Anna

By the way is the kind of comment that lands people who make it, out of the truth. May you never be stumbled.
 I hope one day the faithful slave is not going to change their understanding of 1914, to one similar to what is presented here by JWI. If they do, it won't make me think any less of them. What is it going to do to you though? And don't say it will never happen, because it HAS happened on many occasions where they taught one thing, and then "refined" their understanding. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against refining our understanding, or even changing our understanding. We should never dogmatically insist on something, and as far as I can see, change is proof that the FDS have not dogmatically insisted on something when further evidence came to light. So why should WE be dogmatic? Is it wrong to say that there are some interesting scriptural arguments being brought forward? Why insist on something "just" because for the present this is what the FDS teach? At least THAT should NOT be the argument. The argument should be a well presented scriptural counter argument. So far I have not really seen this on this thread, or on the other one. The majority has just been diversions, and attacks on the person and their motive.
What if I was to call into question your person and motive? Are you perhaps scared if 1914 is wrong, where will that leave a lot of our beliefs? Where would that leave you? Are you afraid this could delay the end?  Is that why you are sidestepping the issue and diverting attention from the "message" to the person? What are you afraid of?
So, how did that feel.

 
How does what I said above make you conclude that I rely on man instead of Jah? And I did make it clear that there was nothing wrong with sitting on the fence with regard to SOME issues, obviously not all.  In this case, I don't think believing or not believing in 1914 really makes a blind bit of difference in the grand scheme of things. Prove me wrong.

I agree with all your prior thoughts except this one.
Jehovah promised he will have a people (a group, not individuals scattered throughout the world) who will be united in worship of him. These peoples will beat their swords into plowshares and will not learn war anymore. They will have love among themselves, and they will follow in his son's footsteps. Whatever Jesus did, and told his followers to do, they will do to their utmost ability. This includes preaching the Kingdom as the only solution to mankind's problems. I do not see that this will ever stop until Jehovah says it is done. These peoples as a group, a great crowd, are the ones to inherit the earth.
"In the final part of the days,*The mountain of the house of Jehovah+Will become firmly established above the top of the mountains,And it will be raised up above the hills,And to it peoples will stream.+  2  And many nations will go and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah And to the house of the God of Jacob.+ He will instruct us about his ways, And we will walk in his paths.” For law* will go out of Zion,And the word of Jehovah out of Jerusalem.......
 5  For all the peoples will walk, each in the name of its god,But we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God+ forever and ever". - Micah ch. 4
 

Thank you Tom. I like your thoughts on this, and you raise many valid points  (it's one of your few posts where you are actually being dead pan serious, not that I don't enjoy your tongue in cheek humour).
The reason I posted that question was because I am very aware that if one doesn't happen to be on the same wavelength, its easy to misunderstand what the other person is actually saying. I understood it to mean that "how dare we even try interpreting the Bible, if that is the exclusive privilege of the FDS". Judging by @Noble Berean's answer, it looks like he understood it similarly. Your interpretation sounds perfectly reasonable though. I like this point "I think it is an appeal that congregational unity is more important than individual opinion about doctrine" it kind of puts it in a nutshell. Also this observation is very valid "Whenever the Governing Body issues direction on any doctrinal point, it may be that you, as a diligent student, noticed that point some time ago. If this was the world of churches, you would have gone out and started your own religion over it. How do you think there came to be so many sects and divisions among Christianity"? I know I'm not the only one who has noticed points ahead of when the GB has adjusted their view. (I mentioned this on here a little while ago referring to Babylonian captivity, in the spiritual sense). Some things may not be important enough to warrant starting a new religion over, but your point is perfectly apt!
I don't think JWI is trying to gain disciples for himself either, and as you mention in your following post it kind of sucks that in the minds of many people a carpenter who has expertise is never judged the same way as a writer or scholar who has expertise. This brings to mind an instance a few years ago, which actually involved you (yes, really, lol) when I was reading your stories in "Sheep and goats" and someone criticized it asking why on earth would anyone want to write about stuff like that and I replied that you were sharing your "creation" just like a composer won't forever just play his music for himself, but will want to share it with others. Jehovah created us to be this way.
P.S. Apologies to @JW Insiderfor causing a break in the thread. Maybe this should be posted as a new subject....

I agree with all your prior thoughts except this one.
Jehovah promised he will have a people (a group, not individuals scattered throughout the world) who will be united in worship of him. These peoples will beat their swords into plowshares and will not learn war anymore. They will have love among themselves, and they will follow in his son's footsteps. Whatever Jesus did, and told his followers to do, they will do to their utmost ability. This includes preaching the Kingdom as the only solution to mankind's problems. I do not see that this will ever stop until Jehovah says it is done. These peoples as a group, a great crowd, are the ones to inherit the earth.
"In the final part of the days,*The mountain of the house of Jehovah+Will become firmly established above the top of the mountains,And it will be raised up above the hills,And to it peoples will stream.+  2  And many nations will go and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah And to the house of the God of Jacob.+ He will instruct us about his ways, And we will walk in his paths.” For law* will go out of Zion,And the word of Jehovah out of Jerusalem.......
 5  For all the peoples will walk, each in the name of its god,But we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God+ forever and ever". - Micah ch. 4
 

I agree with all your prior thoughts except this one.
Jehovah promised he will have a people (a group, not individuals scattered throughout the world) who will be united in worship of him. These peoples will beat their swords into plowshares and will not learn war anymore. They will have love among themselves, and they will follow in his son's footsteps. Whatever Jesus did, and told his followers to do, they will do to their utmost ability. This includes preaching the Kingdom as the only solution to mankind's problems. I do not see that this will ever stop until Jehovah says it is done. These peoples as a group, a great crowd, are the ones to inherit the earth.
"In the final part of the days,*The mountain of the house of Jehovah+Will become firmly established above the top of the mountains,And it will be raised up above the hills,And to it peoples will stream.+  2  And many nations will go and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah And to the house of the God of Jacob.+ He will instruct us about his ways, And we will walk in his paths.” For law* will go out of Zion,And the word of Jehovah out of Jerusalem.......
 5  For all the peoples will walk, each in the name of its god,But we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God+ forever and ever". - Micah ch. 4
 

@bruceq how does this have anything to do with what JW Insider said above? All he did was indirectly quote you, and said he finds it hard to understand. You might need to read it again, several times. It's a claim you made, after all!

Actually, you already conceded that this does not necessarily mean it is more likely, only that you would accept it as what you would be required to believe, whether it was true or not. Under another topic you just recently claimed that if you were in a first century congregation that you would have gone along with the body of elders if they told you the resurrection had already occurred. Had you been in a congregation between 1919 and 1925 you are admitting that you would have gone along with 1925 and promoted it even if you knew it was wrong. Your position of removing all responsibility for carrying your own load is sad when you compare it with the counsel we get in the Bible. This completely ignores the counsel that Paul gave to the Galatians:
(Galatians 1:6-9) 6 I am amazed that you are so quickly turning away from the One who called you with ChristÂ’s undeserved kindness to another sort of good news. 7 Not that there is another good news; but there are certain ones who are causing you trouble and wanting to distort the good news about the Christ. 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed. Paul said it didn't matter how highly regarded the men were that were preaching another sort of good news, they could be men of high regard, they could even be pillars in the congregation. In fact, they could even be "angels." But we should not accept any good news beyond what Christ Jesus tells us to follow. And who were these men that might have even been considered by some to be on par with "angels"? Let's see.
Who is it that Paul makes a point of saying that he did NOT see when he went to Jerusalem?
(Galatians 1:16, 17) . . .I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. Why do you think it was important for Paul to make it so clear that he did NOT go to Jerusalem where the apostles were?
(Galatians 1:18-20) 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ce?phas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. 19 But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now regarding the things I am writing you, I assure you before God that I am not lying. Why make it a point that it was three years before he saw Peter or James, and even then for only 2 weeks, and that he did NOT see any of the other apostles?
(Galatians 2:1-5) . . .Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Bar?na·bas, also taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up as a result of a revelation, and I presented to them the good news that I am preaching among the nations. This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded, to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain. 3 Nevertheless, not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. 4 But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us; 5 we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you. Why do you think Paul considers it so important to say it wasn't until 14 whole years later that he visited Jerusalem again, and this time it wasn't because they called him, it was because he had a revelation to tell them? Obviously these men who were highly regarded were the apostles, especially. But he again makes a point that they weren't able to compel his traveling companion to be circumcised. He says the whole matter wouldn't have even come up if false brothers hadn't been brought in to spy on them. But he didn't yield in submission to them. What is so important about not yielding to the apostles and older men of Jerusalem. Again, who likely sent these false brothers who were brought in?
(Galatians 2:12) 12 For before certain men from James arrived,. . . So who were these ones who "seemed to be important"? Who were these ones who "seemed to be pillars"?
(Galatians 2:6-9) 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary, . . .  9 and when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ce?phas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars. . . Today, we would call these ones the "Governing Body," right?
So why does Paul go to so much trouble to tell the Galatians that they must be senseless for having listened to them, and been influenced by them? Why does he say they are accursed if they accepted teachings from the Governing Body that were not in line with what Jesus taught them? Do you think that Paul said this only to brag? Or was he making a point about following God instead of a Governing Body when it comes to doctrine? I'm sure you know the answer, but Paul gives it, too:
(Galatians 1:10) 10 . . . .Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be ChristÂ’s slave. Jesus goes through the same issues to John in Revelation when he gives counsel about the various congregations. The representative of each congregation is called an "angel" here too.
(Revelation 2:1, 2) 2 “To the angel of the congregation in Eph?e·sus write: . . . ‘I know your deeds,. . . and that you put to the test those who say they are apostles, . . . This does not mean that we expect the leadership of the congregations or the Governing Body to mislead us. They surely would never do such a thing on purpose. But the verses show that it is right for us to put to the test those who seem to be important, those who seem to be pillars, those who are highly regarded, even the very ones we would now call the "Governing Body." Even we expect 99.9% of what is taught to be correct, it is still our own responsibility to put to the test those who teach doctrinal matters, because it is much more important to follow Christ wherever he goes.
(Galatians 6:5) 5 For each one will carry his own load.  

You did not include the context, and I can see why. This comes across as just as dishonest, although I'll assume you might not have realized this.
[edited to replace some earlier assumptions] I never claimed to get any special interpretations. In fact, I was talking about YOUR special interpretations. I'll assume you didn't understand this. I was referring to the ridiculous kinds of special interpretations that YOU defend when you pick the most unlikely meaning of each word to fit an interpretation. You claimed that we should defend the most unlikely meanings, because our interpretation SHOULD be the most unlikley, while Christendom accepts the most likely meaning. That's why I said "SUPPOSE" that I used  the same ridiculous logic in order to MISunderstand what you were saying.
So, back to the question you pretended to ask:
The context was how you @bruceq, could be misinterpreted if someone were to take your words and act as if some of the most unlikely meanings of your words
So, to recap, you made a statement: . . . And I said that if I took the words in it and forced unlikely meanings on them that this would force a misinterpretation. You had also argued that if Christendom doesn't agree with an interpretation that it must therefore be right, which is also ridiculous on its own. So I asked you to imagine (I used the word "suppose") that I found a way to make your words mean something ridiculous. So I was also saying that [if I were using bruceq's logic], I could even defend my special interpretation, because I'm sure I could find persons in Christendom who understood it correctly, therefore they must be wrong and this unlikely interpretation would be right, according to your way of thinking.
So I showed you what a ridiculous mistake I would be making if I used the methods you had just defended to defend this "special interpretation" of your meaning based on definitions of words were that were not only unlikely, they were ridiculous.
I apologize that my previous assumptions here, made it appear that you were purposefully dishonest. Even if they weren't purposeful, your assumptions, after taking those words out of context, still appear to be dishonest, so I'm just suggesting that you look at context more carefully.

The foundation you gave for your question indicates that you missed the point about special definitions. You have mixed up  interpretations with definitions. What this topic was about was how using unlikely definitions of certain words has contributed to the interpretation. 
Here's an example. Suppose you tell me the following phrase, which I just picked from one of your posts in this thread:
This is a sentiment that should be easy to understand, and it's one I agree with whole-heartedly. But let's say that I start using the least likely meanings of the words you used, and it becomes the basis of a completely different interpretation. For example:
Bruceq refers to the sins of Babylon the Great, which obviously refers to the current problems of the city council in the town of Babylon, New York. And we know that just as in the expression "Greater Boston area" ( Greater Boston - Wikipedia ) this refers to not just the area within the city limits of Babylon, New York, but the other suburban areas that come under the jurisdiction of the "Town of Babylon."
Bruceq says he wants to share in the mistakes of Jehovah's people. Well, we know that Jehovah's people were the Jews in the Hebrew Scriptures, and so what were those mistakes he wants to share in?
(1 Corinthians 10:6-11) 6 Now these things became our examples, for us not to be persons desiring injurious things, even as they desired them. 7 Neither become idolaters, as some of them did; just as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink, and they got up to have a good time.” 8 Neither let us practice fornication, as some of them committed fornication, only to fall, twenty-three thousand [of them] in one day. 9 Neither let us put Jehovah to the test, as some of them put [him] to the test, only to perish by the serpents. 10 Neither be murmurers, just as some of them murmured, only to perish by the destroyer. 11 Now these things went on befalling them as examples, and they were written for a warning to us upon whom the ends of the systems of things have arrived.
Even less likely, I could assume that you were referring specifically, to the idea of perishing by serpents, which I highlighted above. So I therefore interpret your phrase to mean the following:
"But I would rather perish by serpents than join the Town Council of the town of Babylon, New York."
And I could even defend my special interpretation by pointing out that the "correct" interpretation must always be the least likely because persons in Christendom would have more likely understood it to mean exactly what you intended. Obviously, what most people thought you meant must be wrong, because people in Christendom would agree with it.
Similarly, we have formed the foundation of the invisible parousia interpretation by accepting the least likely meanings of words and terms like "lightning" "shine" "observableness" "parousia" "synteleia" "sign" "generation" "appointed times of the nations." The most important of these special interpretations were inherited from the "private interpretations" of Nelson Barbour. And they therefore came to us as long-standing traditions that started back around 1875. 

@Annasince you asked about this: In the context of what @Arauna had said I was referring to the relative importance of being smart, scholarly or even RIGHT. We don't need to get all up in arms or push ahead. Knowledge is not the most important thing for Christians, as we both acknowledged.
At the time, I was thinking of this Scripture, where the context ON BOTH SIDES OF THE VERSE makes it appear that humility is the factor that keeps us from stumbling others, and that humility is the factor that keeps us from creating divisions among sincere persons who want to do what is right. Even if they have a zeal for God but not according to accurate knowledge.
(Mark 9:33-42) 33 And they came into Ca·perʹna·um. Now when he was inside the house, he put the question to them: “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34 They kept silent, for on the road they had been arguing among themselves about who is greater. 35 So he sat down and called the Twelve and said to them: “If anyone wants to be first, he must be last of all and minister of all.” 36 Then he took a young child and stood him in their midst; and putting his arms around him, he said to them: 37 “Whoever receives one of such young children on the basis of my name receives me also; and whoever receives me receives not me only but also Him who sent me.” 38 John said to him: “Teacher, we saw someone expelling demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one who will do a powerful work on the basis of my name who will quickly be able to say anything bad about me. 40 For whoever is not against us is for us. 41 And whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ, I tell you truly, he will by no means lose his reward. 42 But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith, it would be better for him if a millstone that is turned by a donkey were put around his neck and he were pitched into the sea.
(Luke 9:46-50) 46 Then a dispute arose among them about which one of them was the greatest. 47 Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts, took a young child, stood him beside him, 48 and said to them: “Whoever receives this young child on the basis of my name receives me also; and whoever receives me also receives the One who sent me. For the one who conducts himself as a lesser one among all of you is the one who is great.” 49 In response John said: “Instructor, we saw someone expelling demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he is not following with us.” 50 But Jesus said to him: “Do not try to prevent him, for whoever is not against you is for you.”
We expect the Governing Body to show the humility of the faithful discreet slave, not the idea that they should push ahead and claim things that they do not have knowledge of yet. As Arauna said, we (including the slave) must recognize Jehovah and the true channel, which is Christ the Head, our Exemplar, along with his Word and spirit so that we may have the same spirit and attitude of Christ Jesus. Jesus could have cleared up all questions of Law, but instead he focused on love, justice, and kindness. As long as everyone recognizes that this is the true channel, we will be blessed with more of Jehovah's spirit, stay connected with him, and stay in the truth. 

Then why did the Watchtower ever change anything if everything was directly from scripture? Obviously you are saying that this might not have been true last year, because some things have already changed since then, but it must be true this year. But if it's true this year, then you are claiming that any changes made for next year are no longer directly from Scripture, unless of course you are arguing that the Scriptures contradict themselves. You are using cult-speak even though the Watchtower is not a cult.
Obviously we need to question ourselves first, but to answer your first question, it's our Christian obligation to question the anointed ones. You've seen a dozen scriptures to this effect, and you evidently do not believe in them. By whose power and authority do you decide it's OK to go against the Bible, and not to question the anointed ones?
(1 John 4:1) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, . . .
(Philippians 1:8-10) . . .. 9 And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; 10 that you may make sure of the more important things,. . .
(1 Thessalonians 5:21) 21 Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.
(2 Corinthians 13:5) 5 Keep testing whether you are in the faith; keep proving what you yourselves are.. . .
(1 Corinthians 11:19) 19 For there will certainly also be sects among you, so that those of you who are approved may also become evident.
(Romans 12:2) . . .be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
(2 Corinthians 10:4, 5) 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. 5 For we are overturning reasonings . . .
(Philippians 4:5) 5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . .
(James 1:6) 6 But let him keep asking in faith, not doubting at all, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind and blown about.
 

Ummmm...I hate to sound critical, but I will ask the obvious question, what about those teachings that weren't actually true and we taught them as truth, until we found out otherwise. Are you hereby saying Jesus was lying?

I don't quite understand what you mean by this
I agree with you
I don't really see that when Jesus told people to drink his blood and eat his flesh is an example of something that wasn't true but later was. This is just a case of interpretation. The people interpreted that to be taken literally (false premise), but Jesus meant it symbolically (correct understanding). Using your example of drinking Jesus' blood and eating his flesh, it's like if we had taught that this was literal, but later, we correctly discerned it was symbolic. According to your argument Jesus would be guiding this thinking when we thought it literal?
The thing is, these bumps in the road are our own making. We create the bumps.They are nothing to do with Jesus. The changes made by the Chariot are because WE had got thing wrong. If we had got them right the Chariot wouldn't need to change at all. It shows Jesus' and Jehovah's purpose does not change but sometimes has to take a detour to go around a wrong teaching (the bump) and get back on the correct path (when we finally get it right). Who knows, the chariot might be taking a big detour right now around 1914. It had to take that detour several times because of a wrong date. It took one around the 1925 teaching until 1925 passed, and the Chariot could get back on track....

The kings were appointed by Jehovah. It went well with them and the nation if they inquired from Jehovah and followed the directions of the prophets.  Disaster struck when they did not follow the instructions from the prophets. Jehovah kept sending prophets and they kept rejecting them.

I don't quite understand what you mean by this
I agree with you
I don't really see that when Jesus told people to drink his blood and eat his flesh is an example of something that wasn't true but later was. This is just a case of interpretation. The people interpreted that to be taken literally (false premise), but Jesus meant it symbolically (correct understanding). Using your example of drinking Jesus' blood and eating his flesh, it's like if we had taught that this was literal, but later, we correctly discerned it was symbolic. According to your argument Jesus would be guiding this thinking when we thought it literal?
The thing is, these bumps in the road are our own making. We create the bumps.They are nothing to do with Jesus. The changes made by the Chariot are because WE had got thing wrong. If we had got them right the Chariot wouldn't need to change at all. It shows Jesus' and Jehovah's purpose does not change but sometimes has to take a detour to go around a wrong teaching (the bump) and get back on the correct path (when we finally get it right). Who knows, the chariot might be taking a big detour right now around 1914. It had to take that detour several times because of a wrong date. It took one around the 1925 teaching until 1925 passed, and the Chariot could get back on track....

If I remember right, is it  those Bible discussions that eventually led to the "dissidency"? I don't think it was just reading and discussing the Bible, but it was coming up with another interpretation, which they liked better than the official JW teaching.....

Ummmm...I hate to sound critical, but I will ask the obvious question, what about those teachings that weren't actually true and we taught them as truth, until we found out otherwise. Are you hereby saying Jesus was lying?

I don't quite understand what you mean by this
I agree with you
I don't really see that when Jesus told people to drink his blood and eat his flesh is an example of something that wasn't true but later was. This is just a case of interpretation. The people interpreted that to be taken literally (false premise), but Jesus meant it symbolically (correct understanding). Using your example of drinking Jesus' blood and eating his flesh, it's like if we had taught that this was literal, but later, we correctly discerned it was symbolic. According to your argument Jesus would be guiding this thinking when we thought it literal?
The thing is, these bumps in the road are our own making. We create the bumps.They are nothing to do with Jesus. The changes made by the Chariot are because WE had got thing wrong. If we had got them right the Chariot wouldn't need to change at all. It shows Jesus' and Jehovah's purpose does not change but sometimes has to take a detour to go around a wrong teaching (the bump) and get back on the correct path (when we finally get it right). Who knows, the chariot might be taking a big detour right now around 1914. It had to take that detour several times because of a wrong date. It took one around the 1925 teaching until 1925 passed, and the Chariot could get back on track....

I don't quite understand what you mean by this
I agree with you
I don't really see that when Jesus told people to drink his blood and eat his flesh is an example of something that wasn't true but later was. This is just a case of interpretation. The people interpreted that to be taken literally (false premise), but Jesus meant it symbolically (correct understanding). Using your example of drinking Jesus' blood and eating his flesh, it's like if we had taught that this was literal, but later, we correctly discerned it was symbolic. According to your argument Jesus would be guiding this thinking when we thought it literal?
The thing is, these bumps in the road are our own making. We create the bumps.They are nothing to do with Jesus. The changes made by the Chariot are because WE had got thing wrong. If we had got them right the Chariot wouldn't need to change at all. It shows Jesus' and Jehovah's purpose does not change but sometimes has to take a detour to go around a wrong teaching (the bump) and get back on the correct path (when we finally get it right). Who knows, the chariot might be taking a big detour right now around 1914. It had to take that detour several times because of a wrong date. It took one around the 1925 teaching until 1925 passed, and the Chariot could get back on track....

We are way off topic here (not your fault) but it's impossible to discuss a controversial topic without such subjects coming up. I think that what happened was fairly obvious only to those who watched the tension build up from about 1975 until 1979. The big blow-up actually happened internally in the late spring of 1979 but the repercussions didn't start happening until the spring of 1980, when heads first started to roll. (My work at Bethel started in 1976 and lasted until 1982.)  What really happened is much more complex, and I don't think it had much of anything to do with the popularity of group Bible reading. I think the crackdown on group Bible reading was just a knee-jerk response. If I had to simplify it, I'd say . . . . . we need another topic to discuss this, because it's just not that simple.

The first Governing Body did a fantastic job - but when we start looking at the incompetencies in the congregations etc.  (the issue with the bias regarding the feeding of the widows; the issues which arose regarding the circumcision, eating food previously offered to idols etc..)..another picture emerges.  These were all issues that were not immediately addressed and could have caused some distress in the congregations for a period of time.... until the matter was taken up with the GB or other solutions were found.    It was necessary for Paul to write letters and keep a watchful eye on new undesirable things in the congregations such as false teachings.  etc..
Today we have the same issues - nothing has changed concerning the desires of mankind and its endeavors.  To me the test is this:  when other churches come and challenge us with their scholarship - I look at what they are DOING on the ground.  Are THEY fulfilling the prophecy of Matt 24:14 - or are we?   Do they have a slave who is feeding the entire world free of charge - or are we?
So imperfect as we are - we are being obedient to Jehovah and doing the work he gave us to do - miraculously not by our own power.... even if everything is not perfect and needs constant work.

In field service we are in the business of changing peoples way of thinking and learning to think for themselves.  However, freedom of thought comes with responsibility and self-control.  Satan did not use this correctly and neither did Adam.  He did not control his freedom of thinking and his subsequent desires and broke his relationship with Jehovah.  So NO - in field service we teach people to think for themselves but explore a thinking in line with Jehovah's thinking - not away from Jehovah's thinking.   One can use freedom of expression/thinking in a bad way - just like every other good thing.
I belonged to one of the protestant churches with a 400 year history of dogmatic adherence to teachings that were laid down as law by the church father.  No change to teachings in 400 years.  Thank goodness I now belong to a religion which is prepared to cautiously adapt to new thinking and re-investigate its older core teachings.   Sometimes in the past they have not been as cautious as they should have been and maybe in future too - but at least they are prepared to be open to change and to grow! not stagnate in ancient hoo-ha.

Ummmm...I hate to sound critical, but I will ask the obvious question, what about those teachings that weren't actually true and we taught them as truth, until we found out otherwise. Are you hereby saying Jesus was lying?

LOL. And there was me thinking at one point, I think it was beginning of July, we had all reached an amicable conclusion, something to the effect of we will agree to disagree and still be friends, but then the thread got re-visited with added fury a month later, and more than doubled from a previous 6 pages to 13. It looks like it just can't be given a rest, but those little humorous interludes do brighten things up a bit, and give everyone a breather, to gather strength for the next "scholastic" onslaught