Melinda Mills

When one is deciding on which wife to keep, and which wife to get rid of ... perhaps watching the movie with Richard Burton, and Elizabeth Taylor .... "The Taming of the Shrew" would be in order .......... jus' sayin ....

As Mel Brooks said in his 1981 film History of the World, Part I " ... "It's GOOD TO BE KING!

Matthew 8:14
14 And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever.
1 Cor 9:5
5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
1 Timothy 3:2
2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,

"Several appropriate applications"....@JWInsider
I like this one:
Regardless of any homespun ideas and highfalutin' aspirations held by the religious leaders of Jesus day, the basic "denarius" wage they had agreed with the master of the vineyard was that described early on in the history of the "vineyard" at Exodus 19:5-6:
"Now if you will strictly obey my voice and keep my covenant, you will certainly become my special property out of all peoples, for the whole earth belongs to me. You will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ 
To realise this would involve far more than the miserable attempt they made of justifying themselves as righteous by keeping a set of self-invented legal interpretations  that had the effect of obsoleting the instructions given by the master. "you make the word of God invalid by your tradition" Mk.7:13.
Peter made it clear that another group would become recepients of that "denarius" at 1Pet.2:9:
"But you are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation",.
In speaking to his fellow anointed Christians (spritual Israelites), Peter showed the "denarius" to include the responsibility to: "declare abroad the excellencies” of the One who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light".
Of course there was no way that the religious hypocrites who had engineered the death of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:36) would take any delight in this "denarius". In reality, it would include accepting the one who they had wilfully murdered to be their King & High Priest, (Acts 2:36), submitting to water baptism in his name, (Acts 2:38.) And then there was his ransom sacrifice. This served  as the only genuine means of obtaining a "righteous"standing before God, invalidating their fake certifications. They would have to acknowledge that they had been duped into the engineering of the payment of this ransom, (Acts 5:30). Additionally, with submission to Christ's role as head of the Christian congregation (spiritual Israel), they would be required to testify publicly to all of this in taking the message of the "kingdom" to the entire inhabited earth. (Matt.28:18-20).
To make matters worse, they would have to accept the same "denarius", all shoulder-to-shoulder, as that paid to a rag-tag group of "unlettered and ordinary", "accursed" ones, late arrivals on the scene, with no pedigree or credentials! In fact, they would have even to submit to one of these as holding the "keys to the kingdom.....!!!!   
On the positive side, some of these 'full-day' workers were quite happy to accept this same "denarius", along with the 11th hour workers, as recorded at Acts 6:7:
"Consequently, the word of God continued to spread, and the number of the disciples kept multiplying very much in Jerusalem; and a large crowd of priests began to be obedient to the faith."

There are probably several appropriate applications we could find in the parable. I think the primary idea is found in the context of Matthew, especially:
(Matthew 19:27-30) 27 Then Peter said in reply: “Look! We have left all things and followed you; what, then, will there be for us?” 28 Jesus said to them: “Truly I say to you, in the re-creation, when the Son of man sits down on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will sit on 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit everlasting life. 30 “But many who are first will be last and the last first. That is what immediately preceded the parable in Matthew, and the following comes right after it...
(Matthew 20:16-28) 16 In this way, the last ones will be first, and the first ones last.” 17 While going up to Jerusalem, Jesus took the 12 disciples aside privately. . . 20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebʹe·dee approached him with her sons, doing obeisance and asking for something from him. 21 He said to her: “What do you want?” She replied to him: “Give the word that these two sons of mine may sit down, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your Kingdom.” 22 Jesus answered: “You do not know what you are asking for. . . . to sit down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” 24 When the ten others heard about it, they became indignant at the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to him and said: “You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them and the great men wield authority over them. 26 This must not be the way among you; but whoever wants to become great among you must be your minister, 27 and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave. 28 Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many.” So, I think the primary point is not about preaching, per se, although preaching is one of the valid ministries in response to learning about the Kingdom of the Heavens, so it's included. But the context shows that there are those who would begin thinking that they deserved a bigger and better reward for their ministries. They wanted titles. If it applied to the current preaching work it would be more related to the idea that a person who might give up more things (perhaps giving up 60 or 70 hours a month as opposed to one who gives up only a ten hours a month) might feel entitled to a title. Not that there is anything wrong with titles as goals or incentives on their own. It's a matter of feeling that reaching certain goals in the ministry makes one more deserving of a reward. Among humans, there is always a tendency to create a hierarchy of rewards and titles. In Christianity, there is only one basic reward, everlasting life. (Ironically, there are religions, including our own, that try to distinguish between "everlasting life" and "immortality," as a way to create a hierarchy of rewards.) Even that reward, however, is not the same as the way that humans think of giving rewards -- it's not for a certain amount of work, or a certain level of responsibility, or based on how much one has given up. There is no reward for serving and preaching and doing good things for others. In Christianity, there is only a "reward" for good motives. The road to eternal life is paved with good intentions, not good works. It's only the intentions (motives) that count. It's when Jehovah sees that our actions are motivated by love for God and love for neighbor.

I think you have a pretty good sense of the continuing effect based on specific examples, although there are others, too. Unfortunately an effect that might be more pervasive, but less tangible, is an overall sense of trustworthiness of spiritual direction. This one thing shouldn't be a big factor, but I wonder if this specific issue, for example, hasn't weighed on the minds of even the current GB, who have only recently decided to admit explicitly that the spiritual food and decisions they make are sometimes rotten or wrong, respectively, or that they might even depend on others for spiritual direction. The creation of too rigid a legalistic hierarchy produces:
followers who won't think enough for themselves, on the one hand, and could also tend to produce those who believe that 100% conformity to Jehovah's requirements is not all that important, from another perspective. (Based on this sense that it must not have mattered that much to Jehovah if all marriages are clean in his eyes, as long as the current incorrect rules of the WTS were followed at the time.) I can't guess at the number of "cases," of course, but I know of one specific case I dealt with in my previous congregation, and one in my current. I can't extrapolate from a couple of anecdotal examples, but I can't imagine that I know of the only two examples in the whole world, either. What if there is one in every congregation? What if the examples that come to the surface are only a small representation of the examples that never come to the surface?
Referring more to the second bullet point above, I can speak to a noticeable lack of interest in the spiritual direction received among a large swath of active Witnesses that I don't recall as much in times past. Perhaps it's just my projected nostalgia speaking here, though. I think you, for example, are likely one of those who take a stronger interest in the details of each of our doctrines -- sometimes even their historical development, up to a point. I see very little of that now.  In some ways I see it being even more discouraged. Taking an interest in commenting upon our doctrines, except with catechism-style answers to canned questions, is looked down upon -- even as if to say: "How dare anyone have the presumptuousness to comment upon doctrines that are already spelled out for us." Yet, that attitude of speaking up out of an overriding interest in our spiritual relationship with Jehovah, is no doubt what pushed the correction in thinking on this very subject in the original post.

there is no evidence of that.
There Is No Evidence of That
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT !
There is only one reason the concept of the Governing Body was developed.  In the midst of many lawsuits for all sorts of reasons it was deemed necessary to separate the assets of the WTB&TS from it's spiritual direction ... for the same reasons that Mexico for over 50 years was a "Charity" where at the meetings they did not sing, or have Bibles, to pretend that they were not a religion.
REAL ESTATE!
 

Probably just following the 1971 nonsense in the Aid to Bible Understanding. p460. (Who wrote that?)
The mistake appears to have been corrected in the Watchtower by 15/12/72  (page 768) when it is stated " that any married person who goes outside the marriage bond and engages in immoral sexual relations, whether with someone of the opposite sex or someone of the same sex, whether natural or unnatural and perverted, is guilty of committing por·neiʹa or “fornication” in the Bible sense."
Also, "Taking Jesus’ words for what they mean, therefore, when a mate is guilty of such serious sexual immorality the innocent mate may Scripturally divorce such a one, if he or she so desires. One who obtains a divorce on such Scriptural grounds is also Scripturally free to remarry, not thereby being subject to a charge of adultery.
This clearly marks a correction in the view expressed on previous occasions in the columns of this magazine, but faithful adherence to what the Scriptures actually say requires it. "  (Who wrote that?)
 

This is just unadulterated Rubbish! It does not matter where it originates!
Jesus said: (1st Century):
Matthew 5:32: "everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of sexual immorality (porneia), makes her a subject for adultery"
Matthew 19:9: "whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of sexual immorality (porneia), and marries another commits adultery"
Jehovah's Witnesses said (1988):
Insight from the Scriptures (1988) v1 p642:
"Sexually immoral acts committed by a married person with someone of the same sex (homosexuality) are filthy and disgusting. Unrepentant persons of this type will not inherit God’s Kingdom. And, of course, bestiality is Scripturally condemned. (Le 18:22, 23; Ro 1:24-27; 1Co 6:9, 10) These grossly filthy acts come under the broad designation por·neiʹa. It is also noteworthy that, under the Mosaic Law, homosexuality and bestiality carried the death penalty, freeing the innocent mate for remarriage.—Le 20:13, 15, 16."
It is also worth remembering what Paul said to Timothy at 1 Timothy 1:9-10: "recognizing that law is made, not for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, ungodly and sinners, disloyal and profane, murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, manslayers, sexually immoral people, men who practice homosexuality, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and everything else that is in opposition to the wholesome teaching"
Regardless of the statistical assaults of determined mudslingers, I would venture that, for the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses, grappling with definitions of fornication and what constitutes permissable extremes of sexual deviancy has not been at the top of their list of after-party small talk topics. I would also hazard a guess that, over the years, many of those charged with spirtual guidance and shepherding responsibilities would have been fairly naive in these matters also. (This is relected in historical discussions on such subjects. See the 1970's references quoted above). 
Now, (2017), there is an ever-escalating need to re-evaluate and become educated in these matters, in a non-prurient context, within the congregation. Contributing to this are: 
the escalation of sexual immorality in the world at large, the large numbers of "skinned and thrown about" sheep-like ones coming into the organisation the determined assault of opportunist predators on the true Christian congregation, seeing it as a victim pool the determined attempts of society to sexualise at a younger and younger age, the increasing institutional abandonment of scriptural norms of sexual behaviour, the institutional abandonment of traditional gender definition and roles, the growing preoccupation with sexual activity and experimentation, the saturation of all media with sexually oriented behaviour and images the glorification of sexual abnormality in the entertainment world the globalisation of uncensored pornographic media due to internet penetration...... You can add what ever you like to this list. As far as I can see, that re-evaluation and educational program is in place and is progressing effectively in the opposite direction, but, you had better believe it..... We are at war!
Eph.6:12: "we have a struggle, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places."
 
 

Another country attempting to ban Jehovah’s people from serving him. We are very close to the end when Jesus and his army will set matters straight. Until then let us pray for these dear brothers and sisters in the lands that ban our religion.

I said that is how I would apply to myself, was not speaking of how others apply it.  If I believe Jehovah does not like something I will not do it.  Not judging others. That's their business.

Another problem is that we seem always eager to identify with celebrities.  Don't know why.   Why should we rush these things to the site - what is the benefit to us. 
We should take to heart what Jesus  said as to the status of those who love Jehovah and his Son.  They will be persecuted. They are no part of the world and should not court the world.
(Matthew 24:9-12) 9 “Then people will hand you over to tribulation and will kill you, and you will be hated by all the nations on account of my name. 10 Then, too, many will be stumbled and will betray one another and will hate one another. 11 Many false prophets will arise and mislead many; 12 and because of the increasing of lawlessness, the love of the greater number will grow cold. 13 But the one who has endured to the end will be saved. 
Paul said the Christians back there were not ashamed of his prison bonds.
"(Philippians 1:7) 7 It is only right for me to think this regarding all of you, since I have you in my heart, you who are sharers with me in the undeserved kindness both in my prison bonds and in the defending and legally establishing of the good news. . ".
(Colossians 4:2-4) 2 Persevere in prayer, remaining awake in it with thanksgiving. 3 At the same time, pray also for us, that God may open a door for the word so that we can declare the sacred secret about the Christ, for which I am in prison bonds, 4 and that I may proclaim it as clearly as I ought to.
( Matt 25:34)34 “Then the King will say to those on his right: ‘Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world. 35 For I became hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you received me hospitably; 36 naked and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous ones will answer him with the words: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and receive you hospitably, or naked and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 In reply the King will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ "
 
We should identify with those who are suffering for righteousness sake.  (Remember those brothers in Eritrea and Russia  and other places and don't forget to pray for them.)  If we understand the issues regarding universal sovereignty we will understand how we are viewed by Satan and his world.  Our motives for wanting to be in the spotlight and attracting the wrong kind of attention to ourselves should be examined.  Satan would be glad if we attract trouble for ourselves.
 
 
 

 

I also hear that "Hanoi Jane" Fonda was there, and is a Pioneer Sister in that congregation.

Great Crowd renders service INSIDE the Sanctuary? was the question.
Anyway, your discussion highlights the great privilege extended to the great crowd and the value Jehovah places on their integrity, thanks to the atoning power of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

No word in German and Spanish for Lesbianism?
 

As I said, I have no problem with quoting the contents of the letter for the very reasons you all  have stated.  Notwithstanding that, my objection is to the posting of the facsimile.  It is unnecessary and totally inappropriate to use the facsimile to give "greater credibility to the authenticity of the information being relayed".
Whoever did that, please remove the facsimile and replace it with a quote; even if it is verbatim.

Facsimiles of letter to the elders should never be posted on sites like this, no matter what the content.

*** Bible Citations ***
Rev 7:9-10  After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. 10 And they keep shouting with a loud voice, saying: “Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.” 
 
*** re chap. 20 pp. 123-124 A Multitudinous Great Crowd ***
In Heaven or on Earth?
12 How do we know that “standing before the throne” does not mean that the great crowd is in heaven? There is much clear evidence on this point. For example, the Greek word here translated “before” (e·noʹpi·on) literally means “in [the] sight [of]” and is used several times of humans on earth who are “before” or “in the sight of” Jehovah. (1 Timothy 5:21; 2 Timothy 2:14; Romans 14:22; Galatians 1:20) On one occasion when the Israelites were in the wilderness, Moses said to Aaron: “Say to the entire assembly of the sons of Israel, ‘Come near before Jehovah, because he has heard your murmurings.’” (Exodus 16:9) The Israelites did not have to be transported to heaven in order to stand before Jehovah on that occasion. (Compare Leviticus 24:8.) Rather, right there in the wilderness they stood in Jehovah’s view, and his attention was on them.
13 Additionally, we read: “When the Son of man arrives in his glory . . . all the nations will be gathered before him.” The whole human race will not be in heaven when this prophecy is fulfilled. Certainly, those who “depart into everlasting cutting-off” will not be in heaven. (Matthew 25:31-33, 41, 46) Instead, mankind stands on earth in Jesus’ view, and he turns his attention to judging them. Similarly, the great crowd is “before the throne and before the Lamb” in that it stands in the view of Jehovah and his King, Christ Jesus, from whom it receives a favorable judgment.
 

We have over 40 children in our congregation
A case was dealt with appropriately & effectively although I only know the identity of the young offender as his court case was in the paper, no families or children have stopped coming to the hall. The authorities were immediately informed & action taken so I understand when the victim came forward.
obviously cases have not been handled effectively in the past, which is unfortunate & as a Mum makes me angry
However Jesus never said Jehovah's people would be a perfect organisation, look at the Israelites - King David etc but what he said was the identifying mark would be the love that was manifest.
These headlines will of course make Jah's heart sad & his son but all we can do is trust in him to put matters right & bring about a time when NO more sexual abuse or ANY abuse will take place anywhere on the earth.
 

I tell you what AlanF, since you have done THAT much research, it is clear one of two, possibly three  things:
1.) You are onto something, and we have all missed it, or
2.) You are deliberately lying, and making this stuff up completely out of context, which means you are dishonest, evil, and can be completely disregarded, or
3.) some third scenario that is worse than number two, that I have not discerned.
Since you have ALREADY done the research, why not, for a change,  give some credibility to your posting by showing the full quote in context.
By that I mean several paragraphs BEFORE the listed quote, and several paragraphs AFTER the listed quote.
Further, instead of shorthand, spell out "Watchtower and Awake, etc. in your citations.
I for one, would certainly entertain anything you have to say, if it does not on the face of it the same appearance of the factual statements that Chancellor Hitler was a vegetarian, a dog lover, and loved his mother, and niece, and made his nation into an industrial powerhouse.....which taken out of context makes him appear a fine person.
AS it stands, what you say MAY be true, in context, but the probability is approximately the same  with what you have posted so far, as the probability that the Earth is flat, which without PROOF, can be instantly dismissed without any further investigation whatsoever.

Russian Orthodox Church, not Russian Orthodox secta.
 

DO  WE  HAVE  GUARDIAN  ANGELS ?
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/what-are-angels/#?insight[search_id]=385e2d40-b19c-4dd3-b65e-44b30e1cbbe9&insight[search_result_index]=1
Who  or  What  Are  Angels?    The  Bible’s  answer....
The  Truth  About  the  Angels
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-study/angels-in-the-bible/

ANGELS  HELP  GOD’S  PEOPLE

(Philippians 2:8-11) . . .. 9 For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
Not all sentient life can speak. Earthworms for example, not that you needed an example. Yet earthworms are under the ground. I think we should limit it to those with tongues and with the ability to openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, and make a request for a good conscience.
(1 Peter 3:21, 22) 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, is also now saving you (not by the removing of the filth of the flesh, but by the request to God for a good conscience), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 22 He is at God’s right hand, for he went to heaven, and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him.
Of course, there might be issues. What if we need to baptize them in mercury or liquid sulphur because they are not the kind of carbon based life form that manages well when water is applied to them?
Or if they are mostly made of bone, and the bone is mostly a pumice material, then we might have to drop them from extreme heights to make sure they get fully immersed. (After the talk we meet at the bungee bridge for the baptism.)
That leads to another question. What if, instead of we discovering them, they discover us? I hope they know to baptize humans in water and not, say, liquid nitrogen, or sulphuric acid.
 

I think not.
Angels =(beings from outer space) can not, because they are already God's servants.

 
 

What single decision had the greatest effect on history?
I think it was arguably when the Dinosaurs "were just not working out...", and God dropped a big rock on what later came to be known as the Yucatan Peninsula.