Anna

That's me in the picture:😉
I called in a favor and asked the Society to reduce my competition by running the following statement in the Watchtower:
*** w18 April p. 30 par. 2 Questions From Readers ***
Others have used material from our publications or our jw.org logo in advertisements, on products offered for sale, and in mobile device apps. By securing copyright and trademark protection, we have a legal basis to prevent such misuse. (Prov. 27:12) But if we knowingly allow people, even our brothers, to post our digital content on other sites or to use the jw.org trademark to sell merchandise, the courts may not support our efforts to deter opposers and commercial enterprises.
For non-JWs I also have a line of engraved plaques with some excellent engraved pictures around the edges. They say:
"Thou shalt not make any graven images."
Oh, and I also sell laminated copies of the April 2018 Question From Readers, quoted above.
 

JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
Respectfully yours, Alan
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
JWI is stupid
Respectfully yours, Allen

This whole thing seems a little weird to me. Not so much the ball caps, but why the JW no blood badge? I looks like some kind of political statement to me. How will people understand it? Is it some kind of protest against bloodshed? Or it's similar to gay people pushing their lifestyle with rainbow "regalia". Most people know we don't take blood. Why make it an issue? It might be that people seeing this will wonder what it's about and might be curious enough to visit the website. Still, I don't think this is a good way to get them there. My opinion.
And whats that tongue about?
 
 

WOW! That is one HUGE Airplane !
...and where's Beaker?

I do believe though that the church is behind the persecution in Russia, indirectly.

(let the reader use discernment)
We then turn our attention to define WHO is the LAST KING that is REMOVED by Jehovah! 
WHY? Because he only rules 3 & 1/2 times or years. SEE Daniel 7:25,26
HE must come out of the 4th Beast, the Iron Thighs of the Image at Daniel 2:40 
7:7."I saw a fourth beast, fearsome and terrifying and unusually strong, and it had large iron teeth"
That means he must have roots in the Roman Empire which was replaced by the Great Britain/USA alliance.
WHO is the LAST KING of that alliance?
"and he will continually harass the holy ones of the Supreme One. He will intend to change times and law, and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time"
Was it President Bush? No he ruled more than 3&1/2 years, was it President Obama? No,he too ruled more than 3&1/2 years.
IS IT President TRUMP? We Must wait until 6/2020 to say!

"We "MUST" obey God as ruler rather than man." To me, Jesus' words here sound like more than just a general "standpoint" (or point of view by definition) that can change depending on the opinion/situation of the observer. I don't want to get into an endless semantic debate of what "standpoint" means to you or to me, since I may be misunderstanding your line of reasoning here. (I am assuming English is not your first language and so while you may have what you are thinking clear in your mind, it may be that articulating those thoughts may lose something in translation. It also may be that I am too slow to pick up on what your are trying to say at times - sorry )  I think of Jesus' statement here similarly to his statement at Matthew 22:21: "Pay back, therefore, Caesar's things to caesar, but God's things to God." To me that was a clear command/directive that was to be in place at all times - more so, especially as long as Satan's systems is in place, along with the proviso of "relative" obedience as quoted above of "obeying God as Ruler rather than man." If, you prefer to think of both of these statements in terms of a principle, I would agree with you there as well.  
 
Fair enough if you prefer to view it that way. But this, as well as other examples, show that what has sometimes been viewed as "new light" has not proven true at all. I can't speak for anyone else, but I do not feel mindless unquestioning obedience or acceptance of ongoing teachings is a mark of loyalty to God. It is a mark of loyalty to an imperfect uninspired organization. Still, I haven't come across any organization (religious or otherwise) that has MORE going for it. I believe there are many strong positives that set us apart - not perfect and lots of room for improvement, but I expect that will come - if gradually. After all, it has taken thousands of years to shed the blatantly false and God-dishounoring doctrines of nominal Christianity. If you feel your religion is better, let's hear about it and then we can scrutinize your beliefs as well - (instead of constantly sniping at us from the safety of a remote computer terminal with nothing positive to say.) 

Do someone a favor on eBay. (not me)—buy the book Preachers Present Arms:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Preachers-Present-Arms-Watchtower-Research-Jehovahs-Witnesses-Bible-Students-/392264778720
“Years later, in the book Preachers Present Arms, Dr. Ray Abrams observed: “It is significant that so many clergymen took an aggressive part in trying to get rid of the Russellites [as the Bible Students were derogatorily labeled]. Long-lived religious quarrels and hatreds, which did not receive any consideration in the courts in time of peace, now found their way into the courtroom under the spell of war-time hysteria.” He also stated: “An analysis of the whole case leads to the conclusion that the churches and the clergy were originally behind the movement to stamp out the Russellites.”—Pp. 183-5.
        “And the Revelation book states :   In his book Preachers Present Arms, published in 1933, Ray H. Abrams refers to the clergy’s bitter opposition to the Bible Students’ book The Finished Mystery. He reviews the clergy’s endeavors to rid themselves of the Bible Students and their “pestilential persuasion.” This led to the court case that resulted in sentencing of J. F. Rutherford and seven companions to long years of imprisonment. Dr. Abrams adds: “An analysis of the whole case leads to the conclusion that the churches and the clergy were originally behind the movement to stamp out the Russellites. In Canada, in February, 1918, the ministers began a systematic campaign against them and their publications, particularly The Finished Mystery. According to the Winnipeg Tribune, . . . the suppression of their book was believed to have been directly brought about by the ‘representations of the clergy.’”
One thing I find frustrating is that, while church leaders were instigators of trouble against us back then, this is not true today, and yet we carry on as though it were. Enemies are mostly irreligious now, yet we carry on as if it can only be religion behind our opposition. It is a living in the past and can be seen even in the sample silhouette presentation in which the householder says that he prefers his Bible—the King James Version. Nobody uses the KJV today but the reddist of the rednecks. 

Associated comments state: "Notice that in examining the experiences of God's people at this time, it appears that while the 42 months represent a literal three and a half years, the three and a half days do not represent a literal period of 84 hours. LIKELY, the specific period of three and a half days is mentioned twice (in verses 9 and 11) to highlight that it would be only a short period compared with the actual three and a half years of activity that precede it."
So it may well be that a contrast is being made regarding the time periods mentioned. But, on the other hand, I also see that one time period (three and a half days) is not consistently rendered as a literal time period whereas the three and a half years is understood to be literal - both time periods within the span of a few verses in the same chapter of Revelation 11. While I understand their reasoning for that - there was nothing to suggest anything of significance happened on the three and a half days, it does seem arbitrary - to make things fit. But for now, until they come up with more details, I'll roll with it. 

It was always blamed mostly on the Catholics, but mostly through innuendo. Judge Howe, the primary judge, would not give them bail in 1918. But a Judge Mantey made a bigger deal out of it. If they had gotten bail, they may have been able to stay out of jail until the appeals process was finished, which could easily have lasted the number of months they were in prison. In other words, there probably would never have been any prison, if they got bail. And when the case went to appeal Judge Mantey still dissented on the bail issue, even after a year, but it didn't override the other two judges (including Howe) who allowed the appeal on $10,000 bail apiece. Judge Mantey was a Catholic, with high respect by the church, and even had an unrelated commendation from the Vatican. And he also got in legal trouble for taking bribes later in his career.
Also, the book "Finished Mystery" was first banned in Canada before the USA followed suit. In Canada, where many Catholics live, preachers had spoken out against the book on religious grounds, too, not just political grounds.
But during these times, several anti-war preachers and religious leaders and political activists went to prison under exactly the same charges. Some of these others spent much longer in jail than the brothers in the Society.
Nothing specific. The Brooklyn Eagle never liked the Bible Students and often exposed legal issues that Russell had gone through. It's hard to read some of their reporting of the trial without detecting just a bit of "gloating."
Adding: I read about 1,000 pages of FBI files from the time they were still putting together the evidence for a case. This was mostly starting around late-February 1918, and I see nothing even in the earliest correspondence that was religious in nature. It was very political in nature. The FBI (and Justice Dept lawyers) and War Department were writing back and forth in some of the earliest correspondence, and they obviously didn't like anyone who might discourage the draft or who might promote ideas for how to avoid the draft.

Caution: my own commentary will likely seem critical of the interpretation given by the Watchtower publications, for reasons that I will try to make clear. Not because the WT interpretations are necessarily wrong, but because they are so often presented as fact in so many publications, when overall, it is just an interpretation. The following was said in the "Revelation - Grand Climax" book, which explains why no interpretation, except that given in the Bible itself, should be treated as a fact.
*** re chap. 2 p. 9 The Grand Theme of the Bible ***
Interpreting the Scriptures The mysteries locked up in the book of Revelation have for long baffled sincere students of the Bible. In God’s due time, those secrets had to be unlocked, but how, when, and to whom? Only God’s spirit could make known the meaning as the appointed time drew near. (Revelation 1:3) Those sacred secrets would be revealed to God’s zealous slaves on earth so that they would be strengthened to make known his judgments. (Matthew 13:10, 11) It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infallible. Like Joseph of old, we say: “Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Genesis 40:8) At the same time, however, we firmly believe that the explanations set forth herein harmonize with the Bible in its entirety, showing how remarkably divine prophecy has been fulfilled in the world events of our catastrophic times.
A couple of the ideas found in this same book have already undergone some changes. TTH commented on the underlined part of the above quotation saying:
That's the spirit in which I would like to share a possibly "simpler" reading of this portion of Revelation. Some might not think the current explanation is complex, but I think when we look into it carefully, we can see that our current explanation produces some complexities that aren't seen until we reflect and meditate on the scriptures involved. And, of course, some might think that a supposedly "simpler" reading is wrong. That's quite alright, because I'm not 100 percent happy with it either.
So here's hoping that others can defend what's right with the current definition, and what's wrong with the alternatives, or vice versa.

It made me so mad that I told him to return it to me. Grandpa was turning over in his grave and I got tired of wearing a sundial.
Write it, but whatever you do, don’t hawk it here on the Librarian’s website. It is so shameless when people do that!

Nice and lively here today 😀
 
Now don't lie JTR, there was definitely a point
 
I am sorry. I should have prefaced it with "no need to read" . I really just posted it to illustrate that we don't do this anymore and that we have progressed as with the "WT 66 Question from readers" @b4ucuhear posted, about changes in truth where it says "at times there may be changes in viewpoint. Our basic belief may be sound Scriptural truth, but there may be some details that we did not fully understand in the past. In time, with the aid of Jehovah’s spirit, we get those matters cleared up". It is a little ironic though that after this WT was printed, the next WT- 68, the article I posted, there was the attempt at arriving at a specific date, so then THAT had to be cleared up after 1975. But now, not only are things cleared up, but they are also simplified, and as Br. Splane said in his 2014 talk, we no longer ascribe types and antitypes to everything and we try hard "not to go beyond the things that are written".
I can understand why the early Bible students felt the need to unravel every "mystery" in the Bible. After all, why are they there? All these numbers and prophesies are there for a reason. But as the same 66 WT says: "...we do not know all there is to know. In fact, even when the post-Armageddon system of things is ushered in we will not know everything. Throughout all eternity there will always be more to learn". 
So we are slowly learning. Perhaps this will also apply to the 1914 doctrine one day....

JTR I just strictly forbid you to use Rolex watches as an example of how the GB spend contributed money. I thought we had already discussed this at length. Just kidding, of course I can't forbid you to do anything, or I can, but you are under no obligation to obey. However, it does insult your intelligence (and I know you are intelligent) because it looks like you are not able to think of half a dozen other variables which do NOT involve using contributed money. Not only that, but you have no idea under what circumstances Br. Morris wore that watch, (perhaps the person who gave it to him would be very hurt if he didn't wear it at least once, perhaps it's a family "heirloom"). But I do admit, it was not the most prudent thing for him to do, to wear an obviously expensive watch (even if fake), considering there are so many poor brothers and sisters. I don't think I've seen him wear it again...

I knew that already, when I could feel the pain in my frame, and axles, and my skin was yellow.

Nice and lively here today 😀
 
Now don't lie JTR, there was definitely a point
 
I am sorry. I should have prefaced it with "no need to read" . I really just posted it to illustrate that we don't do this anymore and that we have progressed as with the "WT 66 Question from readers" @b4ucuhear posted, about changes in truth where it says "at times there may be changes in viewpoint. Our basic belief may be sound Scriptural truth, but there may be some details that we did not fully understand in the past. In time, with the aid of Jehovah’s spirit, we get those matters cleared up". It is a little ironic though that after this WT was printed, the next WT- 68, the article I posted, there was the attempt at arriving at a specific date, so then THAT had to be cleared up after 1975. But now, not only are things cleared up, but they are also simplified, and as Br. Splane said in his 2014 talk, we no longer ascribe types and antitypes to everything and we try hard "not to go beyond the things that are written".
I can understand why the early Bible students felt the need to unravel every "mystery" in the Bible. After all, why are they there? All these numbers and prophesies are there for a reason. But as the same 66 WT says: "...we do not know all there is to know. In fact, even when the post-Armageddon system of things is ushered in we will not know everything. Throughout all eternity there will always be more to learn". 
So we are slowly learning. Perhaps this will also apply to the 1914 doctrine one day....

Nice and lively here today 😀
 
Now don't lie JTR, there was definitely a point
 
I am sorry. I should have prefaced it with "no need to read" . I really just posted it to illustrate that we don't do this anymore and that we have progressed as with the "WT 66 Question from readers" @b4ucuhear posted, about changes in truth where it says "at times there may be changes in viewpoint. Our basic belief may be sound Scriptural truth, but there may be some details that we did not fully understand in the past. In time, with the aid of Jehovah’s spirit, we get those matters cleared up". It is a little ironic though that after this WT was printed, the next WT- 68, the article I posted, there was the attempt at arriving at a specific date, so then THAT had to be cleared up after 1975. But now, not only are things cleared up, but they are also simplified, and as Br. Splane said in his 2014 talk, we no longer ascribe types and antitypes to everything and we try hard "not to go beyond the things that are written".
I can understand why the early Bible students felt the need to unravel every "mystery" in the Bible. After all, why are they there? All these numbers and prophesies are there for a reason. But as the same 66 WT says: "...we do not know all there is to know. In fact, even when the post-Armageddon system of things is ushered in we will not know everything. Throughout all eternity there will always be more to learn". 
So we are slowly learning. Perhaps this will also apply to the 1914 doctrine one day....

Nice and lively here today 😀
 
Now don't lie JTR, there was definitely a point
 
I am sorry. I should have prefaced it with "no need to read" . I really just posted it to illustrate that we don't do this anymore and that we have progressed as with the "WT 66 Question from readers" @b4ucuhear posted, about changes in truth where it says "at times there may be changes in viewpoint. Our basic belief may be sound Scriptural truth, but there may be some details that we did not fully understand in the past. In time, with the aid of Jehovah’s spirit, we get those matters cleared up". It is a little ironic though that after this WT was printed, the next WT- 68, the article I posted, there was the attempt at arriving at a specific date, so then THAT had to be cleared up after 1975. But now, not only are things cleared up, but they are also simplified, and as Br. Splane said in his 2014 talk, we no longer ascribe types and antitypes to everything and we try hard "not to go beyond the things that are written".
I can understand why the early Bible students felt the need to unravel every "mystery" in the Bible. After all, why are they there? All these numbers and prophesies are there for a reason. But as the same 66 WT says: "...we do not know all there is to know. In fact, even when the post-Armageddon system of things is ushered in we will not know everything. Throughout all eternity there will always be more to learn". 
So we are slowly learning. Perhaps this will also apply to the 1914 doctrine one day....

The interpretation of the dream O, J.T.R. Junior, is this:
The third bus is YOU!
 
(Hope that helped!)

I was thinking that this was part of the normal run of the buses, and knowing you can't tell if a bus was speeding by checking the mileage.
So it reminded me of the joke about the two fishermen, who normally had bad luck, but rented a boat so that they finally found a place way out on the water where the fish were biting exceptionally well. When fishing was done for the day, the first fisherman says to the second, 'Make sure you keep track of where this place is so we can get here again tomorrow.' The second fisherman say, 'I already did. I put a big X on the side of the boat right here.' The first fisherman says: 'But how do you know we'll get the same boat tomorrow?'

All you really must remember is that if you got ot wrong back then you would be dismembered and your house turned into a public privy. (Daniel 2:5, 3:29)
It is Holy Spirit by the truckload. Anyone else takes a wrong understanding to his grave, either through natural death or walking off a precipice with it and leading others with him.  Holy Spirit makes people honest, humble, and hungry enough to continually look at Scriptures anew in light of ongoing developments. Go read @b4ucuhear‘s comment again, not just the single sentence you quoted. Read all of them. Notice how they tie together and modify each other. That is what sentences do.

Too true, TTH.
Saturday night I had a full color vision in a dream while I was sleeping, and woke up and told it to my wife, Susan.
In this dream I was in a race with three large bright yellow school buses, racing up a hill to a Tee intersection, in single file, along a wooded country road, and I was the third school bus in line, and being old it was a big struggle to keep up, as the other two were newer school buses with newer engines.
I was the actual bus ... not a driver IN the bus, and the other buses were the same.
As I tried to pass I was hitting logs, and potholes, and I could feel it in my frame and in my axles, and realized the probability of me getting to the Tee intersection first was slim.
... and  then, the lead school bus said to the second school bus, which I overheard above the roar of the engines and the clashing of gears "You know, when we get back, they are going to check the mileage, and they will know we have been racing ...."
I have been trying to put that into some context, but am at a loss.
 

Lol. Same thoughts here. That is why I posted it, genuinely wondering if anyone really read it when it was first published. But then people did read a lot more 50 years ago...... but then they also might have been clueless and just, like I said, zeroed in on the number 1975, which was a mere 7 years away at the time.....
If it's any consolation, I only read to about paragraph 10 😃

Lol. Same thoughts here. That is why I posted it, genuinely wondering if anyone really read it when it was first published. But then people did read a lot more 50 years ago...... but then they also might have been clueless and just, like I said, zeroed in on the number 1975, which was a mere 7 years away at the time.....
If it's any consolation, I only read to about paragraph 10 😃

Now I understand why many executives disallow any reports to them longer than one page.
They KNOW how easy it is to be hypnotized by many words, which for some, is a finely tuned art form.