Anna

So you are esentally saying that every Witness should be able to preach their own ideas to other Witnesses, and out on the ministry. How do you envisage that in practice? I mean give us an example of how this would operate.

Not only that, but perfection is relative. 

Not only that, but perfection is relative. 

So you are esentally saying that every Witness should be able to preach their own ideas to other Witnesses, and out on the ministry. How do you envisage that in practice? I mean give us an example of how this would operate.

So you are esentally saying that every Witness should be able to preach their own ideas to other Witnesses, and out on the ministry. How do you envisage that in practice? I mean give us an example of how this would operate.

Not only that, but perfection is relative. 

We all have the choices of many possible religions to follow. Or we can follow our own understanding which can be very dangerous. Wisdom is best found in a multitude of counselors.
This organization has not changed all its teachings. But if it had, I can't see how that matters so much unless they are currently lying about all the changes. Still, even if all the teachings have changed over time, this could even be a good sign that a filtering and refining work is going on.
Ultimately, with all the choices, I would still look for a religion that attempts to preach the good news. The content of that preaching might change . . . I would expect it to. But I would still look for a successful worldwide implementation of a preaching work based on the words of Matthew 24:14.  I would also look for a religion that stays out of nationalistic conflicts both internal and external. There are very few religions that promote neutrality and are all conscientious objectors to violence and killing for nationalistic purposes. My own understanding of God and his purpose would make me look for a religion that opposes the Trinity doctrine and opposes the doctrine of Hellfire and eternal torment.

I think that the exception has been pretty consistent. It has always been with respect to the primary goal of finding more ways to spread the Kingdom message more efficiently.
(Philippians 1:4-7) . . ., 5 because of the contribution you have made to the good news from the first day until this moment. 6 For I am confident of this very thing, that the one who started a good work in you will bring it to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. 7 It is only right for me to think this regarding all of you, since I have you in my heart, you who are sharers with me in the undeserved kindness both in my prison bonds and in the defending and legally establishing of the good news. (1 Timothy 2:1-4) 2 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be made concerning all sorts of men, 2 concerning kings and all those who are in high positions, so that we may go on leading a calm and quiet life with complete godly devotion and seriousness. 3 This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, 4 whose will is that all sorts of people should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth. JW attorneys have not worked with the goal of fixing this world through better laws and more inclusive civil rights, but I see no reason why this would be condemned. Cases have been argued right up to the supreme court of the United States and in high courts elsewhere with the goal of legally establishing the preaching work. (See especially Covington, Moyle and some more recent cases.)
So while it's true that Jesus did not push for social reform directly, he was concerned about protecting as many as possible from the situation that was about to come upon the lost house of Israel. Paul, however, used political leverage to help establish the preaching of God's Kingdom.

I've had a busy day and being honest can't be bothered to look up scriptures, yes I know that is a bad attitude but it's honest  BUT :-
Jesus said to His apostles (anointed) " You must be perfect just as your Father in heaven is perfect" (or something close to that) .
Plus, the early teaching was that ALL of the Anointed are the Faithful and discreet slave class.  So what gives 8 basically American men the right to suddenly exalt themselves above all the others ?
Because everyone who exalts himself will be humiliated, but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”
And if those 8 mainly American men have to resort to lies and deceit to maintain their authority, then that does not have God's approval for sure. 
And why would God feed them false information ? Why would they get so much wrong ? Why would they 'run ahead' of doing God's will? 
Do you forget the scripture of 'Ten men clinging to the skirt of a Jew' ?  A spiritual Jew should be recognised by his deeds and be able to prove his position. The GB only prove themselves to be false. 
And i also find it funny when someone 'backs up' what they are saying by saying other people / organisations are also doing it.  What difference does it make what all those false religions are doing ? Isn't your JW Org supposed to be the 'only true' religion. 
It's seems we are back to 'offering children to Molech'. Well other religions were doing it so it must be ok  .
Yes Spiritual Jews should exist. The Bible makes that clear. BUT, if not the whole body of Anointed then, IMO, 12 or possibly 13 brothers (for obvious reasons) and all from different nations.
One of the points that i was told when told about the Heavenly class being from Earth, was that when in Heaven they would  remember what life was like here on Earth and have Empathy and understanding. Well likewise, if the were from different nations / countries, they would have more empathy and understanding of people from all around the Earth.  
 

But they weren't were they? Paul admitted failings. Peter admitted failings. Paul chastised Peter, James and John. All of them had wrong ideas. We can think that they got all they needed at Pentecost to make them "perfect." But these failings lasted well beyond Pentecost. So we are forced to take a reasonable approach to what it means to be "perfect." There are scriptural principles which probably explain this saying of Jesus perfectly well in the context of the Christian congregation. For now, I think you will at least agree that the apostles were not perfect. Yet we can still imitate them in ways defined by scripture.
And the early teaching was that the great crowd were also anointed. Lately there have been articles that teach that many scriptures which were only recently applied just to the anointed, can now also be applied to the great crowd who have an earthly hope.
To the extent that they have exalted themselves, they are wrong. To the extent that they have tried their best be servants (a faithful slave class) they have perhaps seemed exalted, too. I don't think this is the criteria by which we accept or reject the doctrines they promote.

Will you allow that an interest in history is permissible? Politics is current history, that’s all, or history in the making. 
All human governments will drop the ball & usually it is a bowling ball. As people ponder the vulnerability of their right and left toes, thus defines their politics.
What is important for the Christian is to avoid taking sides. It is not necessary to be ignorant of it. 
signed.....Tom Harley - resident scholar (not pseudo-scholar)

Yes. Just because you  love facts, doesn't mean you love someone bad. Unfortunately emotions take over rationality. My son came home from school one day, they had just had history, and he was telling me that Hitler had done a lot of good for the people (jobs etc.). I understood what he meant. He did a lot of good initially. But that doesn't mean we think Hitler was a wonderful man. Those gas chambers and concentration camps were real.

Yes, you are very correct of course. But I am the exception. You see I am totally unbiased
Seriously though, it is a very interesting subject and I wish I had more experience of it as an adult. As a child I could not understand why people were not allowed out of their own country and why the borders were guarded by soldiers with guns and dogs, not to stop people coming in, but to stop people leaving. At one time my mum and I were traveling out of the country (because we could) on a train and the border guards were searching underneath the trains with flashlights and dogs. There was barbed wire everywhere.
Just wanted to add one more thing. Some people may not realize but many of our illustrations in our publications remind some people of communist propaganda, especially those where people are seen building houses and sharing food. After the iron curtain fell it took some brothers and sisters a while to get used to some of those illustrations. Not so long ago my mum gave her study the Kingdom book, and this lady, in her 70s' was horrified and said it's like communism. Well it kind of is isn't it? Lol.
Maybe someone should create a topic for this in the JW only club...

Yes, you are very correct of course. But I am the exception. You see I am totally unbiased
Seriously though, it is a very interesting subject and I wish I had more experience of it as an adult. As a child I could not understand why people were not allowed out of their own country and why the borders were guarded by soldiers with guns and dogs, not to stop people coming in, but to stop people leaving. At one time my mum and I were traveling out of the country (because we could) on a train and the border guards were searching underneath the trains with flashlights and dogs. There was barbed wire everywhere.
Just wanted to add one more thing. Some people may not realize but many of our illustrations in our publications remind some people of communist propaganda, especially those where people are seen building houses and sharing food. After the iron curtain fell it took some brothers and sisters a while to get used to some of those illustrations. Not so long ago my mum gave her study the Kingdom book, and this lady, in her 70s' was horrified and said it's like communism. Well it kind of is isn't it? Lol.
Maybe someone should create a topic for this in the JW only club...

Why not  go back to the sign at the top and bluntly answer if any of those accusations are true or false. No excuses or sidelines. Are they true or false ? 
And for my point why was Muhammad even needed ? Didn't Jesus do all that was necessary ? 

They actually believe this, that Jesus is God's Son, as well as Jesus being a Prophet. There biggest problem is they do not adhere to or believe in the idea that Jesus is God, a teaching that is affiliated with Trinitarian/Modalistic practices.
The reason I speak on their behalf at times is because of those who single them into one category, those who have Islamophobia. A Christian can preach the gospel to a Muslim however Muslims assume, only some of them, that all Christians are Trinitarians, an example would be that of Soco Films (exposed as lairs and frauding those the debate against), who are hardcore Trinitarians in the UK, they go after Jews, Catholics, JWs, Baptist, and the focus target, Muslims, the very reason why Muslims now study the Bible to point out issues with Trinitarians.
Indeed, anything of falsehood or conspiracy.
There is another area, like this forum regarding Dawah, whereas Trinitarians and Muslims are often at odds with each other, while at the same time Non-Trinitarians go at it with Trinitarians, something of which I mentioned here several times before.
Muslims do believe. Isa ibn Maryam meaning Jesus Son of Mary or simply Jesus. The Qu'ran and most Hadiths (testimonial) gives mention of Jesus, that he [Jesus] was born as a pure boy/child, who has no sin by means of his human mother, Mary. They understand that Jesus is a prophet and messenger of God (Allah in Arabic) and they believe he is the Christ/Messiah (Al'Masih), sent by God to help and give guidance the Children of Israel with a new revelation, to give the good news gospel, otherwise known as Al'Injil in Arabic or simply termed the gospel. Jesus who is the Christ, or in this case, Al'Masih, in Islam, is believed to be a prophet who neither married nor had any children and is reflected as a significant figure of importance. Jesus is mentioned over dozens of time in the Qu'ran with various titles, for example Son of Mary.
So it is unknown to anyone that they have a good idea who the Christ is, although the modern day children of Ishmael, the Muslims, view differ, but their view of God is accurate. The difference here is that they do not believe that Jesus had died, they believe he went straight into heaven to escape heaven once God had saved him out of the hands of those who wish to kill him compared to Christianity, who believe Jesus did in fact die.
I wouldn't say truth faith, but one has to realize to understand their views so conspiracy or falsehood isn't made against them, just as this sign in the thread makes no information of. Another factor is those using a Qu'ran that is not of the actual source, granted the Qu'ran had very very old manuscripts that were actually found.
That being said, there is always a list of difference, but there is factual information as to why this or why that, so to speak. Other than that they believe in eternal life, and that Jesus would return also, making all people believe in God, for Jesus will come to destroy the wicked, and put an end to the False Messiah to which we call the Anti-Christ, this term is called e Al'Masih-Ad'Dajjal in Arabic and that Jesus is to establish peace on earth.
 

But Muhammad was a false prophet anyway and Islam is way off line.
Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law and was the last prophet ever needed in that sense.  Jesus was resurrected as the most important spirit person (apart from God himself) and returned to Heaven. And it is only through Jesus that we can receive everlasting life from God. 
Almighty God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and the 66 Books of the Holy Scriptures (in the hands of the anointed) are all that is needed for true direction. 
It is impossible to please God by sitting on the fence and believing that 'all roads lead to God'. 
If you are 'happy' with the religion of Islam then you cannot be serving God properly.  

This is definitely true. Of course, each person will have their own experience. And the same overall decisions will effect everyone differently. If you were part of a poor peasant family under the terribly inefficient system of serfdom under czarist Russia, then you will have quite a different experience after 1917 from one who had a business in St. Petersburg. Or if you lived in one of the 14 provinces that Russia gave up to Germany during WWI, but had to give back after the German losses and the 1918 Treaty of Versailles. Or if you had been part of the Duma, or if you were yourself a prior landowner, or if you were a person like one of the large variety of characters in Tolstoy novels, Pushkin, Dostoevsky, or Sholem Aleichem (Tevye - Fiddler on Roof, etc).
Fortunately, there were a lot of interviews with Russians who stayed throughout the years. Many records and interviews come from people who lived under communist rule under Lenin, Stalin, Krushchev, etc, and many from those who could speak more freely about their government after communism fell. All along we also have defectors from Russia who have told their stories. We also have stories from ex-pats who moved in and out of Russia. "Subversives" who lived in and out of Russia.
But to get a full picture, we have to put ALL these stories together, and see how they match up against internal documentation (with expected bias) and external documentation (with expected bias) and defector stories (with expected bias) and those who lived under these "regimes" (with expected bias). And then there is a ton of "material" evidence to sift through, too.
It's also easy to see what happens to those who have tried to get a more accurate picture if the new picture conflicts with a current one.
Sometimes it must seem like an argument that goes like this:
A. Hitler killed 40,000,000 people. B. No he didn't, he only killed 20,000,000 people. A. Why do you love Hitler? But the variation in stories about Lenin, Stalin and Mao, for example, make this history even more intriguing.

I think the best way to really know about life behind the iron curtain is to have the "privilege" of having experienced it. Not even I experienced it fully,  (only when vacationing there) but my mother has, and many of my peers who stayed behind have, while my mum and I were allowed out because of my mother marrying a foreigner out of the country. My grandparents defected shortly after the country was overtaken by the "Bolsheviks",  as we called them. They couldn't go back until after the the fall of communism. My grandmother cried when she and grandpa returned and saw the dilapidated and forsaken state of the towns and villages. No money had been invested into any kind of upkeep, and anything that was manufactured was shipped off to Russia....which wasn't much anyway. I could tell stories upon stories...
I have not read Solzhenitsyn, but I imagine not everything he wrote was accurate, just like not everything that communist propaganda told us about life in the West was. One of my distant relatives, a staunch communist herself, believed that Americans were so badly off that they had to eat out of garbage cans. As regards violence, yes, a few people mysteriously disappeared, but mainly, oppression came from a much subtler direction. Education, decent jobs, and pretty much anything else depended on whether you supported the communist party or not. So people pretended to do so, while they did their own thing. The motto was; "if you don't steal from the state, you are stealing from your family". Everyone had to to work, but the quality of work was nonexistent because no one cared since nothing was for them anyway.  Funnily enough many people look back on those times with a kind of nostalgia, because although no one had anything no one had to chase after anything either, because there was nothing to have. There was no ambition, but no stress either. So people concentrated on having a good time. Work days were short and weekends were long. Most families had country cottages where they would spend all their free time with family and friends. It was a kind of solidarity that does not exist any more, and some people miss that. Who had it most difficult were political dissidents and Jehovah's Witnesses of course because they did not pander to the communists. Brothers were sent to work in coal mines and so were the political dissidents. Quite a few spent some months in jail. Intellectuals, the bourgeois, and highly educated people were not trusted either, and of course many of them defected to the West. My grandfather had a thriving engineering company that he had to give up, and he went to jail for a short time, but I forget the exact reason, I will have to ask my mum.....

Everyone here is wrong. It was a letter from a small child at our Kingdom Hall that did the trick:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/08/when-putin-opens-my-letter.html
 

Just a little more longwinded opinion here.
I think his tone and most of his words were intended to portray himself as someone who recognizes that there were and are human rights issues to take care of now and to avoid in the future. He also is is to be seen as a source of wise advice, giving the impression that if he had just known some of these issues in advance that he would have known better ways to handle these things. But he also recognizes that some issues are too complex to make snap decisions about on the spot. He gives the impression that he is generally knowledgeable, perhaps had an idea about some of these issues, but was really just now learning the specifics, either on the spot or from reading the papers provided in preparation for the meeting.
Otherwise he would be portraying himself and therefore the Russian nation as knowingly culpable in any of the errors that had been made in the name of the state. That's the big difference in using the term to mean "prosecute" vs "persecute." If he had intentionally used the term to mean "persecute" this would have been very much at odds with that tenor -- it admits national culpability -- and that he KNOWS there is national culpability. That's why it is very different from "prosecute" which admits only procedural error at most, e.g., too strict a definition being put on the word "extremist," and therefore something that could potentially be redressed merely through a change or adjustment in judicial procedure, if deemed necessary.
To me, his words indicate that he would not be averse to a positive change in the procedure against "extremist" groups, especially when these are generally seen as "Christian" groups. It seems he would be more forgiving of first time offenses of trying to proselytize. I don't get the impression that he, on his own, will want to make a big deal of what happened with the Witnesses. But he will no doubt be informed again of the JW status and will be more knowledgeable each time he is re-informed, and this could easily lead to a situation very soon where he asks for a change to the procedure against JWs. The JWs may have to "compromise" in the sense of being more of an autonomous religious group in Russia that doesn't give the impression that it merely takes all marching orders from outside of Russia (New York). To work well in Russia, the state wants to know that tens of thousands of people are not going to suddenly begin carrying "Religion is a Snare and a Racket" signs in the streets, or drink Kool-Aid, or collect money for a corporation in Wallkill, New York where instruction will trickle down through other branches to update rules about where new Halls will be built, what to do about national anthems, military service, blood transfusion policy, or look to an internal judicial system that could be seen as competing with or overriding that of the state. 
When he is advised again about the JWs, he will be concerned about how it looks to his own nation, outside international organizations, how it reflects on himself, and therefore, if making a change is useful or worth the effort. I don't get the impression he is anxious to make a big deal about it. I see it very possible that his own advisors on these issues could talk him out of doing something, even if he thinks it is advisable. I see right now as a good time for the WTS HQ to help orchestrate the leverage of human rights organizations.
Getting 8 million people to write the same set of letters is not as impressive to him as it seems to us, because it only proves that the very thing he doesn't want in a Russian religion, exists to the nth degree in our religion: that everyone follows orders from the same HQ outside of Russia.

In Russian "преследовать" can be translated as "prosecute" or "persecute". Maybe it is better to ask the president what did he mean by saying this :D 

JTR: I agree with you here. If you look at the entire meeting, the word "prosecute" was used in the translation a few of the other times, even in similar contexts. Judicial prosecution was already the topic here in nearly every case discussed, but the overall topic is a wider context than the auto-translator AI looks at. The fact that the name of a minority was used in the sentence, "Jehovah's Witnesses," and that the word "Christians" was in the immediate context, this is what probably triggered the translation, "persecute" instead of "prosecute."
Of course, this is still a very important admission as @Outta Here has said, and it's in line with what you were thinking about Putin being the one to get it straightened out, if it reaches to a high enough priority. There were several interesting admissions in the meeting, and Putin comes across as very professional, careful, knowledgeable and "wiley." He is just defensive enough to protect himself from various questionable decisions by judges, admits problems with some laws, understands some of the PR issues with the rest of the world, etc. But he also doesn't commit to overturn questionable actions, and doesn't want to give in too much, to avoid the impression, for example, that future amnesty can be counted on, based on past or current amnesty. 

It’s possible.
Why doesn’t JWI stay in his ivory egghead tower? He has caused the unthinkable to happen...that my nemesis should become a bastion of truth.

I still, in my own mind, assuming that I know the mind of Russian thinking ... especially of a man who used to be the head of the Soviet KGB, and also presumably knowing how adults in such positions think, do NOT believe that he used the word "persecute".  I believe this was in the mind of the translator, or the algorithm of the translation computer program,  ... NOT V. Putin.
Unless I can talk to someone who has the original video or transcript, in Russian, and who is conversational in BOTH Russian and English ... and I can get an equally qualified second opinion ... It is my belief and conjecture that the word he used is "prosecute".
Here is the general idea of  how I believe the thoughts actually were spoken:
" V.Putin: I don’t know to which confession she belongs, she is Christian, but there are also many directions. Jehovah's Witnesses are also Christians, for which I do not really understand how it is (meaning "why?") we prosecute them. Therefore, you just need to analyze, you need to do it. I will talk with Vyacheslav Mikhailovich, and try to do it."
If there is ANYBODY that knows HOW to persecute AND prosecute someone ... it is the former head of the KGB.
Translation is an art, as well as a science, and there are some artists that put out poor work, and scientists that plow your aircraft into a cornfield, and some computer programs that, like the HAL9000, do not take into consideration all aspects of a problem.

Deactivating Hal 9000 HD (COMPLETE).mp4