Anna

In other words; Satan, by his action, deprived all humans of God's protective power when it comes to the elements, and over other things too. When Adam and Eve were thrown out of the garden of Eden, God said to them: " Because you listened to your wife’s voice and ate from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. It will grow thorns and thistles for you, ...."  To me this indicates that if they had not sinned, the ground would not have been "cursed" so to speak, and there would be no "thistles and thorns" and no natural disasters. In this way, Jehovah removed his protective power from the earth, and this affects both good and bad people of course. He does not cause natural disasters, he just doesn't stop them. It is assumed that in the new world, God will control the weather (miraculously) for man's benefit, just like Jesus did when he calmed the storm.
 

And now it's a double 20!

It was political opinion, (although based on scriptures in his mind), that got Rutherford and his associates in trouble and throw in prison in 1918 on charges of sedition....
Yes, it always surprises me when I read snippets from publications of that period. The other day I was clearing up some stuff in the garage and found some more old books that belong to my mother in law. As always I can't resist reading a few pages. It's obvious that Rutherford was very in the know as regards politics. And so was Russel (from reading old 1913 WT). It's evident though that the reason they were discussing politics was not because they somehow wanted to be a part of the world as @4Jah2me insinuates, but because the political scene convinced them of the fulfillment of Bible prophecies, and also that we are living in the time of the end.

It was political opinion, (although based on scriptures in his mind), that got Rutherford and his associates in trouble and throw in prison in 1918 on charges of sedition....
Yes, it always surprises me when I read snippets from publications of that period. The other day I was clearing up some stuff in the garage and found some more old books that belong to my mother in law. As always I can't resist reading a few pages. It's obvious that Rutherford was very in the know as regards politics. And so was Russel (from reading old 1913 WT). It's evident though that the reason they were discussing politics was not because they somehow wanted to be a part of the world as @4Jah2me insinuates, but because the political scene convinced them of the fulfillment of Bible prophecies, and also that we are living in the time of the end.

It was political opinion, (although based on scriptures in his mind), that got Rutherford and his associates in trouble and throw in prison in 1918 on charges of sedition....
Yes, it always surprises me when I read snippets from publications of that period. The other day I was clearing up some stuff in the garage and found some more old books that belong to my mother in law. As always I can't resist reading a few pages. It's obvious that Rutherford was very in the know as regards politics. And so was Russel (from reading old 1913 WT). It's evident though that the reason they were discussing politics was not because they somehow wanted to be a part of the world as @4Jah2me insinuates, but because the political scene convinced them of the fulfillment of Bible prophecies, and also that we are living in the time of the end.

It was much less common with Russell to get political. And his statements about people of color were mostly better than his contemporaries. Somewhat progressive for his time. But Rutherford had been a political person before becoming a Bible Student. He even worked on a U.S. presidential campaign.

I didn't want to give the impression that there is a need, only that we probably have a general expectation that politics can show just how bad things are in the world and therefore we all have some interest. Some of the details can be used when trying to get other persons interested in the message about the Kingdom. It is rather rare, I think, for most Witnesses to take much of a specific interest in a political issue, except where something might effect us personally -- in countries where a ban on Witnesses might be in the works, or formal recognition, for that matter.
The level of interest of Kosonen or Arauna or myself is not typical at all in my experience. I can discuss politics with no one except my own family and even here there are obvious practical limits.
But you might not believe the level of politics in the 1910s through the 1940's among Bible Students and early Jehovah's Witnesses. It was driven by hundreds of articles that delved into political matters at great length and great depth. Russell wrote a letter to the U.S. President to tell him that Filipinos are lazy and the Japanese are hardworking. The articles on Hitler even before he took power were already taking up pages of the Golden Age. There are densely packed articles on Germany and Hitler that went on for several pages with a level of detail and quotations from secular sources that would be unheard of today.
@Melinda I am not referring to politics in its most practical sense, about getting things done in a state, or city, or community. I am referring more to the divisive ideologies of national politics that keep people arguing about foreign policy, drive prejudices, create conflicts between nations, produce nationalism, etc.
 

also: the relationships within a group or organization that allow particular people to have power over others: I don't like to get involved in office politics. - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/politics    

OK, let me start.
Politics is the set of activities associated with the governance of a country, state or an area. It involves making decisions that apply to groups of members. It refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance—organized control over a human community, particularly a state. Wikipedia
(Romans 13:1, 2) Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves.
 
 

I think American JW's get more wound up with politics that here in the UK. For all the time I was a JW we never spoke about politics, apart from one single brother that I will mention later, but that was just his personal 'theory'...
For my part I have no interest in politicians or political parties. I don't vote for any of them. But I did vote to leave the EU. My feelings were that leaving the EU was an action. It wasn't about the political party or the PM, it was about an action that the UK could take. A bit like the W/t outlook on climate change. Do your bit to make things better whilst still being 'no part of the world'
But sorry @Arauna  I do think you get very 'involved' in worldly affairs. Your own business of course. To me it does not take such a deep look to see how bad the 'world' is getting, and we know it's Satan's world anyway. 
@JW Insider Maybe you could start off by saying why JWs actually need to look into world politics and worldly affairs ? 
OK, now this one brother that has a 'theory'. He is a young man, single, probably has too much spare time to think on things. His idea is that the Russians have the remains of Noah's Ark. He has some video footage of what he says are Russian troops breaking up the remains and transporting it to Russia. His idea is that the remains would make more people believe in God and that Russia as a whole wants to remove all beliefs from people. Is that political ? Is it even important ?  I only mentioned it as you were writing about folks having crazy thoughts and beliefs. 

Sometimes when people discuss religion or politics with someone, we are apt to wonder just how anyone can believe things that seem so crazy to us, while at the same time, the other person is wondering the same thing about our own beliefs.
So I start this new thread on politics under a JW Club, because we are supposed to have a kind of love-hate relationship with the topic of politics. We stay neutral, but that's often just enough distance to get things wrong. And we stay alert for issues that might end up being of Biblical significance, so that most of us stay informed at least through mainstream news sources.
However, there are other views far from the mainstream, that some Witnesses hold to. Most political issues have become very complex due to the fast-paced movement of world events since the dawn of a military industrial age and a lightning fast information age on top of that.
The mainstream media sources in most nations have an agenda in support of the ruling classes and/or elite classes within the nation. Several add a layer of "information" on top of that with a partisan political agenda -- very easy to spot in nations with only two major political parties. An agenda within an agenda. Outside of mainstream media, however, the sources are chaotic and sometimes extreme, full of outlandish interpretations and conspiracies, too. The chaos is even stoked by entities hoping to push audiences back to mainstream sources, where we feel a certain rational consistency of messaging. Of course, that "messaging" is often just propaganda inoculating us from studying situations for ourselves. This keeps us from realizing that mainstream media is also full of chaos and conspiracies, but constant repetition of messages makes it seem correct. If it doesn't quite seem correct, we feel that things are just too complicated to ever get the whole truth anyway. So we give up and pretend the mainstream media is the best we can do, or we hang onto some conspiracy that seems to explain everything.
In this topic I plan to give a few of my own views about various political topics. It's easiest to structure these views around comments that have already been made from others. Especially comments where I take nearly the opposite view. This should help to highlight the wide range of possible interpretations. There are plenty of such comments in the recent/current "Babylon the Great" topic, so I will probably get a few ideas from there over the next few weeks. This isn't to pick on anyone's views in particular, but I find myself disagreeing with @Arauna and @Kosonen on a range of topics. I also completely agree with them on a range of topics. But this might show how people can take several or more different paths of interpretation from some of the same "evidence" or information.
It might be a while, because I haven't figured out where to start yet. So anyone should feel free to make suggestions or jump in before I do.

It's a beautiful opera. Sometimes when I'm cooking I start singing the aria of the Queen of the Night and my husband begs me to shut up. I don't blame him at all! 😀 😀

Dear friend, thanks.  I did find time to listen to it.  This guy has done a lot of research on the illuminati (which no longer exists but its philosophy did not die out but lives on) but he does not know his bible well.  That is why he takes symbolic imagery and uses it in literal way.
I did find one or two discrepancies.  Ie.there are very few Jews left in Iran.  The few that are there now are protected by the government so it does not look bad to the outside world - they did persecute jews before. Most Jews and Bahai worshippers have left the country.
I do speak some Arabic and studied the Quran, hadith and sirah.  Shia Islam hates the Jews and want them all dead. There are scriptures in the Quran and hadith which outright says this.  I also listen to Persian translations of the imams and Iranian leaders....... they hate USA and jews. They also support Hezbollah and Hamas and Houthis- all terrorists - with money while their own people suffer. Iran is a major destabilizing influence in the middle east.
This fact is also a reason why the west is in danger because salafist extremists are in Europe, Canada, USA, Australia, UK etc.  It will definitely bring more problems in future.
While this video focuses only on Jewish connections to secret organizations - there are many organizations which come out of "old" money especially the Dutch east India company and the British east India company. The British supremacist organization "the pilgrim society" also pops to mind. Cecil John Rhodes left his will to six  or seven secret organizations. Look it up on wikipedia. He had control of all the gold and diamonds in south Africa.
Between 1902 and 1913 a lot of maneuvering between England and USA went on before the dual world power of Anglo-American emerged.  Tesla's patents were stolen and given to others who could be controlled. England's secret organizations built links in USA to influence it on many levels.  They controlled the newspapers to control public opinion, then also funded people to go to America and start banks and bring in the FED.  In England they started mi5 and mi6 and later assisted USA  to start CIA etc.  They still steal patents and use them in the USA military industrial complex because of how the CIA and other secret organizations were set up.
The City of London controls a lot of secret money in the world and it has it's own laws - it does not fall under British jurisdiction ..... just like Vatican.  So the idea that Revelation should be taken literally.... is not accurate. London controls a lot of what goes on in USA...behind the scenes. New York cannot be Babylon the harlot even if she has a lady as her welcoming symbol. Babylon was the original city who started opposition to God with false religion after the flood. Babylon could also be Lindon for that matter..... 
In the video it constantly talks of ancient mysticism which came from ancient Babylon..... yet it does not make the connection with religion... ?   The mysticism in Egypt with its spells and magic originated in Babylon.  
What the video also does not bring out is the mysticism connected to the belief of the immortality of the soul or the separateness of the soul to the body.  This is the biggest lie Satan told: you will not die.  This idea went to India where they believe the soul is continuously  reincarnated.  Well the Kabbalah is a mystic jewish religion which also does meditation similar to the Asian continent.   Yes, most Rabbis practice the real kabbalah. The New Age religion for the masses is a watered down version of the kabbalah. The idea that you can get 'hidden knowledge ' from connecting to ' God ' is clearly spiritism. 
Is this not what satan promoted in the garden of eden ? To get the 'hidden ' knowledge God did not give them? 
What I agree with is that most of the modern philosophies come from the French revolution which was supposed to bring utopian promise of freedom and equality. It had its roots in earlier spiritistic thought - as though satan was behind it to control the masses who wanted equality. The post modern philosophy and new feminism also hates the biblical  'patriarchy' and is bent on breaking down old values and the family. It wants a social revolution.
French revolution brought forth communism (and yes, I agree with the history of Marx and Lenin) but do not be misled: it is not just Jews behind this new world order. I listened to an article yesterday where Bill Gates is accused of continuing Monsanto's agenda in India....  new money / new billionaires have bought into it. There are Muslim masons too!  Masons were so widespread at time of Weisshaupt and its connection with Roseacrucianist ideas it is not a conspiracy. Even Mozart was a Mason. His opera " the magic flute is a allegory about masonry. 
When you have so much money as these billionaires do,   you feel especially priviledged and blessed and feel you must use your money to forward certain 'good' goals. They  believe they  are special and therefore cannot make  wrong choices:  I believe most of these leaders and billionaires who get together at the Bilderburg meetings have good motives while benefitting themselves in the process. Satan is deceiving.
Whatever happens, we are forewarned in the bible that satan will be drawn out to show his full hand. All the major corporations, oligarchs and leaders in the world, as well as  the secret societies, are moving in same direction - to install a world federation which has satan's goals in mind.   How far they will get we do not know....... but they definitely gave the money and technology to control billions if people when the technology is fully implemented. Rev 16: 14-16 indicates it is propaganda leading the leaders and the world to Armageddon. The propaganda is inspired by satan.
True disciples of jehovah will have a very hard time..... we know this. Our faith will be under test.... it is nice to look at these things and speculate but it is more important to be solid in the faith. Yes we have fun speculating but we must never lose sight of Jehovahs wonderful promises.... and make sure of the "more important things" ....because this will keep us strong.
Thanks for reaching out to me- I appreciate it.
 

I would say most of the JWs who comment on here are unconventional! 😀
Lol!

I would say most of the JWs who comment on here are unconventional! 😀
Lol!

If I was to describe myself, it would be in words very similar.
A story, with opening background:
I have always been ‘out there’ in appearance (for a brother), at times downright shaggy, with hair falling over my ears, and I don’t fuss much with combing it, usually not at all. I don’t fully trust anyone who has not a hair out of place. I don’t like cuff-links either, though I will concede that some will wear them and figure that they are like the fine seamless garment Jesus wore. Nobody would rebuke the Lord with: “Why don’t you wear a regular garment from the Goodwill so no one thinks you are putting on airs.” They would not say that, so cuff links get a free pass, too, but I would never wear the stupid things.
Amazingly, I have never been counseled on general shagginess, despite all the carrying on about ‘dress that befits a minister of GodI’—which rubs me the wrong way when it is overdone. I’ve had speaking assignments at the District Convention, now called Regionals. I can only surmise that my personality otherwise offsets a moderately (at times) unorthodox appearance. 
In my 50’s, after my eldering days, I got into the habit of moussing my hair when it got long, running my fingers through it once so it stayed off my forehead, and I would go about my day with it spiked up, flopping over any way it liked as gravity took over. If I see a young woman with green hair, I won’t harrumph as many of our people would—I’ll say, “Huh! You know, I kind of like that.” These days I am less that way and I now say to the barber: “Look, so long as you are not thinking “US Marine,” cut it as short as you like—even if you get it too short, I will not complain—it grows back.* That way I don’t have to horse with it for a while. 
Brother Lloyd of the US Branch gave the talk at our Assembly Hall. He is an old-timer who has been around forever. The place was packed out. For reasons I don’t remember, my wife and I arrived late and we were shoehorned into the only two seats available—directly in front of him.
His talk was hard-hitting, the type you used to hear from old-timers and the type that you will not hear today—‘if you do not make time for Jehovah, maybe he will not make time for you’ was the tone some of it took.
Now, I am not one of those brothers who has to track down the speaker so as to shake his hand. If I don’t speak with him at all, that is perfectly fine by me. I have stated here that I would love to have a Governing Body member stay at my house so I could ignore him (which would probably make me popular in his eyes). “There’s your room. Come down and hang out if you like, but don’t feel you have to—I know that you have things to do, if only unwinding free of persons who you have to talk to,” is what I would say to him.
So after the closing prayer I turn around with my spiked hair and find myself face to face with him—the crowds have not closed in yet. I exchange a few pleasantries—nice of him to make the sacrifice to travel, and so forth, and he says, almost with a twinkle, “I wasn’t too hard on you brothers, was I?” 
“Well,” I said, “we’ll adjust.”
......*With regard to not complaining about a bad haircut, I remember reading a book by Peter Lynch, the Fidelity fund manager known for investing in what he liked. He bought a ton on Dunkin Donut stock and it went to the moon—his interest first piqued because he loved their coffee. He also bought Supercuts. True to method, he went there first to get a haircut. He thought he looked a little funny as he left, but he allowed that it might simply be due to some new style that he was unaware of. The horrified look on the faces of his wife and daughters convinced him that it was not. The CEO, when he related the experience to him, observed cheerfully that hair grows back at 6 inches per....some quantity of time that I forget.
Lynch is the same fund manager who once observed of General Motors: “The nicest thing I can say about it is that it is a terrible company.” I never forgot that line.
PS: the good guys have all migrated for now to Anna’s new thread on the closed site. You’re welcome to join them. Leave 4Jah, Srecko, and Witness here to talk among themselves. They’ll soon discover that they can’t stand one another.
 
 
 

I would say most of the JWs who comment on here are unconventional! 😀
Lol!

I don't think anyone will bother replying to your assumption as it is rather silly. Of course we know what the definition of an apostate is.

I don't think anyone will bother replying to your assumption as it is rather silly. Of course we know what the definition of an apostate is.

I don't think anyone will bother replying to your assumption as it is rather silly. Of course we know what the definition of an apostate is.

Hey Tom, @TrueTomHarley do you think you could possibly post your above comment in the "Closed Club" topic I created?
I think, just my opinion of course, that it is up to your conscience. If your conscience still allows you to interact, for the simple reason that YOU know what it's about and THEY (elders) don't, (they don't know what they are talking about) then I would suppose it  should be OK. (Maybe they are just worried you are giving a bad example, and others might not be as able as you, to refute the "lies" and may go on believing them).
And I have to agree, knowing the things we do, because of Apostates, is actually faith strengthening. It is true in this case also, that information is empowering.....or put another way, knowledge is power (and of course I don't mean power in the bad sense of the word).
I just had a crazy hypothetical thought. What if the WT gave the opposite advice. What if we were told to go and interact with apostates, after all "iron sharpens iron", "make sure of all things" "make the truth your own" etc......
What would happen then?
 

Unlike most here, and possibly everyone here, my online activity is known in my home congregation. This is not due to this forum, which probably Is unknown to them, but to my blog. I have blogged for years. I don’t advertise the fact, but word gets around, and within the year elders have approached me to say that they would like to use me more in the congregation, but is there anything to what they have heard that I engage with apostates?
I at first told them that I did not; however what I did do came close enough to it that it could easily be taken that way and for that reason they probably should not use me in any visible capacity. As long as counsel is what it is, this seems the reasonable course to me. If there is a blatant example of not following counsel on a point repeatedly made—well, ‘he doesn’t enjoy privileges in the congregation,’ does he? This is not quite fair to me, but it is not about me. I consider it a win-win.
Many times in my writing I have made the point that I am not trying to set an example for others to follow, that I am pure-and-simply a bad boy in this one respect and I don’t try to present myself otherwise—though I will say that it is the only area in which I am a bad boy—I am a good boy in all other respects. I am on excellent terms with all of my elders— all upstanding men whom I respect—and with the congregation as a whole. If a list was ever made as to who is trying or discouraging or toxic or headstrong or aloof or a downer in any respect, I would be the last person to be on it. I am a fine example in every way—except one, and this troubles them.
Anyone visiting my blog can see the book cover for TrueTom vs the Apostates! so its a little hard to say: ‘Don’t know nothing about no apostates here!” One brother on FB, who writes himself, when he saw that cover, said, “You’re brave.” I have never made any attempt to hide what I do. I have even written HQ about it, more than once, as to what I am doing and why. They have not responded. I’ve said I don’t expect or require them to, but I will take to heart anything that they do say. Nothing. As for me, the show is not interesting unless there are villains and apostates for me make the perfect villains!—they have tasted the good food and spit it out.
Only about 10-20% of my blog could be described as taking on controversial topics. But blogging itself is not the pathway to popularity within the JW community—some will always give you the fish-eye over it. A visitor I know from HQ spoke at the Kingdom Hall, we engaged in some chit-chat afterward, and I asked him for thoughts about blogging. “Oh, blogging,” he said, as though I had told him that I enjoy farting in the auditorium, and then he migrated into generalities about there being no rules but one must always take into consideration the sensibilities of others, avoid hanging out with the baddies, and so forth. In the introduction to my 3rd book, I wrote: “Books about Jehovah’s Witnesses authored by Jehovah’s Witnesses are not plentiful. This is a shame, for no outsider, even with the best of intentions, can do justice to the faith as can an insider - they miss the nuances, and in some cases, even the facts. Jehovah’s Witnesses are primarily drawn from the ranks of working people who are not inclined to write books. Pathways of publicizing their faith are already well established. Why write a book when you can and do look people in the eye and tell them what you have to say?” For the most part, the same is true of blogs. 
Two elders wanted to speak with me following Sunday’s Watchtower. How did I still feel regarding interaction with apostates after that lesson and similar items in the past? There have been two other discussions—probably spurred on to priority by consideration of Paul’s counsel that certain pernicious sayings “spread like gangrene” so you want to get right on top of it—the counsel to not engage with apostates is pretty clear.
These are good men and I do not doubt for one moment their concern for me. There is no way I am going to get into any sort of confrontation with them. This is a little challenging because if one has engaged with the malcontents—in some cases the scoundrels—then one knows things in detail that they know only vaguely, and in some cases, not at all.
I asked if I could speak candidly. Obviously, this is just a verbal opening to present that I would speak from the heart and not just regurgitate platitudes or ‘what I am supposed to say’—it’s not to suggest that I would be normally lying through my teeth. Of course, they agreed.
The article was of a catch-all nature of several things to watch out for, several unrelated things that could pierce your shield if you didn’t maintain it—materialism, undue anxiety, lies, and discouragement were in the mix. Now, the only one of these that you can actually sink your teeth into as a direct measurement is ‘lies and distortions.‘ Do you engage with those who originate them or not? Easy black and white answer. What can one possibly say about materialism? It is much more subjective. “Did you move into that house that has far more space than you need or didn’t you?”—it’s ridiculous! No one is ever going to say that. The best you can do is what the Watchtower did do—point out that while you might easily be able to afford something with money, which you have far more of than your neighbor, that does not mean that you can afford it with time (for use and maintenance of), which you have no more of than your neighbor. 
As a byproduct of these other areas being hard to pin down, the only one that might possibly incur restriction of privileges is dealing with apostates. ‘There are brothers here and in other Halls that show significant weakness as regards to the other three—materialism, discouragement, and anxiety, and it can be plainly seen in their demeanor in some cases,‘ I said, ‘yet no way would their privileges ever be affected by it—only for that involving dealings with opposers.’
I spoke of the paragraph about discouragement—one of the four sharp arrows. “What discourages me most,” I said, “is that apostates are taking public shots at the God and the community that I hold dear, and they are catching the ear of many who take to heart what is said and sometimes ignore us in our ministry because of it, and I want to provide an answer and defend the truth, but I can’t because I don’t know what they are saying.” It is not true for me—I do know what they are saying—but for most publishers it is true.
I spoke of the hypothetical youngster who cannot resist, whose curiosity or desire to defend the truth leads him to go to where the bad boys hang out, where he hears distortions that he has never heard before and is totally unprepared for and he is stumbled, at which point no one is able to help him because no one here knows in any detail what he has come across. It’s a lose-lose. I did not say (you always think of your best lines too late) that if you leaned on youngsters not to have illicit sex, and yet one did anyway and acquired an STD, you would not stand by and watch him die. You would educate yourself any way that you had to so as to provide backup rescue.
There is only so far you can go with this reasoning because they only understand what they are counseling you about from just one angle—the spiritual angle, to be sure, which is the most important one, but still only one angle, and not the angle from which there is a huge non-spiritual vulnerability. They hear and acquiesce to all the points made—they may all be facts—but they are like people anywhere, and certainly displayed daily on this forum—just because they are facts does not mean they are the overriding facts. They keep coming back to counsel not to engage with apostates. Do they mean engage like a military general confronting the enemy or engage like a man putting a ring on the finger of his future bride? You almost can’t go there, because they themselves maintain such distance from the topic that they can’t readily distinguish between the two and consider it inappropriate to get close enough to try.
The brother taking the lead is very smart, very loving, very much a balm to everyone. I’ve known him for the longest time and there is no one whom I value more. I have no question that he is primarily and genuinely concerned about my spiritual welfare. I feel bad that I should be the cause of he and some brothers before him feeling obliged to buy out time to speak with me over this—they have other things that they could be doing. I know this because for many years I was an elder and I had many things that I could be doing at any given moment—yet he and others have bought out significant time for me. I’m a bit embarrassed over it.
“How has my spirituality been affected?” they ask. Possibly they are anticipating an answer such as might be on a video: “Well, I have to admit, my spirituality is suffering. I’m not finding the joy I used to....etc.” I tell them that my spirituality, as near as I can tell, gets better all the time because I am able to fire when I see the whites of their eyes—and even that my healthy spirituality is plainly reflected in how I conduct myself and how others view me. 
“Well, pray on it,” one advises. Gingerly I suggest that what if I have prayed on it and then afterward have decided that it is okay, in fact, just the ticket, to do as I am doing?” Nevertheless, how can one turn down the invitation to pray? Sure, I will pray—and in fact, presently I think of the degree to which they may be right and how I might modify my conduct. As is my M.O, I think best when I am writing. As is my M.O, I write best when I realize I am writing before a varied audience ranging from supportive to apathetic to dismissive to opposed, and imposing the discipline upon myself to choose words that will be as effective as possible to all four.
They say things like how Jehovah has all bases covered. He sees that we have the proper direction when we need it, and so forth. While the things I say may be so, and certainly my action is well-meaning, what about just being obedient to counsel? There they have me. Because I do believe that Jehovah has all bases covered and I do believe in following the lead of the older men—it is part of the package that I signed on for. I can give them a hard time: “Don’t worry about my spirituality—I’ll be just fine—it’s enough to worry about your own spirituality!” but why would I do that? Is that not almost inviting disaster? a al ‘Let he who is standing beware that he does not fall.’ I can tell them to buzz off and mind their own business, but why would I do that? These are the men—all of them friends of mine—who will lay down their life for me should the occasion arise, as in John 15:13, for example. Not only will they die for me, but they will live for me, and they prove it continually. The right-in-their-own-eyes opposers on this forum will not die for me. Even were they inclined to, they live on perches of self-isolation and say “Who needs organization?” so that if i get into hot water they will not know of it until they read my obituary. I should give my elders a hard time or interfere with that dynamic of living and dying for me? No.
All they want is for me not to cross swords with apostates. They probably are not crazy about my going there in the first place, but that is not the topic of discussion. If I go there to scope out what the enemy is up to, I set no bad example—nobody knows of it. If I go there to refute, I publicly do what the ones I respect for taking the lead have asked me not to do. How do I know that they are not right? How do I know that I am not like the fellow signing out on the city wall after Hezekiah has told the troops to zip it? If I am ineffective, others come to help me out, against Hezekiah’s counsel. If I am effective, others are inspired to do likewise, against Hezekiah’s counsel. How do I know that they will not end up with an arrow through the head on my account? 
What am I doing when I am answering back the malcontents here? I am having a ball is what I am doing! But is it affecting my spirituality as the brothers asked? Well, no—for the most part—that has grown stronger. On the other hand—@arauna speaks of OCD and she ought to be speaking of it to me—sometimes I come here with a certain eagerness looking for “apostates” to beat up on. When one or another flames out, like Matthew4 5784 did a few weeks ago and reveals himself pure hate on two legs as respects Jehovah’s people, dropping all pretense of being here to help us, I paint an A on my fuselage and pump my fist! But is it good for me? I do get to hone my writing skills, but is that enough to override other matters? I am not exactly doing a “May Jehovah rebuke you!” am I? I am not exactly imitating Jesus in saying “leave them be—blind guides is what they are,” am I? Moreover, others come along for the first time, not knowing the history, read my retorts, and say, “Man, that brother is brutal! Can he really be a brother?”
I’m going to turn over a new leaf with regard to interacting with these guys. It doesn’t mean I won’t still be here and it doesn’t mean I won’t still interact with those who strike me as on our team—even if I question their judgment sometimes. I’ll probably renege from time to time, and if I do I will forgive myself, but the effort will be to follow through on my resolve. If need be, I will write a reply to this or that fathead and then not send it—I’ll incorporate it elsewhere or just stick it in the file. “How’s that for praying about it and to see what comes out of it?” I’ll tell someone someday.
Then, too—and I’m almost ashamed to put this last, since it should be first—though not necessarily from the reader’s point of view, which is why I place it where I do—my wife is far more conventional than me and has long been troubled by my online activity. She doesn’t for one second worry about my loyalty, but she does in some undefined way worry that maybe I will yet come to harm somehow. I’ll modify my approach for her sake as well.
Are the brothers “brainwashed”—the ones who counseled me about a matter that they do not understand themselves from a fleshly point of view—the only point of view that is of concern to the greater world? I would say that they are in this regard—with the important caveat that there is barely anyone anywhere who is not. Follow the flag and get your head blown off in consequence, and only some of your countrymen will think your death noble—everyone else in the world will consider your death in vain. It doesn’t take some brainwashing to fall for that? Follow unquestioningly the overall goals of this system to ‘get a good education so that you may get a good job’—not a tad of brainwashing there that that is the path to happiness? When my wife worked as a nurse with the geriatric community, she said the most common thing in the world was for bewildered elderly persons to look around them in their waning years and say, “is this all there is?” These were not ‘losers’ in life, for the most part. These were persons who had had careers and loving family. But there was an aching emptiness at the end, a certain vague but overpowering sense of betrayal. It’s the result of being brainwashed by mainstream thinking, as far as I can see.
Steve Hassen is not wrong when he says that humans are easily influenced by others. Humans are just that way. That is why some god-awful style comes upon the scene and within ten years we’re all wearing it, wondering how we ever could have imagined that those dorky styles of yesterday did anything for us. Where Steve is wrong in my view is that he gives a free pass to his side—the mainstream. I have said before that it is not brainwashing that he objects to—it is brainwashing that is not his. Just because he was naive enough to be sucked into the Moonies, what is it to him if people want to explore non-traditional paths? Of course there may be pitfalls along the way, but there are pitfalls anywhere. Among the most harmful examples of manipulation is advertising, whereby people ruin themselves buying expensive things they do not need with money they do not have to keep up with people they do not like. Why doesn’t he go there? If the mainstream he embraces successfully answered all the burning questions of life, he wouldn’t have to worry at all about ‘cults’ People would reflect upon how the present life and traditional goal rewards fully in happiness and life satisfaction, and reject those ‘cults’ out of hand.

Another illustration—this one i gave at the meeting when it was my turn to comment—was that if there is someone in the audience who hates beets, I will not be able to argue with him that beets taste good. It is something that is beyond the scope of argument and I am proving myself pretty dense if I persist in trying. In the same way, the verse says: “Taste and see that Jehovah is good.” Some have tasted and seen that he is bad. It’s not something that does anyone any good to argue about. 
My 30 seconds were up and you can’t keep raising your hand like a jack-in-the-box. But if I was to extend the thought here I might point out that I love cake. It tastes good. That’s why I love it. Imagine my surprise upon coming here on the WNMF and discovering some dissing cake. How is that possible? Upon probing, I find that it is because the sweetness of sugar does nothing for them, so they just drop down a notch and focus on how you can get cavities and put on weight with cake. Well, yeah—if sugar did nothing for me, I too would drop down the list and harp on these other things.
So it is with the ‘sugar’ of the Bible’s message. This is what does it for Jehovah’s Witnesses—that unique combination of accurate Bible teachings along with the united brotherhood that comes with it—a unity and love unparalleled—and a satisfaction of knowing that one is cooperating with God’s intent of declaring his name and purposes. But if for some reason none of that should matter anymore, than what is there left than to drop down a level and promote some complaints to first place? It is what the opponents here do. Is that not a distortion—the reprioritizing of facts? We tend to carry on here as though facts are islands unto themselves. They’re not. They are more like the ingredients of a cake—they work together. One’s appreciation for the baked product will depend entirely upon one’s taste for the different ingredients. 
We’re a little nuts when we come on here and quibble over facts, (nobody does this more than me) as though individual facts in themselves were what clinches the deal. Instead, it it the prioritization of facts that matters. Seldom is it that people argue with no facts at all. It is which ones they choose to focus on and which ones they choose to downplay or even ignore that matters. 
And that is of facts that are presented accurately—as many are not. For example, a Pew survey lists Jehovah’s Witnesses as bringing up the bottom of the income chart—collectively they are the financially poorest. A fact? Yes. Opponents take that fact to suggest that Witnesses are deadbeats, some by nature, and some made so by a controlling organization. A distortion? I think so. When I wrote a post on the topic I stated that, in view of what the Bible consistently says about money and the love of money, any group not toward the bottom of that list has reason to hang their head in shame. Their high placement affords proof that they do not practice what they preach and they do not trust what the Lord says.
As to the WT’s own statement, ‘lies and distortion of facts’ might be more technically accurate if rephrased as ‘distortion of facts and lies’—I am not necessarily a fan of how the warning is made—but in the end, is it not the same thing? Consider:
”Is it really so that?”  (a distortion of truth, designed to plant doubt)
”You will not die.” (a lie—nothing but)
”for God knows that in the very day of your eating from it...” (a bit of both, but mostly a distortion, for it impugns God’s motives)
More is distortion than outright lie. But it amounts to the same thing. In fact, the distortion is worse than the lie, in most cases, for without the distortion to ‘prime the pump’ the lie itself will often be spotted and rejected out of hand. 
Who does the fellow with the ink horn mark on the forehead? Those who are sighing and groaning over all the detestable things done in God’s name. Some aren’t. They aren’t marked for that reason. In no case is any lie being told. Even the distortion of truth is not immediately apparent. But it is there. People made in God’s image should be sighing and groaning over the detestable things done in God’s name. And sighing and groaning is not the same thing as bitching and complaining—plenty of that around here.
 
 

I would agree, but I also should have included the idea of distortion of facts as TTH did. (And with an excellent illustration, I might add, which I read while picking my nose.)
But then again, I consider any purposeful distortion of facts to be a lie. It serves the same purpose, but even more nefariously. The "lie" is there, but it's in a hidden agenda.
Of course, it's a sword that can cut both ways. For example, our publications "dredge up" bits of historical information in every few issues of the Watchtower or every couple of years that will usually have the purpose of showing that prophecies from Ezekiel, Daniel, Isaiah, Revelation, etc were fulfilled among the leadership of this very organization. Sometimes the publications or broadcasts will include ideas about just how much better the leaders of our organization were at predicting 1914 decades in advance, or how much better we were than the Federal Council of Churches, or how we predicted the going off into the abyss of the League and its rise as the United Nations.
Sometimes it will then add the point that we should therefore 'trust the leaders of this organization, if we want to survive the great tribulation and Armageddon.' The point will sometimes be made that these predictions are 'proof of guidance by Jehovah's unerring spirit.'
So the problem for persons who have done their due-diligence and looked up these "controversial" items for themselves --to see if these things were so-- is that some of those persons will come back with the idea that these are actually only 10 percent lies, but that still doesn't equate to 90 percent "true."  (See TTH's post.)
We know that the counsel by the GB is actually intended like a father to his children to help us stay out of danger. It might even be based on an exaggeration: "Don't go near those people because they always lie!" It doesn't mean every word is a lie, but the overall message probably is a lie. Their overall apostate message is probably "Don't trust the leaders of this organization, if you want to survive the great tribulation and Armageddon." Or, "These mistakes are proof of NO guidance by Jehovah's unerring spirit."
Obviously there are some here who are anxious to immediately twist anything said as quickly as possible into those apostate messages. And then there are those who might assume that anyone who continues to dredge up mistakes from the past is subtly trying to create those overall apostate messages which can be a by-product of dredging up past error -- without ever even making those apostate statements overtly. 
It's pretty clear that this is what Allen Smith's henchaccounts think I am doing on purpose. This is why I don't blame him for calling out what he thinks I am doing. It's also why I welcome his input, because it reminds those who have not done their due-diligence that this is NOT something to just accept because someone is stating it. It's just an opinion. Just because I will offer the reasons for my own opinion, and just because I personally accept my own opinion, doesn't mean that it couldn't be mistaken. I've been fooled before and I'll likely be fooled again. 
Sooner or later, though, people who do their Beroean due-diligence will end up facing some uncomfortable ideas that they may not be prepared for in the least. It's bad to have the rug pulled out from under you with nothing to fall back on. I personally believe we need a faith that doesn't rely so much on human leaders for validation. We can still appreciate the reasons for respecting human leadership, and for following direction from those taking the lead in the most important work, announcing Jehovah's Kingdom through Christ. But we don't need 2 out of 100 past predictions to come true. We don't even need prophecies that predicted events among the Watchtower's leadership in 1919, for example.
 

Good point. And to Arauna's point, most "Westerners" view the world only through "Western" eyes. The news about various countries in the world sounds almost the same in France, UK, Australia, Canada, Japan, US, Germany, etc.
And probably get taken in much less than the overall world due to neutrality, disinterest in low priority secular things, general avoidance of non-JW Internet sites. We've got our own priorities to be concerned about. (Although I'm sure this forum would make many wonder about myself and others.)
Important point about Russia not being as belligerent as America. This has been true for decades. While America hyped Russia's conflicts in Afghanistan and Georgia and now Ukraine, America would never hype the fact that America has been caught fomenting trouble in Ukraine, Iraq, Iran, even Hong Kong with CIA operatives, while amassing bases and missiles and ships all along the borders in Eastern Europe, the Mideast, the southern border of North Korea, creating coups and wars in Africa, Central and South America, etc. Another irony is that while deploring Russia's involvement in Syria, America doesn't report (except once accidentally and then quickly walked back) the number of US troops that had already invaded and who have been sitting inside Syria's borders all along, uninvited, based in the oil-rich areas of Syria, where America has been (and still is) controlling the flow of a majority of Syria's oil. America constantly discusses the threats of various other countries, while America is already overrunning and bombing countries to create death, chaos, and instability. Now, one of the problems is that it turns out that military lobbyists have been pushing various planes, radar systems, and defensive weapons that don't work very well. And while this was always a way to keep countries buying upgrades, now some of those buyers are looking to buy from Russia and China for various defensive weapons, because they don't trust the American weapons as they once did.
You must be like a "Beroean" on Twitter. Too bad there is no perfect method. And then there are the bots which flood one end or the other of your polar opposites and try to create trends and skews. There is another method of ruining any method of gathering accurate news sources, which many hope to get through Twitter/FB, and that's the inclusion of purposeful creation of "chaos" disguised as plain and simple truth in mainstream media. (Trump tweets, NYTimes, Vox, Vice, CNN, Fox, MSNBC) 
Much more to be said on this. Might come back to it later.
I'm sure I sounded a bit harsher than I meant to. If I made it sound like a big problem, I didn't mean to. For me this is not a controversy. Rutherford was just plainly wrong on this. Doesn't change the fact that he was right on so many other things. But I have to ask. Do you really think any of this information is applicable to paragraphs 8 and 11 of yesterday's Watchtower? Those WT paragraphs were about "lies" and "apostate lies." This is just information, hopefully honest and unvarnished. Also, one of the scriptures in the Study was Isaiah 54:17:
17  No weapon formed against you will have any success, . . .
A shield of knowledge will help us blunt the effect from anyone who tries to weaponize this information. But sometimes the actual shield for our faith will merely take the form of honesty and humility, and accepting the humanity of those taking the lead among us. If something turns out to be true, we don't want to be too quick to just reject is as false because we don't like the sound of it. 
I was only referring to the principle of not accepting something as true without multiple "witnesses" of evidence, documentation, speeches, etc. For me it meant that I wouldn't want to put something out here as fact unless I had personally done a good amount of due-diligence. It wasn't about whether anyone else should read and accept what someone puts on this forum and accepts it just because it includes multiple instances of evidence. Until someone already "knows" or looks up evidence for themselves, all they have looked at here is just someone's opinion about the evidence.