Anna

Awww I missed that! I would have liked to hear it. I wonder if he will send it in a PM @JW Insider ? Pretty please?

I agree. My mum plays the piano, well, I should say played. She and her husband moved to a small more manageable flat (they had a big house before) but she couldn't take her piano with her as it would never fit. I am trying to encourage her to at least get a keyboard so she keeps her hand/brain coordination fresh, and all the other things you mention. I will bring it up again!

What's that about? Was it @JW Insidershowing off or something? 😃. I know he deleted a post, but I didn't see it before he did so....

As far as I know, there are strict outlines that are closely adhered to, and from my experience of conventions, the same talks by different brothers sound pretty much alike. Not word for word of course, otherwise it wouldn't be an outline but a script. But the likely hood of them sounding completely different is unlikely. That is not to say some elder couldn't slip in his own ideas, something he maybe feels passionately about. Especially at a KH. This happens very rarely now though, and especially not at conventions. I remember one elder years ago, had something against Teenage Ninja Turtles, and counseled parents in his talk about how it was not appropriate for a Christian to allow their children to play with those toys. You know that was NOT in the outline. Nevertheless, there were parents that made their kids throw away all their treasured Ninja Turtles.... talk about imposing your own conscience on others! This is one reason why the outlines now have become very specific, and have to be strictly followed, so that this kind of thing does not happen.

I don't remember anything being said about animals as was insinuated by some. I do have a recording of the convention though so when I get around to it I will see if I can find it. There is a lot of information to sift through though, so I am wondering if anywhere, it could be in the symposium: "Creation reveals God's love"; Animals.

Of course there is nothing wrong with that kind of sentimental love. Since I came to America I have noticed people are more apt at showing this kind of emotion, as opposed to the stiff upper lipped Brits. I had never seen brothers cry while giving a talk on the platform until I came here (usa). There is a lot of sentimental love at assemblies for sure as well. People are dewy eyed during the videos, songs, and when saying good bye to the brothers and sisters they've met. Honestly John, you are poking holes where you don't need to as it is a non issue. JW's for the most part are an emotional bunch, that is why there is no need to give talks on how to show "sentimental" love! However, the love we all need to learn is the principled kind. This is the love spoken about in Corinthians 13, and this is the love that is the theme of the convention. "Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous. It does not brag, does not get puffed up, does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous. It does not brag, does not get puffed up bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. Notice it says it never fails. Well romantic love can fail, so can sentimental love. You do not still "love" your ex wives do you, I didn't think so. Hovever, would you help one of them if they were in dire need and you were able to? That is principled love, AGAPE, the love described in Corinthians that doesn't always come easy to everyone and needs to be worked on. Hence the convention on that theme. If the whole world practiced that kind of love, there would be peace on earth.

It might be good if you gave some examples

I am sure I didn't say NOT to have emotional love. I wonder why you think that would be ok? Emotional love comes more naturally than principled love though. We don't have to work at emotional love. But to love your "enemies" that is a whole different kettle of fish. Jesus didn't expect us to emotionally love someone who hurts us. But we are expected to love them with principled love AGAPE. I am sure in your days as a Witness you were familiar with the Biblical term and the difference between the various types of love.

Talking about songs, the oddest thing happened at our convention. on the last day, the afternoon, just before we get ready to sing "Give me Courage", the brother announces that we should pay attention because the music was slightly changed. ??? My excitement dwindled as I and others had diligently practiced the song since its release on the website last year. Anyway, everyone sang their hearts out, and I must say sounded pretty good, except in the last chorus. For some unexplained reason the music WAS different, however no one was deterred and sang as they had learned it. As a consequence it sounded absolutely awful. Terribly out of tune. Like cats and dogs howling. I stopped singing and just shook my head. When I got home I checked the recorded version of the convention we have for my mother in law who is house bound, and there was no such problem there. It sounds like it was just our convention....?

I don't know if this is really new, but I learned it's very important to love, and show love to one another because we as heck are going to need it in the future. And I'm talking about true love, the principled kind, not the sentimental kind.

No, of course God does not want us to misuse nor misunderstand scripture, and to understand scripture we need to ask God for help, which as you mention is the holy spirit. But holy spirit can only do so much. Since we are all free moral agents, but are imperfect at the same time, we CAN make mistakes in understanding where holy spirit is leading "us" (the person in question). Just because the holy spirit guides, doesn't mean that someone is capable of following it perfectly all the time. Look how long it took Jonah to finally do what he was told. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) including the anointed. I think one of your problems John is you are waiting for someone to interpret the scriptures to you perfectly. But the irony is, how would you know? How would you know what that one person is saying is better than what another person is saying? Jesus gave people identifying marks so we can recognize his true followers. It's not complicated. Matthew 7:21, John 13:35, John 17:16 etc... The Bible lets us know clearly and unambiguously what is important to God. That's not complicated either. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 1 Corinthians 5:11, Ephesians 4:28, Colossians 3:8, Corinthians 7:1, 1 Timothy 5:8, Galatians 5:20, 21 etc.... Perhaps they are not going beyond what is written. How would you know? Yes, in fact God and Jesus want us to be obedient; "Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account"... (Heb 13: 17) But complete obedience is first and foremost to God. It's a no brainier. The GB know that. Yes, God and Jesus support trustworthy older men. Paul told Timothy: "You, therefore, my child, keep on acquiring power in the undeserved kindness that is in Christ Jesus; and the things you heard from me that were supported by many witnesses, these things entrust to faithful men, who, in turn, will be adequately qualified to teach others". (2 Tim 2:2). And as you know, not only do God and Jesus trust older men, but they trust all Christians who strive to obey God, since they entrust them with "shining as illuminators" and with preaching the good news "“You are the light of the world. A city cannot be hid when located on a mountain. People light a lamp and set it, not under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it shines on all those in the house. Likewise, let your light shine before men, so that they may see your fine works and give glory to your Father who is in the heavens" (Matt 5:14-16)

To be honest @JOHN BUTLER, I just couldn't be bothered to give you a detailed reply because your reasoning is so out of whack. But here goes: As far as I am aware there is not much difference between an error and a mistake, they are just synonyms of each other. Once you put the adjective "deliberate" in front of any of those words, then it changes the meaning to being ummmm....deliberate, intentional, calculated, wilful etc. And no, I do not think their errors are deliberate. To which you will no doubt say I am brainwashed. It's good to have an opinion John, it doesn't mean someone is brainwashed, to the contrary. Sure. But ultimately it is God. It's still up to God to grant that, not up to the GB. You could be part of the WT/JW etc. and still be disapproved by God. Just being a part of something is no guarantee. The WT org. didn't foretell anything new, it just repeated what the Bible already foretold. As for moral standards, you already forgot how high they are. You don't remember if someone is found to be unrepentantly flaunting God's moral standards they are out on their ear? Already covered above Your opinion You are reading FAR too much into this! My inconsistency has nothing to do with the intention of twisting anything. Just laziness. 1975 was speculation. To be baptized as JW to be saved is a belief. Armageddon being close is also a belief. Sorry, can't finish. Got to go. Will carry on later.

Good observation and reminder. I think it's always a good idea to keep in mind the "customs" and general attitude of society in times past when judging a situation from the the perspective of the present. It explains a lot of things. For example we can see why the organization was so weary of certain things in the past, which it now accepts. (organ transplants, vaccinations, cooking with aluminium etc.....etc...) We can also better understand things in the Bible, some of which might sound positively traumatic to the "modern" mind.

I've learned it's never a good thing when I see more than 6 notifications, especially if I've been away only a few hours...

If you're referring to "Witness" then I don't think she is pretending to cover anything up. If you stay in this forum long enough, you will soon find out who is who.

There was absolutely no intent at being clever or sly on my part. But you really show your paranoia though. Attributing intent where there was none.

I can understand what Russell was saying. In his mind, he was probably thinking that he made the Bible more readable and understandable. And that as a result it would stick better in people’s minds. I feel his motive was genuine. But that does not mean that his statements were not presumptuous and dangerous. The danger is that as a result many will fixate themselves on every utterance of this “prophet” at the cost of actually checking the Bible itself. Not only that, but gradually people will take what this “prophet” says as gospel truth, no matter what it is, without checking or without a wait and see attitude. And this situation we find ourselves in today. I posted an example of the resulting hysteria above.

This is very true and there is a perfect example of how "obsessed" some can become. Just the other day I noticed a thread on a JW only chat forum, regarding the latest WT study articles (October 2019). There had been a glitch on the jw.library app and only the questions to the articles appeared. (It didn't help that some of those questions were quite provocative). The speculation among the friends was getting so out of hand, so much so that one brother was compelled to make this comment in answer to someone who intelligently remarked that this was obviously just a glitch: It has to be remembered though that these 30 or so brothers and sisters who make batshit (pardon the expression) crazy comments do not necessarily represent the whole worldwide brotherhood, although maybe it could indicate that on average 2 out if 30 are reasonable, and it appears that 14 of them agreed with the ridiculousness of it once they actually thought about it, and 3 saw the funny side of it. This whole thread showed how out of hand the friends get with their immature thinking because after the glitch was repaired, and the whole articles appeared, they carried on undeterred in their craziness! P.S. The WT in question: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-october-2019/

In those days I am sure there were quite a number, and only a fraction were Jehovah's Witnesses

I think you should drop this suspicion as extremely unlikely. I think he was only joking 😃

Yes, I could be wrong, but it does seem like that to me. Not sure what you mean by your second question, about how many do I think there are....that need placating? I don't think we need placating to keep plodding on. And I think it can be dangerous to do it this way, and could back fire!

I don't know, is there anything to discuss? All I know is my experience has been similar to that of JTR. The friends I talked with find it quite unimportant. It still baffles me why this subject (in broadcasting) was even raised. It seems odd that Br. Splane didn't begin the topic with something like "many of our friends have been wondering what Jesus's generation really means" OR "we have received letters asking about the generation" which he surely would have done had it been the case. It would have been the perfect introduction to start this subject. Is it possible that no one really wondered about it? Then why bother trying to speculate on the matter if it isn't crystal clear already? It makes me wonder whether this isn't a little carrot on the end of a stick....

This is not a reply to anyone specifically, just some musings in response to some of the comments here. I suppose it's not too much of an unreasonable concept to have a measure of confidence in imperfect humans, who all err and make mistakes. Without confidence in others, it would be a crazy world, even crazier than it is now and absolutely nothing would get done. Even when we have been disappointed over and over, we still check what the weatherman has to say about tomorrow's weather. I think maybe the word "complete" confidence should be omitted though when referring to any human, including the GB. Surely complete trust/confidence only belongs to God. The GB cannot ensure our salvation, only God can. (Do not put your trust in princes nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation Ps 146:3) We cannot question God, and quite rightly so of course. But we should be able to question a human, a prophet, or an angel for that matter. The story about the “man of the true God” in 1 Kings ch.13 highlights the seriousness of questioning (making sure) very well. In Israelite times people needed to distinguish between a true prophet and a false one. There were plenty of false ones, and they were exposed by Jehovah. Today, we need to question in order to determine who is false and who is not. (The term prophet that I am referring to is a spokesperson for God, not someone who predicts). The Insight book says this in part regarding true and false prophets: “The true prophet would speak in Jehovah’s name; the things foretold would come to pass (De 18:20-22); and his prophesying must promote true worship, being in harmony with God’s revealed word and commandments (De 13:1-4). The last requirement was probably the most vital and decisive, for an individual might hypocritically use God’s name, and by coincidence, his prediction might see fulfillment. But the true prophet was not solely or even primarily a prognosticator, as has been shown. Rather, he was an advocate of righteousness, and his message dealt primarily with moral standards and their application. He expressed God’s mind on matters. (Isa 1:10-20; Mic 6:1-12) Hence, it was not necessary to wait perhaps for years or generations to determine whether the prophet was true or false by fulfillment of a prediction. If his message contradicted God’s revealed will and standards, he was false". So, we come to the crux of the matter. We should be able to question the prophet/spokesperson/GB, to make sure that what he says does not conflict with "Jehovah’s righteous standards and mind on matters" as was verified by Geoffrey Jackson in his "if we gave wrong direction, then everyone who has the Bible would see that it was the wrong direction" statement. So unquestioning obedience and "complete" trust, in my opinion, are not the right choice of words to use in connection with the GB. And this is the primary reason for the topic, not to suspiciously distrust the GB, but to remind ourselves, by discussing the topic in depth, that there are boundaries and stipulations that have to be met before we can have confidence in, and/or obey any single expression made by the prophet/GB/FDS. And these boundaries and stipulations are set by Jehovah himself. Personally, I find nothing wrong with speculation, as long as it is not presented as fact. Going beyond what is written. This happens when an interpretation is applied to any seemingly ambiguous scripture. Where to find the balance? Since no one can interpret scripture without the possibility of making an error, how about only sticking to what is completely clear, (besides not conflicting with other scriptures), and admitting anything else is speculation. That would be a good start. I have no qualms telling anyone who wants to know my opinion on the revised understanding of the “generation”, that I believe it is speculative, and may or may not be true, and that we will know the true answer probably not until after Armageddon...... In saying all this, I do not think that the reasons for distrusting the GB that have been posted here by some are valid enough reasons. I think completely distrusting the GB is as unreasonable as completely trusting them.

Smart Aleck! 😂 😂