Anna

The best way to pick up on some additional historical background pertinent to the situation in Judea and Galilee is to read Josephus, especially "Wars of the Jews."  Whiston's translation is free here, and in a well organized PDF with TOC and navigation links: http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0037-0103,_Flavius_Josephus,_De_Bello_Judaico,_EN.pdf
Although I hesitate to be seen as promoting it, I also thought that the writers and producers of A.D.-Kingdom and Empire (2015), now on Netflix, did one of the better jobs in depicting the book of Acts in an easy to watch, professional "drama." It's not hard to mentally filter out some of the extra-Biblical interpretations. But even some of what we might tend to filter out gives us some material to think about. They did the entire thing without reference to trinity, hellfire although they probably pushed a bit too far the relationship between the Zealots and one or more apostles chosen from among Zealots. There are 12 episodes and I would recommend all except the very last episode which takes a bit too much from Josephus, adds a bit more non-history for drama, and then puts the Christians in the middle of a political situation that was not possible from a Biblical perspective. (Also #7 has a very unlikely visit from Tiberius to Pilate in Jerusalem, which, if it happened at all, would have taken place in the port city, Caesarea.) It's primary characters are Pilate & wife, Caiaphas & wife, Herod & wife, Peter, John, Thomas, Saul/Paul, Simon the Zealot, Stephen, Simon the Magician, Ethiopian Eunuch, Philip the Evangelizer, James the brother of Jesus, with some short cameos by Jesus, Emperor Tiberius, Caligula, a couple of Marys and the occasional angel here and there, too.
I haven't watched the part-documentary, part-drama called "Roman Empire" now in its second season, nor much of HBO's "Rome," but I did see all episodes of "I, Claudius" several years ago, and I have the book(s) it was based on. Those would probably be useful supplements to "A.D." (As long as none of these are taken as pure history, but only general ideas about the historical setting and perspectives of various classes of people during that time.)

We'll be going through Acts in the assigned Bible reading and I thought I'd share some online resources that are quite interesting and apparently accurate enough for their purposes. Hopefully, others here will share a few of their favorite resources, too.
http://pelagios.org/maps/greco-roman/ is a very detailed map of the Roman Empire with all cities referred to in ancient sources near the time of the Greek Scriptures. "This map features details such as major and minor roads, aqueducts, temples, cemeteries and quarries."
Similar things have been done on other sites ( https://omnesviae.org/ ) but my absolute favorite is a kind of Google Maps for the Ancient World: http://orbis.stanford.edu/#
It lets you choose if you are traveling between any two places by ship, boat, military speed, civilian speed, foot, horse, donkey, chariot, etc. It lets you choose a common coastal navigation system that "hugs the coast" which was a common method of navigation. It also calculates the cost of various modes of transportation, not just in time, but in money.
 

I am wondering whether by that you mean closing shop, i.e. the end is near

I'm not sure what you mean by that
I understand what you are saying and believe you are right to some extent. It depends on the person I think though. For example non of the friends that I know seem to be too worried about the conditions during the great tribulation, me included. I can't speak for the others, because I have not discussed this to any depth, but what I find disconcerting is that this "future obedience" is being used as the reason to "obey now". I would think that a sufficient reason would be that without cooperation (I prefer that expression to obedience, because children are expected to be obedient to parents, but adults should be expected to cooperate with other adults) we could not accomplish much. I mean it's common sense. Why the need to emphasize a situation which is based on Biblical examples for survival of the past in the Hebrew scriptures, but doesn't have much support in the Gospels or the rest of the Greek scriptures? Most of the time we do not talk about the need to obey instructions in order to be saved. But it is mentioned every now and again, it was mentioned at this year's summer convention. On the other hand, this weeks mid meeting work book under the section  "We must prepare spiritually so that our deliverance will be assured" makes no mention of  obedience to some instructions but says these are the things which will help us get saved: "developing TRUST IN JEHOVAH, which gives us COURAGE, which leads us to a POSITIVE ATTITUDE, which coupled with BROTHERLY LOVE enables us to ENCOURAGE fellow believers."  (based on Luke 21:28) That makes much more sense to me and follows more what Jesus had in mind. It seems like this "obedience to instructions" is thrown in there randomly every once in a while, without real basis.....
 
You have a point
Yes. And I think it's already backfiring to a small extent. Although I know quite a few elderly brothers and sisters who are as faithful as ever and are reconciled with the fact that they may die before the new system comes. Some of their children on the other hand are finding it more difficult...
Yes indeed:
What happens to a dream deferred?

Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore--
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over--
like a syrupy sweet?

Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.

Or does it explode?”

Many sincere brothers now are quick to defend the mistakes of the past by saying that the number of little ones who were stumbled was actually a good thing. We've seem multiple comments on this forum that make that claim. As the misguided logic goes, with 1975, for example, it was a kind of test that only stumbled those who were serving Jehovah with a date in mind.
To be fair, I think all this talk about the importance of obedience to men is a mistake. It is not hooked to anything so tangible as a calendar date so fewer people will be stumbled outright. But more people will be disheartened over time without being able to put their finger on exactly why. In my opinion it will be because they probably anticipated that association with fellow Witnesses would continue to enhance their love for Jehovah God and Jesus Christ in an overwhelmingly positive, uplifting, encouraging and heartwarming way.
In this case, perhaps the brothers in the lead feel that they need to cover all the bases, and prepare us for unknown possibilities. The problem, in my opinion, is that this emphasis on the importance of obedience to men has now been associated (e.g., summer conventions) with a kind of future "fear-mongering" about the conditions we can expect during the great tribulation. It creates an even heavier load by making us overly concerned about the next day, when we would prefer to think that seeking first the Kingdom would have freed us from such anxiety, throwing our burden upon Jehovah, knowing that Christ's load is light, and his yoke is kind.
(Matthew 6:33, 34) 33 “Keep on, then, seeking first the Kingdom and his righteousness, and all these other things will be added to you. 34 So never be anxious about the next day, for the next day will have its own anxieties. Each day has enough of its own troubles. But this makes it appear to serve the exact same purpose as 1975. This time, by associating these unspecified ways in which we will need to show obedience to men with a certain level of fear-mongering about the great tribulation, we will pay more than the usual attention to men. It should have the effect of ratcheting up the activity and anticipation by making the end seem even more imminent.
It reminds me of an experience at Bethel when I once had an opportunity to question Brother Franz about his plan to have us study a 1973 book a second time in 1981.
*** km 11/80 pp. 1-3 par. 5 Part I—Congregation Meetings ***
CONGREGATION BOOK STUDY: In January we will start studying the book God’s Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached. This 416-page book, published in 1973, contains vital information that is even more apropos now than when it was first released. Think of the hundreds of thousands of new ones who have been baptized since it was first published. My question was about whether we needed a new edition to change some inaccuracies, or whether it would go into print using the old press plates. His response was basically that we needed no update to it because "this is what the publishers need right now." [The book was basically a history of the Watchtower Society wedged into what are now half-obsolete explanations of Matthew 25.] But his idea was that it would somehow make people appreciate the Society, its place in our time, and therefore raise the level of activity.
So ultimately I think that the pendulum will swing the other way again, and there will be a kind of retraction of this method of making the end seem so imminent as a way to raise activity levels. The Bible indicates that this method can backfire.
(Proverbs 13:12) 12 Expectation postponed makes the heart sick,. . . Langston Hughes agreed:
*** g94 5/22 p. 27 Put Humor Into Your Life ***
Poet Langston Hughes once wrote: “Like a welcome summer rain, humor may suddenly cleanse and cool the earth, the air, and you.” Oh wait, not that one, but his famous one: "What happens to a dream deferred?"
Of course, those who become disheartened (over the current emphasis) will likely be "chalked up to" the fact that this served as a test to get rid of those who were not worthy. For most, including myself, the overall context of these "changes" is not as bad as I just represented it, since the overall point is not to fear men, but to expect Jehovah to come to our aid when the trouble seems completely overwhelming. But unfortunately, I fear that even the perceived combination of emphasis on "obedience to men" and "fear-mongering" will combine to create a new kind of burden that will not appear to reflect the true spirit of Christianity. 

Definitely bad, oppressive, a tool of the insecure. There is a tendency for some to try to lever on this basis. Seems to be a kind of convoluted version of what Peter said at Matthew 26:33.
However, I do not think Paul and Barnabas were fear-mongering when they said “We must enter into the Kingdom of God through many tribulations." Acts 14:22, or Paul when he said to the Hebrews, "In your struggle against that sin, you have never yet resisted to the point of having your blood shed." Heb.12:4.
Certainly, Peter counseled vigorously against abject "obedience to men" at Acts 5:29: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.", all the more notable as coming from one who displayed the opposite behaviour at times.
However there is a balance in this matter too, as the same Scriptures counsel children to be "obedient to your parents" (Eph.6:1), slaves to "be obedient in everything to those who are your human masters" (Col.3:22) all faithful Christians to mark those who are "not obedient to our word through this letter" (2Thess.3:14), "to be obedient to governments and authorities" (Titus 3:1); and, finally, to "be obedient to those taking the lead among you" (Heb.13:17).
So when a b(B)rother says obeying instructions in what is of little consequence now is good practice for obeying instructions regarding what might be big consequences later, I don't feel blackmailed by some sort of bogey-man tactic really. I just feel that this is someone giving me a bit of good advice on how to turn a bumpy ride into something a little smoother. But then, that's just me. Everybody has their own way of dealing with and reacting to these things it seems. 
I agree entirely with avoiding the creation of a fear-mongered, man-pleasing attitude.
I endorse fully the need to engage in reflecting Jesus' manner in refreshing our fellow worshippers, working to lighten their "burdens" wherever we can.
But at the same time we need to balance the fact that it was Jesus who instructed a heightened level of alertness in "keeping on  the watch", an avoidance of everyday distractions in maintaining a personally calibrated "whole soul" level of activity, and a full appreciation of the "torture stake" element involved in our acceptance of discipleship. ?

Excellent, JWInsider!

I wish the same....
I also wish someone could explain what the difference was between what happened in Malawi versus what happened in Mexico. But this is completely off topic here. I apologize @TrueTomHarley but this is JTR's fault, he started it

I lived through that time too, but I did not pay a lot of attention to it as I was too young.  However, a friend helped me to dig up a WT from 1975 that seems to make a distinction between an oath binding one to a person, and an oath to a country.
Here are a few excerpts:
......."Thoughtful Christians weigh the matter in the light of Bible principles before taking any sworn oath. In doing so, they find that some oaths are Scripturally unacceptable. For example, in the days of the Third Reich, every German soldier was required to take this oath: “I swear by God this holy oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to the Führer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, and that as a brave soldier I shall be prepared at all times to risk my life for this oath.” A person dedicated to Almighty God cannot bind himself unconditionally to a sinful human, for Jehovah exacts “exclusive devotion.”...........Hence, despite severe persecution, faithful Christian witnesses of Jehovah in Germany would take no oaths binding them to Adolf Hitler......
..........A true Christian, then, would not take an oath that would involve him in the controversies of the world or that would subject him unquestioningly to the will of another human. But what if a nation required that such an oath be taken by those desiring to become citizens? Could a person dedicated to God take an oath of that kind with mental reservations, reasoning that sex, age or other factors would make it unlikely that what had been sworn would ever be required? The individual must decide, but it would not be Christian to make a false oath of any kind, even if refusal to do so resulted in being denied the rights of citizenship.........
........A citizen of the United States of America who desires to travel abroad will find the following oath on a passport application: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations, or purpose of evasion: So help me God.” If an applicant finds this objectionable, he is permitted to strike this oath from the passport application, and he will not be denied the document on that basis"...........
Awake 1975/7/22 page 27-28
Interestingly this was written during the presidency of Nathan Knorr. 
edit:
In addition this is what the proclaimers book  ch 29, page 674 had to say:
In Malawi, there is only one political party, and possession of a party card indicates membership. Although the Witnesses are exemplary in paying their taxes, in harmony with their religious beliefs, they decline to buy political party cards. To do so would be a denial of their faith in GodÂ’s Kingdom. Because of this, late in 1967, with the encouragement of government officials, gangs of youths throughout Malawi launched an all-out attack on JehovahÂ’s Witnesses that was unprecedented in its obscenity and sadistic cruelty. Over a thousand devout Christian women were raped. Some were stripped naked before large mobs, beaten with sticks and fists, and then sexually assaulted by one person after another. Nails were driven through the feet of the men and bicycle spokes through their legs, and then they were ordered to run. Throughout the country their homes, furniture, clothing, and food supplies were destroyed.
Bellow are the translated contents of the card. I cannot verify the correctness of the translation as I do not speak Chichewa

 

 

I can always tell it's Allen by the questions marks that are put in odd places in a sentence....besides other things...but that's a dead giveaway

That's probably true, technically. I never believed your real name was Allen to begin with.?

There is a certain idiot on Twitter who has been trolling me lately and he has not been easy to shake.
I do not converse with such characters, though I do announce to them. He said that he assumes I have JW friends and family that I would lose were it discovered that I had "chatted' (his innacurate word) with him. I replied that 'You know what they say about assuming.'
While continually asking for clarification, he inserts observations such as me belonging to a high-control group. Lately I have taken to responding to all requests for elucidation with a link to somethng I have already written. Such as:
"Here is another one for you,, since you keep asking. I really don't want to do this. But I am in a "high-control" group, as you say, and they are making me: http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2011/04/what-the-is-next.html
Incredibly, he perseveres, even after I sent him one that I said I called my "troll special." But I can outlast him. I have a lot of posts.
This is called 'shifting responsibility.' it is what Adam did.
My thread! My big beautiful thread! How it has been hijacked and divereted! That bad Anna.
 

An interesting topic indeed. This may provide you with some useful background despite it's specific agenda if you haven't seen it before: 
https://settingtherecordstraight.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/the-truth-of-the-mexican-military-jehovahs-witnesses/

I lived through that time too, but I did not pay a lot of attention to it as I was too young.  However, a friend helped me to dig up a WT from 1975 that seems to make a distinction between an oath binding one to a person, and an oath to a country.
Here are a few excerpts:
......."Thoughtful Christians weigh the matter in the light of Bible principles before taking any sworn oath. In doing so, they find that some oaths are Scripturally unacceptable. For example, in the days of the Third Reich, every German soldier was required to take this oath: “I swear by God this holy oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to the Führer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, and that as a brave soldier I shall be prepared at all times to risk my life for this oath.” A person dedicated to Almighty God cannot bind himself unconditionally to a sinful human, for Jehovah exacts “exclusive devotion.”...........Hence, despite severe persecution, faithful Christian witnesses of Jehovah in Germany would take no oaths binding them to Adolf Hitler......
..........A true Christian, then, would not take an oath that would involve him in the controversies of the world or that would subject him unquestioningly to the will of another human. But what if a nation required that such an oath be taken by those desiring to become citizens? Could a person dedicated to God take an oath of that kind with mental reservations, reasoning that sex, age or other factors would make it unlikely that what had been sworn would ever be required? The individual must decide, but it would not be Christian to make a false oath of any kind, even if refusal to do so resulted in being denied the rights of citizenship.........
........A citizen of the United States of America who desires to travel abroad will find the following oath on a passport application: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations, or purpose of evasion: So help me God.” If an applicant finds this objectionable, he is permitted to strike this oath from the passport application, and he will not be denied the document on that basis"...........
Awake 1975/7/22 page 27-28
Interestingly this was written during the presidency of Nathan Knorr. 
edit:
In addition this is what the proclaimers book  ch 29, page 674 had to say:
In Malawi, there is only one political party, and possession of a party card indicates membership. Although the Witnesses are exemplary in paying their taxes, in harmony with their religious beliefs, they decline to buy political party cards. To do so would be a denial of their faith in GodÂ’s Kingdom. Because of this, late in 1967, with the encouragement of government officials, gangs of youths throughout Malawi launched an all-out attack on JehovahÂ’s Witnesses that was unprecedented in its obscenity and sadistic cruelty. Over a thousand devout Christian women were raped. Some were stripped naked before large mobs, beaten with sticks and fists, and then sexually assaulted by one person after another. Nails were driven through the feet of the men and bicycle spokes through their legs, and then they were ordered to run. Throughout the country their homes, furniture, clothing, and food supplies were destroyed.
Bellow are the translated contents of the card. I cannot verify the correctness of the translation as I do not speak Chichewa

 

 

Just chiming in with a couple of thoughts. The fact that you (Tom) felt the need to encourage others to appreciate br. Lett indicates that you think some do not appreciate him, and the reason for that is because he is a little different, there is no denying that. So you felt the need to defend him. When I first saw him speaking on jw broadcasting I had to look away, because I couldn't stand looking at his "crazy" gestures. And I know I'm not the only one. But I think we all got used to them now. What did irritate me a little was his pre-school type delivery, but as I said in my comment to you on fb, it is not a big deal as I believe he is genuine, and doesn't mean to sound condescending. What I still can't wrap my head around though is this "need to listen to some type of survival instructions". It may follow a Biblical pattern in the past, but I cant see any indication in scripture that talks about the great tribulation/Armageddon that anything like that will be necessary then. I get suspicious of the kind of statements which urge obedience now, the reason being that we will need to obey later to survive...

Excellent, JWInsider!

I wish the same....
I also wish someone could explain what the difference was between what happened in Malawi versus what happened in Mexico. But this is completely off topic here. I apologize @TrueTomHarley but this is JTR's fault, he started it

I wish the same....
I also wish someone could explain what the difference was between what happened in Malawi versus what happened in Mexico. But this is completely off topic here. I apologize @TrueTomHarley but this is JTR's fault, he started it

I lived through that time too, but I did not pay a lot of attention to it as I was too young.  However, a friend helped me to dig up a WT from 1975 that seems to make a distinction between an oath binding one to a person, and an oath to a country.
Here are a few excerpts:
......."Thoughtful Christians weigh the matter in the light of Bible principles before taking any sworn oath. In doing so, they find that some oaths are Scripturally unacceptable. For example, in the days of the Third Reich, every German soldier was required to take this oath: “I swear by God this holy oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to the Führer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, and that as a brave soldier I shall be prepared at all times to risk my life for this oath.” A person dedicated to Almighty God cannot bind himself unconditionally to a sinful human, for Jehovah exacts “exclusive devotion.”...........Hence, despite severe persecution, faithful Christian witnesses of Jehovah in Germany would take no oaths binding them to Adolf Hitler......
..........A true Christian, then, would not take an oath that would involve him in the controversies of the world or that would subject him unquestioningly to the will of another human. But what if a nation required that such an oath be taken by those desiring to become citizens? Could a person dedicated to God take an oath of that kind with mental reservations, reasoning that sex, age or other factors would make it unlikely that what had been sworn would ever be required? The individual must decide, but it would not be Christian to make a false oath of any kind, even if refusal to do so resulted in being denied the rights of citizenship.........
........A citizen of the United States of America who desires to travel abroad will find the following oath on a passport application: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations, or purpose of evasion: So help me God.” If an applicant finds this objectionable, he is permitted to strike this oath from the passport application, and he will not be denied the document on that basis"...........
Awake 1975/7/22 page 27-28
Interestingly this was written during the presidency of Nathan Knorr. 
edit:
In addition this is what the proclaimers book  ch 29, page 674 had to say:
In Malawi, there is only one political party, and possession of a party card indicates membership. Although the Witnesses are exemplary in paying their taxes, in harmony with their religious beliefs, they decline to buy political party cards. To do so would be a denial of their faith in GodÂ’s Kingdom. Because of this, late in 1967, with the encouragement of government officials, gangs of youths throughout Malawi launched an all-out attack on JehovahÂ’s Witnesses that was unprecedented in its obscenity and sadistic cruelty. Over a thousand devout Christian women were raped. Some were stripped naked before large mobs, beaten with sticks and fists, and then sexually assaulted by one person after another. Nails were driven through the feet of the men and bicycle spokes through their legs, and then they were ordered to run. Throughout the country their homes, furniture, clothing, and food supplies were destroyed.
Bellow are the translated contents of the card. I cannot verify the correctness of the translation as I do not speak Chichewa

 

 

Yes. But I'll tell you the real problem I have with manipulating information. And I'm not saying you are the source of the manipulation. First of all, it's no longer "truth" in the most appropriate sense. If something purports to be from a specific source, then anyone who changes that source is putting words in the mouth of someone else. It's therefore the same as a misquote. Since it has very similar meaning, it's more of a paraphrase, but even a paraphrase should identify itself as such.
In the long run, it often weakens the impact of information even when people think it strengthens the impact. Imagine what would happen if a person has excellent information about some mistakes the Watch Tower Society was making. Imagine that some of these, if taken seriously by the WTS, could result in fairness and justice for thousands of people who are now being treated inconsistently and unjustly. There were persons who publicly pointed out the inconsistency between the WTS political stance in Malawi vs. Mexico, for example. But by pointing it out, the WTS may have taken quicker steps to fix the problem they had created in Mexico. And in many other countries around the world, thousands were being unjustly imprisoned for the specific choices they were told that they could and could not conscientiously take with respect to alternative civil service. They, the GB, had already decided that it wasn't that important or even Biblical to hold onto the old traditional practice, and that a change could happen as soon as they found the time to vote on it again. But it was put off for a couple of more years, until a very public reminder was published in an infamous book by an ex-JW. In the meantime, during the delay, hundreds more JWs were unjustly imprisoned, but as soon as the GB voted again, the problem was taken care of just as the ex-JW had said. So what would have happened if that particular ex-JW had a reputation for manipulating information. Obviously, it would have been easy to ignore what he said, and just say that it was more lies from ex-JW apostates. Information can have value no matter where it comes from. Why weaken the value with manipulation?
Also, in the specific case above where some JW-focused information was added, it came across as both pejorative and smart-aleck. Even flippant in the sense of borrowing slightly from the advertising slogan: "Coming to a theater near you!" This gives the impression that whoever wrote it wanted to "stick it" to JWs in particular. This can "back-fire" having a devaluing effect on the value of the information. It is useful to know that there may now be up to SEVENTEEN different victims and that one of them was abused perhaps 100 times. This is important information. But a lot of JWs might look at this poster and say:
"Look how we are being picked on talking about "Kingdom Halls" like that. Look how they are going after us unfairly. Look how they focus on Kingdom Halls. I wonder if they would say the same about using churches as a hiding place to find sanctuary." Maybe they would; I don't know. But I do know that everyone has a certain amount of defensiveness that is natural for people of the same "tribe." Our tribe is our worldwide organization, and many Witnesses are quick to defend and grasp at straws to do so. Don't make up evidence. The real evidence is all people need.
(See updated news release on this same criminal here: https://www.usmarshals.gov/news/chron/2009/122909.htm )

How can there be an argument about this? Isn't it one of the functions of prayer?
Me too.
I wish someone who actually through those times as a participant rather than a bystander could give us a comment.
 
 
 

I lived through that time too, but I did not pay a lot of attention to it as I was too young.  However, a friend helped me to dig up a WT from 1975 that seems to make a distinction between an oath binding one to a person, and an oath to a country.
Here are a few excerpts:
......."Thoughtful Christians weigh the matter in the light of Bible principles before taking any sworn oath. In doing so, they find that some oaths are Scripturally unacceptable. For example, in the days of the Third Reich, every German soldier was required to take this oath: “I swear by God this holy oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to the Führer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, and that as a brave soldier I shall be prepared at all times to risk my life for this oath.” A person dedicated to Almighty God cannot bind himself unconditionally to a sinful human, for Jehovah exacts “exclusive devotion.”...........Hence, despite severe persecution, faithful Christian witnesses of Jehovah in Germany would take no oaths binding them to Adolf Hitler......
..........A true Christian, then, would not take an oath that would involve him in the controversies of the world or that would subject him unquestioningly to the will of another human. But what if a nation required that such an oath be taken by those desiring to become citizens? Could a person dedicated to God take an oath of that kind with mental reservations, reasoning that sex, age or other factors would make it unlikely that what had been sworn would ever be required? The individual must decide, but it would not be Christian to make a false oath of any kind, even if refusal to do so resulted in being denied the rights of citizenship.........
........A citizen of the United States of America who desires to travel abroad will find the following oath on a passport application: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations, or purpose of evasion: So help me God.” If an applicant finds this objectionable, he is permitted to strike this oath from the passport application, and he will not be denied the document on that basis"...........
Awake 1975/7/22 page 27-28
Interestingly this was written during the presidency of Nathan Knorr. 
edit:
In addition this is what the proclaimers book  ch 29, page 674 had to say:
In Malawi, there is only one political party, and possession of a party card indicates membership. Although the Witnesses are exemplary in paying their taxes, in harmony with their religious beliefs, they decline to buy political party cards. To do so would be a denial of their faith in GodÂ’s Kingdom. Because of this, late in 1967, with the encouragement of government officials, gangs of youths throughout Malawi launched an all-out attack on JehovahÂ’s Witnesses that was unprecedented in its obscenity and sadistic cruelty. Over a thousand devout Christian women were raped. Some were stripped naked before large mobs, beaten with sticks and fists, and then sexually assaulted by one person after another. Nails were driven through the feet of the men and bicycle spokes through their legs, and then they were ordered to run. Throughout the country their homes, furniture, clothing, and food supplies were destroyed.
Bellow are the translated contents of the card. I cannot verify the correctness of the translation as I do not speak Chichewa

 

 

Actually I said that “Witnesses love this guy.”
I wouldn’t put it that way. Offense is more like it. Admittedly he is a cultivated taste and it is well that he is one of a kind among Watchtower ‘brass.’ But nobody would ever deny that he is genuine, nor of his concern for the flock. In a world of phonies obsessed with outward appearance that is a decided plus.
In general, the more ‘lowly’ our people are, the more they like him. The more enamored people are with the TV anchorman as role model, the more they choke on him.

This puts it in a nutshell and is overall perceptive and appreciative of the work of others. The reason that nobody knows anything today is because at the first misstep it is 'OFF WITH HIS HEAD!' leaving only inexperienced clods to run the show.
There are new battle lines being drawn today, and they have to do with human authority. The trend today is to despise it in every setting, not just JW. It is also one of the trademarks of the 'apostates' discussed in Jude and 2 Peter.
We have overall largely fought and won the battle of 'is there a Trinity?', blood transfusion, military non-participation, from the standpoint of nuetral observers. With determined opposers they will never be won, and each new 'weapon formed against you that will not succeed' will for them forever be a grand slam home run, but this is not where one must look. One must look at impartial parties.
Today it is largely 'apostates' who are succeeding in doing what Jehovah's Witnesses could never do on their own: putting Jehovah's name at the center of all creation.' In Russia it is anti-cult. In the West it is anti-cult and child abuse accusations. None of the reports are groundless, but they are all misframed and misrepresented. The trick will be to frame and represent them properly.
Amidst some of these accusations, Bethel seems to me to resemble 'a deer caught in the headlights' but it has shown many times in the past that it can adapt quickly. Sometimes I think that the lightning-like chariot image is applied too hastily, but then other times it actually moves lightning light and I am caught looking stupid for wondering about it.
Responding effectively to some of the modern accusations is complicated by the fact that there are some places that Bethel just doesn't go, in accord with verses to not even say a greeting to certain ones. They like the model of the plowman who is not much good if he keeps looking behind at the furrows. They like Jesus saying wisdom is proved righteous by its works and so not responding to critics who lambaste him no matter what he does. It may be for certain perceptive ones to 'go to bat' for them, and knowing that they may not even think it a good thing to do, and that it may not even be. However, in many instances, Bethel is cool toward something until they see someone who makes it work. This is true of computer and internet developments. It was true of the quick-build arrangements.
At present it is individual rights, all the rage today, versus individual responsibilities, which is downplayed and sometimes ignored. It is the rights of individuals versus the rights of organizations that would ensure some of those rights in the case of minority beliefs. 
"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country," are the words of John F Kennedy, thought noble for many decades after he said it. Today they would be the words of a cult leader.
I think the operating verse will be the one in Phillipians:
"True, some are preaching the Christ out of envy and rivallry, but others out of goodwill. The latter are proclaiming the Christ out of love, for they know that I have been appointed to defend the good news;p but the former do it out of contentiousness, not with a pure motive, for they are intending to create trouble for me in my prison bonds. With what result? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being proclaimed, and I rejoice over this"
We might never have chosen the particular battlefields that opposers have chosen for us, but that does mean we cannot respond to them. 'They will lyingly say every wicked thing about you' Jesus said to his followers. Tell me about it.

I would be concerned, if I were you, about posting your "office" set-up.   #RussianHacking