Anna

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

I think he was only joking 😃

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! 😂 😂

I cannot help but agree with most of your post except for the above quote. I feel this is an opinion 😃

Yes, I thought so from what you've said. The truth is I've not been keeping up, especially since this thread got re-visited and exploded with comments. I will have to go back when I get a bit more time. In the mean time I will read your (for you) concise comment 😅

Yes, but also whether the subject is a burning concern (to borrow True Tom's expression) or not. In your story, if your idea of rescuing the Mexican family entailed them eating your grass, then that would be a burning concern.

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.

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....

Ever use binoculars, and look up into the night sky, and see all the craters on the Moon?
That was me!

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 are a few of them here. Someone should work on producing a program.
 

The seventh will be the ticket. You know how it works with seven. Rework your scenario to put us on the seventh right now—for example, expand one into an A and a B part—and you are golden.

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.

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.

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.

I have heard it said that soon pedophilia will be classed as just another sexual orientation and that pedophiles will feel discriminated against and will insist on their "rights".
Just to lighten things up a bit, are you the "man on the rocks" ?  😄: Cool song actually
 

Oh, come on. Let me drag in my arch-porkchop again. 
I think of that overdone drama of a few decades back of Zena, who resisted every word of counsel from Moses and everyone responded with such bland remarks as ‘Oh Zena, Zena,’ while shaking their heads in dismay and disappointment at her bad attitude. Were it a video version, she would be making that ubiquitous Witness hand-wave, seen in all dramas, that means ‘Get out of my face!’
Of course, she goes down with the scoundrels when Jehovah opens up the earth, to cries of ‘Zeeeena! Zeeeena! Oh....Zeeeena, no no no.
It will be like that in modern times. The call will come to ‘go but for moment into the interior rooms until my denunciation passes over.’ Everyone will rush in their to take cover, but JTR will bellow, “What for? I’m not going anywhere! It’s stuffy in there! I quit the best job I ever had in 1975! No more! Who do they think they are?!” and I will be crying to the last ‘Jaaaames! Jaaaaames! Oh......Jaaaaaaames, no no no (you old pork chop)’

Of course. I brought this topic up because of prayer for understanding and due diligence and meditation. It is not be cute, but it is our very serious Christian obligation to question, to prove to ourselves, to make sure,  to test, and to search. Otherwise we are not following Jehovah's counsel in the Bible. In my case, I also always first give the benefit of the doubt to brothers who are older, wiser, and more experienced such as the men on the Governing Body. It is only when Jehovah's word seems to give a different answer that I would bring it up for further discussion like this. If you actually know of a scripture that tells us it is OK to just wait, I'm interested.

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.
 

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.
 

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.