Melinda Mills

I remember "back-calls" and other terms. It still slips off my tongue from time to time. Never heard those instructions before.  Thanks for the quote from the 1943 magazine.  I remember also about the 100 hours for vacation pioneers some years later - the 1950s and '60s.
My mum used to pioneer a lot, along with looking after five children, as well as being a housewife and a seamstress.  I always remember this incident when I think of vacation pioneering in those days along with the high hour requirement. (Imagine calling 30 hours high after those figures of yesteryear.)  My eldest brother was kind of "hard-ears". Mum had special instructions  for him before she left home to pioneer. On one occasion she told him not to leave the house and not to fly any kites. He not only flew the kite but he flew it from the top of the house.  When he saw her returning from pioneer service  about  a few hundred yards off, he jumped from the top of the house  to the ground and pretended he was not outside. (My Mum did not leave discipline to my father like some mothers - she was a strict disciplinarian.)  He got lashes along with the sore feet. (Of course they were other reports from the siblings about other things he did.) After his disobedience, she would take him with her - so he frequently had to put in the same hours as she. He got baptized at 13, I think.  He was faithful for some time, but after marrying a non-Witness he became inactive.
Occasionally he refers to her as one of the "real" Witnesses, a term that makes me smile. He asked me recently why there are always older people in the field service - where are the young ones?.He knows that in his day the young ones were out religiously every weekend and often during school holidays, no excuses posed or allowed.
 
Back to the idea I posited.  I don't think you can have it both ways.  Either you set your own goals, knowing your circumstances, and you give God your best, or your goals are set by someone else.  Agree it is legalistic to set hour requirements for others.

I remember "back-calls" and other terms. It still slips off my tongue from time to time. Never heard those instructions before.  Thanks for the quote from the 1943 magazine.  I remember also about the 100 hours for vacation pioneers some years later - the 1950s and '60s.
My mum used to pioneer a lot, along with looking after five children, as well as being a housewife and a seamstress.  I always remember this incident when I think of vacation pioneering in those days along with the high hour requirement. (Imagine calling 30 hours high after those figures of yesteryear.)  My eldest brother was kind of "hard-ears". Mum had special instructions  for him before she left home to pioneer. On one occasion she told him not to leave the house and not to fly any kites. He not only flew the kite but he flew it from the top of the house.  When he saw her returning from pioneer service  about  a few hundred yards off, he jumped from the top of the house  to the ground and pretended he was not outside. (My Mum did not leave discipline to my father like some mothers - she was a strict disciplinarian.)  He got lashes along with the sore feet. (Of course they were other reports from the siblings about other things he did.) After his disobedience, she would take him with her - so he frequently had to put in the same hours as she. He got baptized at 13, I think.  He was faithful for some time, but after marrying a non-Witness he became inactive.
Occasionally he refers to her as one of the "real" Witnesses, a term that makes me smile. He asked me recently why there are always older people in the field service - where are the young ones?.He knows that in his day the young ones were out religiously every weekend and often during school holidays, no excuses posed or allowed.
 
Back to the idea I posited.  I don't think you can have it both ways.  Either you set your own goals, knowing your circumstances, and you give God your best, or your goals are set by someone else.  Agree it is legalistic to set hour requirements for others.

I wonder even if anyone sees anything wrong with goals being set.  I thought everyone would give their best - so I don't see how they could be set by someone else.  What does the account of the widow teach?

I wonder even if anyone sees anything wrong with goals being set.  I thought everyone would give their best - so I don't see how they could be set by someone else.  What does the account of the widow teach?

In my opinion it smacks of the kind of legalism that Paul railed against. I have even heard it explained as a perceived need to treat fellow workers as children who are expected to go wildly crazy or just lazy if they aren't given a set of legalistic rules to follow.
Here is how Franz/Knorr put it in the July 1, 1943 Watchtower (p.205), just months after Rutherford died:
Now, the apostle says, Jehovah speaks to us through his
Son. (Heb. 1: 1, 2) The Son has returned as King; he
has come to his temple. He has appointed his "faithful
and wise servant", who is his visible mouthpiece, and says
to those who are privileged to represent him upon the
earth, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in
all the world for a witness unto all nations" ...
These expressions of God's will by his King and through
his established agency constitute his law or rule of action
for the "faithful and wise servant" and for their goodwill
companions today... The Lord breaks down our
organization instructions further . . . . He says, 'Let us assign the field,
the world, to special pioneers, regular pioneers and companies
of Jehovah's witnesses. . . . He [the Lord]
says the requirements for special pioneers shall be 175
hours and 50 back-calls per month, which should develop
into a reasonable number of studies; and for regular
pioneers 150 hours and as many back-calls and studies as
can be properly developed during that time. And for
company publishers he says, 'Let us make a quota of 60
hours and 12 back-calls and at least one study a week
for each publisher.' These directions come to us from
the Lord through his established agency directing what
is required of us; . . . This expression of the Lord's will should be
the end of all controversy. It is for your good that these
requirements are made; for thereby you are enabled to
prove your integrity and magnify the Lord's name.
These directions from the Lord come to us as individuals
and as collective units called "companies". ...
They are to carry on all the forms of magazine work in
that assignment. ...
... The Lord through his "faithful and wise servant" now
states to us, "Let us cover our territory four times in six
months." That becomes our organization instructions and
has the same binding force on us that his statement to
the Logos had when he said, ''Let us make man in our
image." It is our duty to accept this additional instruction
and obey it. 

I wonder even if anyone sees anything wrong with goals being set.  I thought everyone would give their best - so I don't see how they could be set by someone else.  What does the account of the widow teach?

I think you might be confusing "evidence" and "proof." Rutherford, in more than one article, showed he knew the difference. He knew that evidence was not proof. But he was anxious to use this idea of the ability to draw stronger and stronger conclusions if a "second witness" and "third witness" to his idea were available. The Biblical idea of requiring a second witness, and the idea that a three-fold cord cannot be broken were utilized to make evidence seem like the equivalent of proof. Of course, most of these multiple evidences had actually been bent a bit to support each other. Today, it's easy to go back and see "confirmation bias" in his sloppy reasoning.
But he had another means of covering over the weaknesses of his evidence which had probably helped him to convince himself that he was right. And it would definitely draw over many of the persons who had remained hold-outs on the basis of unconvincing evidence. This was the fact that his "cause" (conclusion) was considered righteous and he had therefore associated his conclusion with faith. He was able to use "faith" in God's promises as the final glue to hold his weak "cord(s)" together, and hide its flaws, even from himself. This worked for Bible Students who followed him after Russell because they were anxious to believe that these men and their "Society" represented "the Lord."
Rutherford had already been accepting of the idea that he had been made the equivalent of the "Lord." This is the easiest explanation to me as to why so many people would merely accept the flimsy evidence without questioning. You don't question the Lord!
Some later examples might show you what I mean.
*** w74 11/1 p. 651 How Would You Treat an Ambassador? ***
The question is, How does the individual treat a visible representative of Christ who has clearly shown that he truly represents Christ? *** w55 6/1 p. 333 Part 11—Restoration of Theocratic Organization *** [quoting from 1938]
. . . the following was the resolution suggested to and adopted by all congregations who desired to be welded together under the Society’s theocratic leadership: “We, the company of God’s people taken out for his name, and now at ___________, recognize that God’s government is a pure theocracy and that Christ Jesus is at the temple and in full charge and control of the visible organization of Jehovah, as well as the invisible, and that ‘THE SOCIETY’ is the visible representative of the Lord on earth, and we therefore request ‘The Society’ to organize this company for service and to appoint the various servants thereof, so that all of us may work together in peace, righteousness, harmony and complete unity. We attach hereto a list of names of persons in this company that to us appear more fully mature and who therefore appear to be best suited to fill the respective positions designated for service.” Hints of the impact of this idea are found in the kind of reasoning we still use today, even when something turns out to be wrong. For example. The idea was that the Lord [Jehovah] came to his temple in 33 CE, through Jesus and his message. Then the Lord came to his temple again in 1918.
*** w55 11/15 pp. 692-693 par. 15 “Jehovah Is in His Holy Temple” ***
Since the preparatory messenger had come, it was therefore in Jesus’ day that the Lord Jehovah was to come suddenly to the temple . . .  He [Jesus] came as the visible representative of the Lord Jehovah, and by putting his spirit on Jesus Jehovah was with him in coming to that temple at Jerusalem in 33 (A.D.). . . . Has the Lord Jehovah now come to his spiritual temple with his Angel of the covenant? Christendom says No! . . . Down here Jesus came and began the cleansing in the spring of 1918 three and a half years after the birth of God’s kingdom in 1914 and the heavenly enthronement of Jesus Christ as reigning King then. Let Christendom deny that 1918 is the date of the Lord Jehovah’s sudden coming to his spiritual temple as the God of judgment, accompanied by his Angel of the covenant Jesus Christ. . . . Jehovah caused to be preached from 1918 onward the startling public message “Millions Now Living Will Never Die,” and in 1923 he provided the interpretation of “the parable of the sheep and the goats.” The foundation of this idea is good: that Jesus would inspect his congregation and act according to good judgment, and that his true followers would be tested and disciplined in order to meet the challenges of the last days. But notice how the idea that the Society is the representative of the Lord becomes a reason not to question even the specific dates assigned to such a doctrine, which would otherwise be a healthful teaching. Wicked, unfaithful Christendom denies the 1918 date and therefore they come under the judgment of Jehovah. It was Jehovah who caused the preaching of what we now know to be a false prophecy. So how could anyone have questioned a false prophecy or false doctrine under this kind of bullying pressure and name-calling?
As it turns out, of course, just a couple of years ago the Society finally dropped the idea that Jesus had come to his temple for a specific judgment in 1918. For that matter, the interpretation that Jehovah provided for the "the sheep and the goats" has also changed. There seems to have been an abuse of authority here that could be tied to the idea of "beating one's fellow slaves" as @Anna mentioned recently.
I think we have become much more sophisticated in our wording and presentation of this same idea, but the same idea has not changed much. Here are just a few small examples of how much "less sophisticated" it was in Rutherford's time.
Those Bible Students who publicly disagreed with Rutherford were branded "the evil slave" class. Yet, we today also find ourselves disagreeing with Rutherford on the pages of the same Watchtower. In Rutherford's day they published a book in 1917 that claimed that Russell was "Christ's representative in the world, the sole steward of the 'meat in due season.'" They kept selling that book until the early 1930's until "remaining stocks" were depleted. When Bible Students and even the newly named, "Jehovah's witnesses" asked if they should really be spreading false information among the unsuspecting public, Rutherford got angry, and the Bulletin (later, Our Kingdom Ministry) threatened the publishers by saying that if they went against Rutherford they were going against the Lord. But even less controversial issues were common. When the goals and quotas of special pioneers, regular pioneers and publishers were set, it was stated that these quotas were 'what the Lord wants.' Basically, if the Lord says pioneers need to get 100 hours a month, then, Who are we to go against the Lord? Even if we have become more sophisticated in our methods of producing this kind of theocratic world view, I see a danger in this. I think you can see it too.

Russell himself said he was ashamed of Second Adventism with all its false predictions. He was embarrassed by the Adventists yet he took little else from them besides their chronology. From the start, he was drawn to their chronology system. He often claimed that he was not so interested in the chronology but focused on Christian character instead, yet he made belief in the updated Second Adventist chronology the single criteria that separated the Foolish Virgins from the Wise Virgins.
Here's an example of the kind of dishonesty I refer to that always seems to accompany the topic of chronology in every religion that focuses on it. It goes all the way back to the first few months of Watch Tower publications:
Here are some statements from the January 1881 Watch Tower magazine:
This is a question doubtless that many ask themselves, viz: "How soon will our change come?" This change many of us have looked forward to for years, and we yet with much pleasure, think of the time when we shall be gathered unto Jesus and see Him as he is. In the article concerning our change, in December paper, we expressed the opinion that it was nearer than many supposed, and while we would not attempt to prove our change at any particular time, yet we propose looking at some of the evidences which seem to show the translation or change from the natural to the spiritual condition, due this side or by the fall of our year 1881. The evidence that our change will be by that time, increases since we have seen that the change to spiritual bodies is not the marriage. While we thought the marriage to be the change, and knowing there was three and a half years of special favor to the Nominal Church (now left desolate) from 1878, we could not expect any translation this side of 1881, or during this three and a half years. But since we recognize that going into the marriage is not only being made ready (by recognizing His presence) for the change, but also, that going in includes the change itself, then the evidences that we go in (or will be changed) inside of the time mentioned are strong, and commend themselves to all interested as worthy of investigation. Aside from any direct proof that our change is near, the fact that the manner of the change can now be understood, is evidence that we are near the time of the change, for truth is "meat in due season," and understood only as due. It will be remembered that after the spring of 1878, (when we understand Jesus was due as King) that the subject of holiness or the wedding garment, was very much agitated. And aside from the parallel to the end of the Jewish age, and favor at that time being shown to the Jewish nation, which implied the presence of the King, the consideration of the wedding garment, was also proof of the correctness of the application, for "the King had come in to see the guests," [Matt. 22:11] and hence all were interested in knowing how they stood before Him. Now as the inspection of guests is the last thing prior to our change, which precedes the marriage and we are all now considering the change. It would seem that the time for it, is nigh. We shall now present what we adduce from the types and prophetic points as seeming to indicate the translation of the saints and closing of the door to the high calling by 1881. . . . [skipping a large portion on these evidences, some of which were considered "proofs" of 1874 that evidenced the correctness of 1881.] If this be a correct application (and it seems harmonious) and the time of building is seven years, then we would expect our change by or before the fall of 1881, as from 1874 to then would be the time given for building. . . .  by coming into a knowledge of the Bridegroom's presence, etc., during the seven years harvest [from 1874 to 1881] . . . and as the seven years are about complete, that we will soon follow by being changed. Matt. 25 and the parallelism of the Jewish and Gospel ages, seem to teach that the wise of the virgins "who are alive and remain" must all come in, to a knowledge of the bridegroom's presence, by the fall of 1881, when the door—opportunity to become a member of the bride—will close. . . . We suggest as quite possible, that the change may come to some prepared before that time. . . .  "Yet seven days [years] and I will cause it to rain upon the earth," should be significant, because we have expected trouble, in a special sense, about 1881, and, according to the type, we must enter in by that time. . . . We used to think it would be in the midst of a great trouble that we would be changed, but now we do not. . . .  If the three years mentioned in connection with Aaron has any bearing, then it would teach our change as coming this side of 1881, as three years from 1878 would bring us inside of that time. . . .  We now have taken prophetic measurements and allegories together, [R182 : page 5] five different points seeming to teach the resurrection of the dead in Christ and change of the living between the fall of 1874 and 1881. Two or more witnesses are enough to prove any case, as a rule, and certainly God has given us abundant evidence. We are also glad to notice that all these things only corroborate previous truths, thus proving to a certainty each application as correct and causing the old jewels to shine brighter. The five lines of argument briefly stated are these: 1st. The days of Daniel ending in 1874, at which time the resurrection commenced, and since which, the dead have been going in to the marriage. 2d. The end of the seven years from that time, as marked by the parallel, of the end of the "seventy weeks" in the Jewish age ending in our year 1881, at which time we all should be in and the door closed, being the end of time of special favor to the nominal church before commencement of trouble which follows our change. [skipping more, etc. etc. etc.]
There are some cautionary statements built into the article, and statements that this is not proof, just evidence. But note what is done with the evidence. Intelligently-minded people know what this evidence means. And spiritually-minded people know that the faithful and wise servant is providing "food at the proper time" [meat in due season] and that this is the proper time for wise virgins to distinguish themselves from foolish virgins. Also, all this evidence is only evidence on its own, but as it adds up, it becomes "proof" to those who appreciate that God is giving us this evidence in abundance, and that even two of these five lines of evidence should therefore constitute enough to "prove any case" as a rule.
Here are some statements from the May 1881 Watch Tower magazine, p.224, on the same topic, now that the time for hesitation was due:
The WATCH TOWER never claimed that the body of Christ will be changed to spiritual beings during this year. There is such a change due sometime. We have not attempted to say when, but have repeatedly said that it could not take place before the fall of 1881. This was a true statement. The Watch Tower had not claimed that the body of Christ will be changed in 1881, only that the evidence about 1881 should be seen as proof by intelligent and spiritually minded persons who have a true faith and appreciation for God's truths. From this point forward, after failure was obvious, it would be easy to cherry-pick quotes that showed that no one had specifically said it would happen by the fall of 1881  -- even though it was supposed to obvious that for some it would likely happen even before the fall of 1881. But even this is just technicalities and semantics. It's true that they hadn't said it would definitely happen.
Still, there is dishonesty in the attempt to sweep all the embarrassment away. It's in the phrase: "We have not attempted to say when . . ." Is this a true statement? Was there really no attempt to say when the change would take place? That previous article on the topic of when, in January 1881 --only four months earlier--  might as well have been called "When Will the Change Take Place?" It was nothing if not an attempt to say when!
The claim might be technically true. But is it honest?
 

Anna:
Oh yeah ... I had forgotten about THOSE crazy years ... because I never believed any of that .... but I did get caught, BIG TIME, in the "1975" fiasco, even though during the run-up to 1975 I openly ridiculed it ... right there at the end, I reasoned, in the fall of 1974
"How could I be right, and everybody else ... people I respected, loved  and cared about .... everybody ... be WRONG? ( About the end coming in 1975)."
It did not seem probable to me that EVERYBODY (In the Truth) was wrong so I quit the best job I ever had, in Zaire, the Congo, to be back home with my Mom and Dad in Virginia, when "the END came".
To this day, Brothers and Sisters "swear" that never happened .....  but in the  Watchtower, March 15, 1980 issue , paragraphs 17 and 18 ONE TIME admitted that they did say that ... in the book "Life Everlasting - In Freedom of the Sons of God".
I did not find out about that "soft admission of culpability" until Mr. Google and I became good friends, many, many years later ... but long before that I learned to trust my own instincts over that of anything the Society said or published.
If they are wrong, only we down here at the bottom have to pay the price for their error.
If they permanently screw up our lives ... they pay no price whatsoever.

Ouch!!!!

Whether Jesus knows now or not he does not wish us to know.  Jehovah does not wish us to be skin savers. He wants genuine Christians who love Him and his Son. 
(Matthew 24:42-44) Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 “But know one thing: If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it.
Jesus has conquered the world and is dwelling in unapproachable light. No one can harm him. He has life in himself (immortality). He has nothing to worry about. It is we who have to prove ourselves faithful under death or to the end of this system, with serving Jehovah with eternity in view.
It is not unreasonable to believe that Jesus know the day/date of the end, as he has begun his ride to conquer all his enemies.  A person who goes on a journey usually has an idea of when he will reach his destination.  But that is for Jesus, not for us.   We have to prove our selves ready, always having oil in our lamps, doing the things commanded with a good motive.  Verse 44 above was addressed to Jesus' disciples and it said that  "the Son of man is coming at an hour that YOU do not think to be it."  So let us do the work willingly and with good motive and leave the end to Jehovah and Jesus.
 
 

There is someone online (not Jack) who is doing his darndest to stir up trouble over this, mostly by cherry-picking statements and presenting them without context. I wrote up a post on it on my blog and here:
It is ever the pitfall of zealots that they are so eager to prove a point that, in their haste, they will grab something that proves just the opposite, yet continue to gloat as though have found the smoking gun. Such was the case when atheists at Friendly Atheist tore their hair out over “some truly horrific advice to women in abusive relationships,” from the December 2018 Watchtower magazine. They were to stay in them no matter what!
Well, that does sound truly horrific and there were many who immediately condemned the scoundrels who would give such a vile command. Others went to the article first, where they discovered that it says nothing of the sort. 
IsnÂ’t this just atheists depriving women of the right to choose? It is ironic because they generally claim to be champions of that right. The article makes clear that a woman always has a choice, that she need not be railroaded into an action just because it is societally popular.
Some leave amidst these very trying circumstances. Some stay. Either action works from the congregation’s point of view. They have the right to choose. How is that the Watchtower ‘urging them to stay with an abusive mate no matter what,’ the accusation of the atheists? If a woman wants to try to salvage a marriage, what business is that of theirs? It may be an unwise decision, or it may be the best decision she ever made, but either way, it is her decision.
Given the staggering cost of family breakup, emotional, mental, financial, and long-lasting damage to the kids, if a woman decides to stick it out more than athiests approve, with a view towards salvage, who is to say she is crazy? Possibly reading this post are veterans of two, three, four, or more failed relationships who wish they had put more effort into a given one. If she pulls it off, she has gained something very good.
These are not short-term hookings-up that we are speaking of, latching on to some loser that you cut loose as soon as you see what he is. These are marriages of years or decades’ duration. In some cases, they never used to be abusive but they have become so due to who knows what factors? Dignify the woman as having the judgement to decide, based upon history, pressures affecting her man, and factors only she might know, as to whether he should be jettisoned or not.  If the lout has to go, he goes. Just don’t let some third party push you into it. The choice is always hers.
It is as though the grumblers cheer at the breakup of a marriage, oblivious to the damage left in its wake. It is as though they would prevent one from trying to repair theirs. Let her try if she wants to, or even put up with one far from ideal, if that be her choice. Sometimes when you are between a rock and a hard place, you donÂ’t assume or let the atheists tell you that the hard place is really a bed of roses. It isn't always that way. I mean, it is not exactly as they will be around to repair the damage, is it?
Okay, granted, they like marriage over there in the JehovahÂ’s Witness world. Until fairly recently, everybody did, and considered family the bedrock of society. Witnesses consider it a divine institution. That doesnÂ’t mean others have to, but surely it means Witness women should be allowed to. They let their view be bound by biblical injunctions. Adultery is the one acceptable ground for ending a marriage, but even then, it does not have to be; it is always possible for the innocent mate to exercise his or her right of choice and forgiveness.
Several decades ago the Witness organization took note, as did all of society, of the increasingly visible ne’er-do-wells who, while they might not be unfaithful, were nonetheless ugly to live with. It took another look at 1 Corinthians 7, a chapter that deals with marital matters, and sometimes people are surprised at how it says a husband and wife both owe each other sex (no, not ‘on demand’ – don’t even go there) and should not be depriving the other of it. Specifically, they looked at verses 12 and 13: “If any brother has an unbelieving wife and she is agreeable to staying with him, let him not leave her; and if a woman has an unbelieving husband and he is agreeable to staying with her, let her not leave her husband.” 'Maybe a marriage mate’s conduct says he is ‘not agreeable,’ regardless of what his words say,' they reasoned.
For some time, therefore the guidance for women (or men) in not-so-hot marriages is that there are three conditions that any one of which might justify separation sans tongues clucking: if there is extreme physical abuse, if there is willful non-support, and if there is absolute endangerment of spirituality. It is at once apparent that much in is the eye of the beholder, so from time to time Watchtower publications revisit the subject, so that congregation members are guided by what they signed on for in the first place, and not unduly influenced by what is all the rage elsewhere. If the bad egg must be fried, let him fry. A woman always has that right. But she neednÂ’t feel railroaded into that choice by a flood of outside pressure.
Any Witness woman knows this, because she has read and considered the entire article, not just the cherry-picked paragraph, and she has taken into account how it fits into her overall framework of knowledge. You almost begin to think what causes the steam to emit from atheist ears is another possible benefit of the woman’s forsaking her right to leave: Maybe the ‘unbelieving’ husband will become a believing one. How is that a bad thing?  If the guy makes it as a Jehovah's Witness, he will have made significant inroads against what makes him such a loser in the first place. 
Read the entire article here.

 

Children in Mozambique being shown videos on a tablet.

Just under half of the population lives without access to safe water but just £200 could pay for a locally-built rope pump.
Just over 80% of people don’t have adequate sanitation, causing diseases that kill 7,000 children every year.
This situation has a big impact on health, education and livelihoods, contributing to an average life expectancy of just 49 years.
http://www.wateraidamerica.org/mozambique

What percentage of children in Bolivia can purchase an iPad?
I remember years ago adapting to the country I would visit by NOT making a "showy display of one's means of life"
How is this an appropriate way to teach the world's poorest children to read, write and learn about the Bible?
 
Jesus could have easily created a 3D holographic display of the heavenly realms for all to see in Jerusalem... But did he?
Just because we CAN make great cartoons that entertain children... is that our true purpose?
Did Jesus say "for this I came into the world to show cartoons to children"?
 
We should spend more time teaching the Bible AND caring for their physical needs rather than be known as the new "Hi Tech" rich people that wander the earth showing first world PIXAR cartoons about the Bible to children.
Just me venting tonight.....
Can you tell I am in a cantankerous mood tonight.... UGH!!!

We are now very close to the great tribulation!
A brother of the betel was concluding his speech when he made the following comment: " Be intensely busy with the word of God," I would like listening very carefully. We who are in Betel we are privileged to work with the faithful and discreet slave and with the body of directors and I wish know you how he feels the body of directors about the time we live now in this system of things.
The faithful slave feels that it is already happened to the Matthew 24:14 prophecy: "quest for good news the kingdom's be preached in all the inhabited earth."
What does the party later this word? He says that ... then the end will come.
He knew you that there are only three countries in the world where there are no Jehovah's Witnesses?
ONLY 3 countries!
Somalia, North Korea and Afghanistan ...
This does not mean that there does not reach the in our literature to but just that there are not Jehovah's Witnesses. I had mentioned earlier to some friends and they wanted to know why there are no Jehovah's Witnesses in these countries. I 'll tell you the reason.
Jehovah does not send his people to any place where he knows that van there! * (See footnote)
But in these three countries the good news have already been published (I guess it refers to the fact that literature is still available).
Matthew 14, Luke 21, Mark 13, as well as Revelation 6: these words are ending (?)
So what is the biblical prophecy that still has to fulfill?
You know what?
The read for you.
See Revelation 17: 15-17 - (read the prophecy)
The faithful slave is waiting for the day Jehovah will put this thought into their hearts.
This is the next prophecy that must be fulfilled. For those who know what it means, this will cause the great tribulation.
Once this is fulfilled , the door will be closed (in a spiritual sense).
Whatever thing you did, you can not go back.
"I could have done this or that if I had more time."
Now is the time!
How will you spend the time you stay?
For what are you working or are you committed ?
- in higher education?
- you are struggling to get more money and material goods?
- you are engaged in the distractions of the world?
Or are you undertake to favor the kingdom.?
We do things urgently, we try to be quick! (Story running on facebook between of various witnesses of Jehovah accounts)
  I want to point out that the aforementioned text is the translation of the translation of a translation and then of specific phrases may have been distorted sense. Apart from that, however, the general sense of the discourse is clear. Assuming that they are not the ravings of some overzealous brother (which still brings out what they believe, more or less openly, many Jehovah's Witnesses), the meaning is as follows. The prophecies have almost all been fulfilled.  
The preaching was completed.  
We are just waiting for the fall of Babylon the Great.  
  Our expectations are really in harmony with God's Word?   That's it? Some brother more in later years and with a good memory will recall that statements like these (views from different angles) have already been made in the past. Without wishing to be too argumentative, beyond the past mistakes, it is clear that sooner or later you have to get to the point where it will begin the great tribulation, will fall Babylon the Great, and you will enter the Millennial Kingdom. The fact we were wrong in the past, more than once, this in itself does not prove that you're wrong again. Could it really be so and definitely not wrong to keep alive the sense of urgency - compare Matthew 24:42; Revelation 16:15 Beyond, however, the "hint" that each of us can have, the only thing we should do is search the scriptures to try to understand "what extent we are old" in reference to biblical prophecy. It is true: if we take the writing of Matthew 24:14 and we make an analysis of the presence of our brothers in the world, probably we would come to the same conclusion of the aforesaid brother in the introduction of this article (always assuming that the report is credible). The question, however, end here? Being such an important subject, it would be no need to also examine other scriptures to see if you dial a credible framework or if "something is not right"? Moreover, as the same "slave" has admitted, they are not inspired and therefore we would like to build on something more than a simple "I want you to know how you feel the governing body about the time we live in." The Bible is not "imperfect spiritual food", does not lend itself to corrections or rewards, does not change with time and definitely do not mind - John 17:17; Romans 3: 4; James 1:17; Titus 1: 2 Obviously you are not suggesting that the interpretations of this blog are infallible; far from it. You simply want to emphasize that the Bible is always to have the last word and so we must look for answers there, not in our desires or people that we value - Matthew 4: 4 Some do not even accept the possibility that even those who are taking the lead can go wrong (as if they were human beings). For some to question the statement "slave" is an indication of lack of respect and submission but this is a myopic view of the situation. We know that many times the people of God fed wrong expectations about the future and about the will of God - compares Isaiah 28: 14-19 They were the people of God but this, in itself, did not guarantee the protection and the priests themselves, more often, showed a complete ignorance of the Scriptures - John 3:10 This also happened with good intentions and the best people - compares 1 Samuel 16: 7 Considering the biblical past, trying to see what the Bible says to beyond the proclamation and to everyone who comes , is not it the best? - 1 Thessalonians 5:21; Romans 15: 4; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 The Lord Jesus Christ himself, the one who was the wisest of all men , and that he could speak of his own initiative, not perhaps did the same? - Matthew 4: 4-10 Questioning certain statements (not for bias, of course) is not a lack of respect towards the index "slave"; on the contrary, it shows profound respect for the one true authority of God's Word - Psalm 31: 5; Acts 17:11 Let us examine the claim that the prophecies would almost all be fulfilled, and we just have to wait the fall of Babylon the Great. The officer says that understanding God's Kingdom was established in heaven in 1914, by 1918 the heavens were purified, in 1919 the heavenly resurrection began (as well as the purification of the people of God) and so on. Perhaps there is some error in this generalization also because of the constant "adjustments" (adjustments that change the periods of a few months, ever the concepts) but roughly this is what you believe.

In this article you will see just how the logic and writing can corroborate or invalidate these ideas. The official explanation identifies the slaughtered head of death Revelation 13: 3 as the Anglo-American empire. It is true that the book that lists this explanation (the Revelation Its Grand Climax) has now been withdrawn but there is nothing new on the horizon that, until there is a different explanation, this is the ultimate understanding accepted. As we saw this explanation is problematic because the Anglo-American empire, according to official explanations, is the "king of the South" described in the Bible book of Daniel. However in Daniel is the king of the north to win the last war, and so it is obvious that something is not right - Daniel 11: 40-45 Of course we can not say that Daniel and Revelation contradict, does not it? To focus with Daniel Revelation there are only two possibilities. Or the Anglo-American empire is actually the king of the north ** (see note below) or head slaughtered to death that you see in Revelation can not be the Anglo-American empire. Does not it seem logical reasoning? How can the Anglo-American empire (and be the king of the south) if Daniele does understand that the last ruling king, or what will be defeated by Michele, is the king of the north? In Revelation we do not see another political power that defeats the beast that ascends from the sea. After the Great War (which can also have multiple stages), do not talk about other human wars in Revelation, right? - 1 Thessalonians 5: 3 The last war we are talking about and who participates in this beast is against the God Almighty - Revelation 16: 10-14, 16 The conclusion is logical. Apart from the fact that the end will come when the preaching has reached "all the inhabited earth" before this you will see the clash between the king of the north and the king of the south. And must win the king of the north, of course. In the last World War he has probably won the king of the north as well as to assert that "we just have to wait over the fall of Babylon the Great"? Absolutely no. The last king of the north was the Third Reich and, during the battle against the king of the south (the Anglo-American empire, in fact) it came out defeated. This is a prophecy that still has not been fulfilled and it is more than enough to establish that it is not enough that the preaching arrivals in these last three remaining countries. Among other things, the writing of Matthew 24:14 does not give any basis for determining how long the good news has to take place in a given country in order to receive adequate testimony. If tomorrow our brothers  they come in those nations and begin to preach ... how much time would pass until God considered adequate and sufficiently complete that testimony? The answer is simple: we do not know . However, although that has yet to burst the war between the king of the north and king of the south, it is conceivable that in the meantime there are other prophecies that have to be fulfilled or are being fulfilled, is not it? As we have seen in several previous articles before the war should emerge a certain persecution of brothers (you have tribulation, but is not yet the great tribulation ) because the king of the north must start to suppress the daily sacrifice (the preaching work ) until you get to completely suppress it - see Daniel 8: 10-12, 24, 25 In our recent past, the preaching work was perhaps suppressed completely, which it did by means of the king of the north? According to the prophecy, and this must be done only during the last years of the scheme of things it must have a last impulse - compares Revelation 10:11; 14: 6, 7 E 'at this point that the preaching work will reach the ends of the earth, and this will happen very quickly - Zechariah 4: 6 The total suppression of preaching did not happen even during the Second World War and certainly did not happen in all countries; Also this leaves well understand that it is a prophecy to come. There is much more to say but the above should be sufficient, even for those who disagree with the explanations of this blog, to reflect that the Great, "you can not expect only the fall of" Babylon. Who has respect for the Bible itself to be shaped by it. Of course what has been said does not want to show that the end will come "who knows when." In contrast, recent international events suggest that we are far ahead in the end time  All the events described above will occur in a very short time so when we can really begin to come to "raise high head" - Luke 21:28 Those who have lifted up their heads in 1914 all died with a stiff neck but when these things begin to take place (such as the war between the king of the north and king of the south) we can do it peacefully because of this incident until the actual fall of Babylon the Great (which will not be the world empire of false religion ) will spend a maximum of ten years. So us ensure that our expectations are in harmony with the Word of God not to be disappointed - Isaiah 28:16 Us ensure that our expectations are in harmony with the Word of God to be prepared for what's to come and not discouraged - 2 Peter 1:19; Proverbs 24:10 Us ensure that our expectations are in harmony with the Word of God, ultimately, for our lives - Matthew 7:24, 25     The Bible traces the path. It will not lead to disappointment.   Footnote. * The translation was not very clear. ** From previous articles we saw that the Anglo-American empire is indeed the king of the south.

I’ll be ready, TrueTom. Thanks. You rock!
Anybody interested in buying my condo on the lake?

2025, but a Great Jubilee away from 1975, is only 7 years in the future. Moreover, seven is significant in its own right.
And don't forget, for those of you who like science, Isaac Newton the Granddaddy of Science, said 2060 gets the job done.
Truetom calls It: 2025.

.
..... I dunno, but I remember when the ex-JW Janet Jackson, sister of Michael Jackson,  had that "wardrobe malfunction" during a half-time performance at the Superbowl years ago, I was so horrified that I can no longer drink chocolate milk !
 

Actually, I did not take my first commercial flight until I was in my 50's. It was very exciting. Successive flights increasingly become a pain, mostly for things having nothing to do with the plane but for the hassles boarding it. In the old days, you could pull up with 15 minutes to spare, and nobody at all wanted to strip-search you. 
Occassionally, some witnessing helps pass the time, and I don't always do it  but sometimes I do. Like one flight where I laid the contact card down on the armrest midflight and said to the man traveling next to me: "Look, everyone has a cause, and this is mine. We don't have to talk about it, or anything else. On the other hand, there is time to kill, we will never meet again, and it may suggest some conversation if you want it."
It was a while before he said anything. Presently he opened up on the purpose of his trip and his background. He was a microbiologist at some university. He said he liked the power of faith, but of course, he was a scientist. We exchanged some boiler-plate remarks, and somewhere along the line I mentioned telemeres. He took up the topic but pronounced the word differently. "You mean I've been making a donkey of myself all these years, saying it wrong?" was my response.
It was just idle conversation, not particularly going anywhere. Out of the blue he brings up that his trip had another purpose. He is traveling to get his daughter out of her latest jam. He doesn't know what happened to her. He did his best to bring her up right, but she takes up with one lowlife scoundrel after another and has made a hopeless hash of her life. 
I didn't say: "Too bad she is not a Jehovah's Witness. Then all of her troubles would be over." I mostly just listened, and asked a few questions to draw him out. Who doesn't like to be reminded what can happen to kids in the absence of Bible prinicples, and sometimes even with  Bible principles they veer off the track. I was blown away that, not knowing me from a bag of beans, he would so quickly turn to me as Father Confessor. It was likely because he had NO spiritual componant to his life, and when he came across one, the dam burst.
The time flew with the plane and landed in no time at all. I'll never see him again, most likely. But you never know. Perhaps he will be like the man who accepted a few magazines, but eventually told me he would do so no more because his wife was allergic to newsprint. 'Look, just tell me if you don't like them,' I said to myself. 'What a stupid excuse!'
Years later I met them at a convention, both baptized.
 
 

I forgot to include JW Celebrities.... Where should I place them? Hmmm
 

YES!!!! That means I rank higher! I WIN!!!
All I need to make my joy complete is to find out what happened to Sarah and the Terminator. James will not tell me. Nobody here saw it and can tell me? Nobody here cares about ‘contemporary culture’? Surely Allen the house Terminator saw it. He knows the genre and each time he gets tossed on his ear, I hear an unmistakable “I’ll Be Back.” 
(Incidentally, do you see how he has reformed and put fits of anger behind him? He thus is unleashing his true gifts, which are always needed in fighting off the scoundrels)
What must @admin think? “What a bunch of nuts that old biddy brought along with her! I had high hopes for that TrueTom but he may be among the worst idiots! Ah, well, they do swell the traffic. If I can keep hiding the profiles of my participants, I may yet win top prize at the Conference of Internet Magnificents.”

1 Peter 2:5 - you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. References: Ephesians 2:2,1 Hebrews 13:15, Romans 12:1
As for stones, it is figurative, but one can only imagine if man were stones (stone-men), swimming in water would be the last thing on your mind.

@Noble Berean did you move this topic over here or was it the @The Librarian? I was wondering if the title could be changed to "doctrinal" or "spiritual" hierarchy,....or something like that, because I don't think the organizational aspect of it is the problem, is it?

I am at the bottom of the list, where all chainsaw theologists are .... by choice.

Now that Barnum and Bailey has folded its tents, you may get less and less of these. I found this on https://www.drsoda.com/baancrb.html
Barnum's Animal Crackers (Bag)***DISCONTINUED***
So, who knows, a little self-control and an unshaken box with pristine, unbroken giraffe necks might someday yield $50 on eBay. I thought I'd sell my basement full of Hostess Twinkies on eBay when they were to be discontinued in May 2013. But since a new company bought them out of bankruptcy and resurrected them in July 2013, I guess I'll just have to use them for insulation, or maybe to stuff into pillows or something.