that he would sincerely try to respond.
I took a job in a bank after Bethel and when the interviewer found out I was a JW, he said that they like to hire JWs, Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists. (And when we were looking for a housekeeper/babysitter the agency recommended that we hire Seventh Day Adventists or Jehovah's Witnesses, and this person did NOT know our religion.) I didn't like being classed with "competitors" but it said something about sincerity and honesty. @xero has correctly pointed out in other topics that there are many individuals in the world (and in other religions) who are often "better" in many ways. And here he has said what you quoted: "even though certain beliefs are demonstrably wrong about mormonism, the effects on them seem in many cases to be positive." Agreed.

I agree that Joseph Smith was anything but Charles Taze Russell. But you don't have to dig very deep among early LDS to find a lot of things they should be ashamed and embarrassed about, but they seem oblivious to it.
A couple of their young elders (there's an oxymoron) wanted to study with me around 1995, and I let them come back about 6 times before they tired of me. The Internet was just a startup operation then, but one of the first things I did when I discovered it was to collect a ton of info on them. Our local town library also had a small collection of anti-Mormon books.
I wanted to discuss all these things with the Mormon elders, and one of them was aware of some of the claims, and he apparently mortified his partner, who stopped coming back with him on visit number 3. Normally, they give up on critics and questioners immediately, but I found that if I prefaced every criticism with "I have prayed about this question  . . . " that he would sincerely try to respond.
I took a job in a bank after Bethel and when the interviewer found out I was a JW, he said that they like to hire JWs, Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists. (And when we were looking for a housekeeper/babysitter the agency recommended that we hire Seventh Day Adventists or Jehovah's Witnesses, and this person did NOT know our religion.) I didn't like being classed with "competitors" but it said something about sincerity and honesty. @xero has correctly pointed out in other topics that there are many individuals in the world (and in other religions) who are often "better" in many ways. And here he has said what you quoted: "even though certain beliefs are demonstrably wrong about mormonism, the effects on them seem in many cases to be positive." Agreed.

I agree that Joseph Smith was anything but Charles Taze Russell. But you don't have to dig very deep among early LDS to find a lot of things they should be ashamed and embarrassed about, but they seem oblivious to it.
A couple of their young elders (there's an oxymoron) wanted to study with me around 1995, and I let them come back about 6 times before they tired of me. The Internet was just a startup operation then, but one of the first things I did when I discovered it was to collect a ton of info on them. Our local town library also had a small collection of anti-Mormon books.
I wanted to discuss all these things with the Mormon elders, and one of them was aware of some of the claims, and he apparently mortified his partner, who stopped coming back with him on visit number 3. Normally, they give up on critics and questioners immediately, but I found that if I prefaced every criticism with "I have prayed about this question  . . . " that he would sincerely try to respond.
I took a job in a bank after Bethel and when the interviewer found out I was a JW, he said that they like to hire JWs, Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists. (And when we were looking for a housekeeper/babysitter the agency recommended that we hire Seventh Day Adventists or Jehovah's Witnesses, and this person did NOT know our religion.) I didn't like being classed with "competitors" but it said something about sincerity and honesty. @xero has correctly pointed out in other topics that there are many individuals in the world (and in other religions) who are often "better" in many ways. And here he has said what you quoted: "even though certain beliefs are demonstrably wrong about mormonism, the effects on them seem in many cases to be positive." Agreed.

Maybe. My insurance man was a Mormon. He died, but I am still with the agency he founded. (whether Mormons or not I am not sure—I think they are) I turned to him upon the recommendation of another Witness for business liability insurance. In time he commented on some scheme I had bought into from some brothers for health care insurance. He’s looked it over, he said, ‘and the premiums are unrealistically low.’ I was a young man then. I said how it is different with the Witnesses because they cut out the middleman and they are not greedy and it is not really insurance but pooled resources and all but said it had God’s smile of approval on it, but in time the monthly newsletter began acknowledging subscribers were asking why their bills were not being paid. To my knowledge, it was not dishonesty, just starry-eyed incompetence. I never got any premiums back, but that is true with any insurance. I never had any claim to submit—it was ‘major medical’ only, not routine doctor visits. I recall a Watchtower observing much later that just because someone is a good Christian, that does not mean he is a good businessman.
Yes. Maybe what we see is only what rises to the surface but they are trustworthy people. It is strange because so many of the roots are downright screwy. They originate from my neck of the woods, you know. At an antique/collectibles/junk shop I picked up a set of books by local historian Arch Merrill. Pioneer Profiles (1957) has a chapter on “The Mormon Prophets” There I learned that Joseph Smith was anything but the Mormon equivalent of Charles Taze Russell. 
“To many of his neighbors in the drumlin county around Palmyra and Manchester in the restless 1820s, Joe Smith was a lazy, dreamy young bumpkin, one of a shiftless tribe. To them his claims of conversing with angels and receiving divine revelations were so much humbug.
they knew him as “a gangling lad in a calico shirt and patched pants with his yellow hair sticking through a hole in his dirty hat a mystical sort of fellow who was forever digging for buried treasure. peering into a magic stone and finding water in the earth with a twig when to their mind he should have been toiling on his father's farm. They conceded Joe ‘had a way with him’ and was a glib and convincing talker.”
Is the guy just anti-Mormon? Doesn’t seem so. His next sentence is:
“Today that same Joseph Smith is revered by nearly a million people in 30 lands as a divinely inspired prophet. Those fine thrifty people are popularly known as Mormons and from the unlettered farm boys visions of golden plates hidden in a drumlins breast and from my handful of rustic disciples sprano the now mighty Church of Jesus Christ of latter day Saints.”
Maybe I’ll have to say of them the same thing I say to people who pound us over the head with inconsistencies from years past: “If you have to go back 100 years to dig up dirt, there can’t be that much dirt to dig.”

Today, I heard part of an interview with her on NPR. An interesting intrigue about her grandfather, Nikita Krushchev, is that he was a Ukrainian saboteur AGAINST the Soviet Union, and for several years he was secretly supporting the Nazi party in an effort to undermine Stalin. This likely makes very little sense to most of us, but is presented by some Russian scholars to explain some otherwise inexplicable episodes under Stalin. Historically, of course, Stalin was successful in initiating the Nuremburg trials. The United States was not totally on board with this, and the US secretly and sometimes openly hired former Nazis for various government positions. It is fortunate that Stalin actually was successful in pushing for these postwar trials, in that they provide a memorable "punctuation point" to the Nazi regime.

I appreciate your perspective and @Arauna and @Thinking, too, of course, because you have all put a lot of thought and study into the application of the prophecies. I thought I would get into more hot water than I did by mentioning how arbitrary our identification can seem, and even how non-neutral it can seem.
@TrueTomHarley pointed out that even the world sees the pushing between the two antagonistic world powers, US and Russia. Of course, that's what world powers will always do. It's the nature of the beast(s).
I think that the GB is correct to point out that conflicts between major powers (like Russia and the US, for example) really do fit the kind of pushing that we see described by Daniel about the King of the North and King of the South. But I also don't think it matters that we think we can identify each of them specifically.
It's pretty obvious to me that Daniel 11 is making a specific point about the Seleucid and the Ptolemaic empires, and how that would affect the lives of those who tried to remain faithful among Jehovah's people while "caught in the middle" -- in the Land of Decoration. There is no specific reason, imo, to try to make it any one specific modern drama between two specific powers. Jesus already made use of Daniel 11, showing how it would apply again with Rome.
But I can't see what difference it should make to us if USA/UK and allies are somehow more like Rome, or if Russia and its allies are the ones more like Rome. Is Russia the current entity that is more like the Seleucid empire, or more like the Ptolemaic empire? Is that really the point? Or is it that we should keep our faithfulness when stuck in a world caught between such beasts? I think the point is that we don't take sides with either, we stay alert, use discernment, don't stumble, and we don't think of using violence:
(Daniel 11:14) . . .“And the violent ones among your people will be carried along to try making a vision come true; but they will stumble.
And most importantly, to know that the ultimate solution is our faith in God's kingdom as the only hope even during the worst of all tribulations:
(Daniel 12:1) . . .“During that time Miʹcha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people. And there will occur a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book.

Today, I heard part of an interview with her on NPR. An interesting intrigue about her grandfather, Nikita Krushchev, is that he was a Ukrainian saboteur AGAINST the Soviet Union, and for several years he was secretly supporting the Nazi party in an effort to undermine Stalin. This likely makes very little sense to most of us, but is presented by some Russian scholars to explain some otherwise inexplicable episodes under Stalin. Historically, of course, Stalin was successful in initiating the Nuremburg trials. The United States was not totally on board with this, and the US secretly and sometimes openly hired former Nazis for various government positions. It is fortunate that Stalin actually was successful in pushing for these postwar trials, in that they provide a memorable "punctuation point" to the Nazi regime.

I appreciate your perspective and @Arauna and @Thinking, too, of course, because you have all put a lot of thought and study into the application of the prophecies. I thought I would get into more hot water than I did by mentioning how arbitrary our identification can seem, and even how non-neutral it can seem.
@TrueTomHarley pointed out that even the world sees the pushing between the two antagonistic world powers, US and Russia. Of course, that's what world powers will always do. It's the nature of the beast(s).
I think that the GB is correct to point out that conflicts between major powers (like Russia and the US, for example) really do fit the kind of pushing that we see described by Daniel about the King of the North and King of the South. But I also don't think it matters that we think we can identify each of them specifically.
It's pretty obvious to me that Daniel 11 is making a specific point about the Seleucid and the Ptolemaic empires, and how that would affect the lives of those who tried to remain faithful among Jehovah's people while "caught in the middle" -- in the Land of Decoration. There is no specific reason, imo, to try to make it any one specific modern drama between two specific powers. Jesus already made use of Daniel 11, showing how it would apply again with Rome.
But I can't see what difference it should make to us if USA/UK and allies are somehow more like Rome, or if Russia and its allies are the ones more like Rome. Is Russia the current entity that is more like the Seleucid empire, or more like the Ptolemaic empire? Is that really the point? Or is it that we should keep our faithfulness when stuck in a world caught between such beasts? I think the point is that we don't take sides with either, we stay alert, use discernment, don't stumble, and we don't think of using violence:
(Daniel 11:14) . . .“And the violent ones among your people will be carried along to try making a vision come true; but they will stumble.
And most importantly, to know that the ultimate solution is our faith in God's kingdom as the only hope even during the worst of all tribulations:
(Daniel 12:1) . . .“During that time Miʹcha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people. And there will occur a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book.

Whoops. I just noticed that I posted the Dore/Mate video which was only the edit of the last half of the longer video, which is the one I had watched. The longer (and better?) one is below: