Anna

JWI - I'm trying to find a way to formulate, by way of illustration or otherwise (the shorter the explanation the better), the dividing line between conscience and scriptural responsibility and actively being told by authority that some non-obvious thing is true and that one must believe the non-obvious thing is true and teach someone else in the same manner that this non-obvious thing is true.
You can and do have people in every organization JW/and non JW orgs who cross over the line either deifying conscience or deifying organization. Both of these are wrong and both of these may be done by individuals who are individually or collectively being "faithful" as they see what it means to be faithful.
Granted that imperfection exists in all humans, one would assume this imperfection would find some manifestation in organizations used by Jehovah (some latitude is demanded by this fact scripturally and practically).
So just as we see that there is a difference between allowing something to pass (Jehovah allowing) and causing (Jehovah causing) something to pass there is a difference between Jehovah actively approving of a given idea/interpretation and his allowance of a given idea/interpretation being present among those organizations he is using.
I remember reading the account in the book of Acts about Paul being told by holy spirit how he was to give a witness to Caesar and showed him many things he would suffer, and the delta between the elders in Jerusalem and their particular local agenda and Jehovah's agenda when it came about that Paul was accused of teaching an apostasy from Moses. The elders in Jerusalem in all their wisdom decided to get Paul to take care of two men and their closure of their vows of naziriteship at the temple publicly to dispel this idea. (Never mind that Paul's understanding would still likely have been considered an apostasy "no, you don't get it", Paul might say "I'm not saying it's WRONG to do these things, it's just not required for salvation!"). So the brothers in Jerusalem had one agenda (were they being cowardly, or discreet?), but Jehovah had a different one, because Jehovah could see that this would lead to a riot, Roman soldiers getting involved and then Paul appealing on the basis of his Roman citizenship to Caesar, thus fulfilling the dictates of Jehovah's will.
So this scriptural account, and there are others which are less proximate in my mind which might be used could be used as an example of Jehovah's earthly organization imagining one thing to be the thing which is important, but Jehovah had something else in mind. (It could also be an inducement to be less dogmatic)
***Again I'm just thinking aloud and using this thread to keep track****
 
 

I never thought I would use a Catholic site to explain the difference between bowing down and worshiping but here is:
Question:
Catholics say that they don’t worship Mary, but isn’t it the case that their actions suggest otherwise, such as when they bow before a statue of Mary? Answer:
The question assumes that bowing before something or someone necessarily involves worship. But this is not true.
For example, Solomon didn’t offer worship to his mother when he bowed before her in 1 Kings 2:19. It was simply a gesture of honor, since Bathsheba was the queen mother. Isaac wasn’t prophesying that the nations would worship his son Jacob when he said, “Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you” (Gen. 27:29). He was merely indicating that the nations would honor Jacob and his descendants.
Moreover, the act of bowing can’t be idolatrous in and of itself, because God commands that it be directed to finite beings. For example, in Revelation 3:9 Jesus says that he will make “those of the synagogue of Satan” “bow down” before the feet of the Christians in Philadelphia. If bowing before another were an act of worship, then Jesus would be commanding idolatry. But that’s absurd.
It’s possible that someone who bows before a statue of Mary might offer the statue, or Mary herself, worship. But the idolatry would not be due to the act of bowing. It would be due to the intentional offering of worship; like in the case of Cornelius who bowed before Peter and worshipped him (Acts 10:25-26). If a Catholic were to do such a thing, they would need to repent and begin offering worship to the one who alone has a right to our worship—namely, God.
Edit: I forgot to include the source: https://www.catholic.com/qa/bowing-isnt-worshipping
 

No, I don't see this, at all.
Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”
The Bible is explicitly clear that worship belongs only to God.
It is a case of what does "worship", as opposed to "obeisance" or "bowing down" or "honoring" mean?
I understand this to mean that you can bow down, kneel or curtsy to anyone entitled to such a sign of respect and honor. But you would not worship them.
Unfortunately the Greek word proskuneo has been translated in various ways in different Bibles depending on what the translator "deemed appropriate" 
For example in the same Bible (New American Standard Bible): 
Matthew 2:2: "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him."
Matthew 8:2 And a leper came to Him and bowed down before Him, and said, "Lord , if You are willing, You can make me clean.
Matthew 14:33 And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly God's Son!
Matthew 15:25 But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord , help me!"
Matthew 20:20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her sons, bowing down and making a request of Him
Matthew 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. etc.
The Darby translation:
Matthew 2:2 Where is the king of the Jews that has been born? for we have seen his star in the east, and have come to do him homage.
Matthew 14:33 But those in the ship came and did homage to him, saying, Truly thou art God's Son etc...
 
Mark 15:19:
American Standard Version: And they smote his head with a reed, and spat upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him
Good News Translation: They beat him over the head with a stick, spat on him, fell on their knees, and bowed down to him.
King James Version: And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him.
Duay Rheims Catholic: And they struck his head with a reed: and they did spit on him. And bowing their knees, they adored him
ETC.
Strong's Number: 4352 Browse Lexicon Original Word Word Origin proskuneo from (4314) and a probable derivative of (2965) (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand) Transliterated Word TDNT Entry Proskuneo 6:758,948 Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech pros-koo-neh'-o Verb Definition to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank to the Jewish high priests to God to Christ to heavenly beings to demons   NAS Word Usage - Total: 60 bow down 1, bow down before 1, bowed down 1, bowed down before 2, bowing before 1, bowing down 1, prostrated himself before 1, worship 32, worshiped 17, worshipers 1, worshiping 1, worships 1
 
 

It only means one thing: You have overcome prejudice.
I adore you.
adore = to love and respect someone very much, or to like something very much - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/adore

From the sahidicinsight blogspot linked above:
 
John 14:14: To "me" or not to "me", that is the question
  With apologies to Shakespeare's Hamlet.

Many modern Bible translations are based on a critical text like the Nestle-Aland 27 (NA27). At John 14:14 such texts read: ἐάν τι αἰτήσητέ με ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐγὼ ποιήσω, "If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it." (English Standard Version)

New Testament textual scholars consider the Alexandrian text to be generally "the best text and the most faithful in preserving the original." (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 5) The "me" reading is found in a number of such ancient textual witnesses, including p66 (2nd century).

The Sahidic Coptic text (2nd/3rd century) is also in the Alexandrian text family. Like still other ancient witnesses, it does not have "me" at John 14:14.

Rather, the Sahidic Coptic text reads: ЄΤЄΤΝϢΑΝΑΙΤЄΙ ΝΟΥϨШΒ ϨΜ ΠΑΡΑΝ ΠΑΙ ϯΝΑΑΑϤ, "If you should ask anything in my name, this I will do."

Some scholars think that "ask me" is original because it is the more difficult reading. That is a consideration, but a more important consideration would be if it squares with everything else that Jesus said and did.

"Ask me" would be logical in the immediate context of Jesus' speaking with his disciples while he was still with them. Even the first Christian martyr Stephen implored Jesus as if he were still present. (Acts 7:59) But it is not unusual that Jesus as a living presence would still resonate with Stephen, since Jesus' ministry and resurrection were recent events for Stephen.

However, beyond that context, Jesus directs Christians to pray to "Our Father" (Matthew 6:9), and the apostle Paul said "I bend my knees to the Father." (Ephesians 3:14)

There is no other verse in the New Testament where Jesus requests or directs that prayer as an act of worship should be addressed to him. If the "me" reading is original, it would be an anomaly that is out of character with the whole New Testament.

"Ask me...in my name" is tautological, a needless repetition that is also ambiguous. Further, in the context of the Gospel of John as a whole, "ask me...in my name" is strange doctrine, if it is taken to refer to prayer.

But the Sahidic Coptic reading, ЄΤЄΤΝϢΑΝΑΙΤЄΙ ΝΟΥϨШΒ ϨΜ ΠΑΡΑΝ ΠΑΙ ϯΝΑΑΑϤ, "If you should ask anything in my name, this I will do," harmonizes with the rest of Jesus' teaching. -- John 15:16; 16:23   http://sahidicinsight.blogspot.com/    

Some interesting observations form a  blog:
John 14:14 'me' is omitted after 'ask' in the following trinitarian Bibles:

ASV; CBW; Darby; GNV; JB; KJ21; KJV; MLB; NEB; REB; NKJV; LB; MKJV (Green); NLV; RSV; WEB; WE; Young’s. 
Many of them do not mention an alternate reading of 'me' in a note! And, likewise, many of the Bibles which do translate ‘ask me’ in this verse do not mention an alternate reading without ‘me’!!

The prestigious The Expositor’s Greek New Testament (Vol. 1, p. 824) also omits “me” from its text and does not even bother to address the matter in its voluminous notes.  Bible Analyzer calls this 5-volume work “The Premier Greek Resource.”

This is a disputed text. There exists manuscript evidence that ‘me’ may not have been used by the original writer.  (Also see http://sahidicinsight.blogspot.com/  - Nov. 2, 2010 - where ‘Memra’ explains the importance of the ancient Coptic translation of this verse.)

However, there is no such dispute about John 16:23 where John wrote: “... whatever you ask the Father for, he will give you in my name.” We should ask the Father (not the Son) in Jesus’ name. Therefore 'me' at John 14:14 is even more in doubt.

Bowman has access to a copy of (and is quite familiar with) the 1984 NWT Reference Bible. He repeatedly quotes from it and refers to notes in it in both this 1991 publication (Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses) and his 1989 publication, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John.

Yes, the 1984 NWT Reference Bible (which does have notes, of course) says in a footnote for John 14:14:

14* “Ask,” ADIt and in agreement with 15:16 and 16:23; P66 [Aleph]BWVgSy(h,p), “ask me.”
Source:
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2010/11/john-1414-from-rdb-files.html
 

I never thought I would use a Catholic site to explain the difference between bowing down and worshiping but here is:
Question:
Catholics say that they don’t worship Mary, but isn’t it the case that their actions suggest otherwise, such as when they bow before a statue of Mary? Answer:
The question assumes that bowing before something or someone necessarily involves worship. But this is not true.
For example, Solomon didn’t offer worship to his mother when he bowed before her in 1 Kings 2:19. It was simply a gesture of honor, since Bathsheba was the queen mother. Isaac wasn’t prophesying that the nations would worship his son Jacob when he said, “Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you” (Gen. 27:29). He was merely indicating that the nations would honor Jacob and his descendants.
Moreover, the act of bowing can’t be idolatrous in and of itself, because God commands that it be directed to finite beings. For example, in Revelation 3:9 Jesus says that he will make “those of the synagogue of Satan” “bow down” before the feet of the Christians in Philadelphia. If bowing before another were an act of worship, then Jesus would be commanding idolatry. But that’s absurd.
It’s possible that someone who bows before a statue of Mary might offer the statue, or Mary herself, worship. But the idolatry would not be due to the act of bowing. It would be due to the intentional offering of worship; like in the case of Cornelius who bowed before Peter and worshipped him (Acts 10:25-26). If a Catholic were to do such a thing, they would need to repent and begin offering worship to the one who alone has a right to our worship—namely, God.
Edit: I forgot to include the source: https://www.catholic.com/qa/bowing-isnt-worshipping
 

No, I don't see this, at all.
Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”
The Bible is explicitly clear that worship belongs only to God.
It is a case of what does "worship", as opposed to "obeisance" or "bowing down" or "honoring" mean?
I understand this to mean that you can bow down, kneel or curtsy to anyone entitled to such a sign of respect and honor. But you would not worship them.
Unfortunately the Greek word proskuneo has been translated in various ways in different Bibles depending on what the translator "deemed appropriate" 
For example in the same Bible (New American Standard Bible): 
Matthew 2:2: "Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him."
Matthew 8:2 And a leper came to Him and bowed down before Him, and said, "Lord , if You are willing, You can make me clean.
Matthew 14:33 And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly God's Son!
Matthew 15:25 But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord , help me!"
Matthew 20:20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her sons, bowing down and making a request of Him
Matthew 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. etc.
The Darby translation:
Matthew 2:2 Where is the king of the Jews that has been born? for we have seen his star in the east, and have come to do him homage.
Matthew 14:33 But those in the ship came and did homage to him, saying, Truly thou art God's Son etc...
 
Mark 15:19:
American Standard Version: And they smote his head with a reed, and spat upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him
Good News Translation: They beat him over the head with a stick, spat on him, fell on their knees, and bowed down to him.
King James Version: And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him.
Duay Rheims Catholic: And they struck his head with a reed: and they did spit on him. And bowing their knees, they adored him
ETC.
Strong's Number: 4352 Browse Lexicon Original Word Word Origin proskuneo from (4314) and a probable derivative of (2965) (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand) Transliterated Word TDNT Entry Proskuneo 6:758,948 Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech pros-koo-neh'-o Verb Definition to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank to the Jewish high priests to God to Christ to heavenly beings to demons   NAS Word Usage - Total: 60 bow down 1, bow down before 1, bowed down 1, bowed down before 2, bowing before 1, bowing down 1, prostrated himself before 1, worship 32, worshiped 17, worshipers 1, worshiping 1, worships 1
 
 

I wouldn't have done it because I wouldn't have had the motivation. Some people are stupid enough and mentally dull enough to sit through lectures IF they either get stupidly in debt or their parents pay for it. I wasn't stupid enough in any of these ways to do that.
I remember listening to one lecture and afterwards realized the professor could have said all that he said in less than five minutes. Instead it was an hour of painfully slow stupid meandering.

Now we know why he worships the JW Org. 

Witness. Good idea. Keep them all stockpiled in her garage. She will know who is deserving.

From the sahidicinsight blogspot linked above:
 
John 14:14: To "me" or not to "me", that is the question
  With apologies to Shakespeare's Hamlet.

Many modern Bible translations are based on a critical text like the Nestle-Aland 27 (NA27). At John 14:14 such texts read: ἐάν τι αἰτήσητέ με ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐγὼ ποιήσω, "If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it." (English Standard Version)

New Testament textual scholars consider the Alexandrian text to be generally "the best text and the most faithful in preserving the original." (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 5) The "me" reading is found in a number of such ancient textual witnesses, including p66 (2nd century).

The Sahidic Coptic text (2nd/3rd century) is also in the Alexandrian text family. Like still other ancient witnesses, it does not have "me" at John 14:14.

Rather, the Sahidic Coptic text reads: ЄΤЄΤΝϢΑΝΑΙΤЄΙ ΝΟΥϨШΒ ϨΜ ΠΑΡΑΝ ΠΑΙ ϯΝΑΑΑϤ, "If you should ask anything in my name, this I will do."

Some scholars think that "ask me" is original because it is the more difficult reading. That is a consideration, but a more important consideration would be if it squares with everything else that Jesus said and did.

"Ask me" would be logical in the immediate context of Jesus' speaking with his disciples while he was still with them. Even the first Christian martyr Stephen implored Jesus as if he were still present. (Acts 7:59) But it is not unusual that Jesus as a living presence would still resonate with Stephen, since Jesus' ministry and resurrection were recent events for Stephen.

However, beyond that context, Jesus directs Christians to pray to "Our Father" (Matthew 6:9), and the apostle Paul said "I bend my knees to the Father." (Ephesians 3:14)

There is no other verse in the New Testament where Jesus requests or directs that prayer as an act of worship should be addressed to him. If the "me" reading is original, it would be an anomaly that is out of character with the whole New Testament.

"Ask me...in my name" is tautological, a needless repetition that is also ambiguous. Further, in the context of the Gospel of John as a whole, "ask me...in my name" is strange doctrine, if it is taken to refer to prayer.

But the Sahidic Coptic reading, ЄΤЄΤΝϢΑΝΑΙΤЄΙ ΝΟΥϨШΒ ϨΜ ΠΑΡΑΝ ΠΑΙ ϯΝΑΑΑϤ, "If you should ask anything in my name, this I will do," harmonizes with the rest of Jesus' teaching. -- John 15:16; 16:23   http://sahidicinsight.blogspot.com/    

Some interesting observations form a  blog:
John 14:14 'me' is omitted after 'ask' in the following trinitarian Bibles:

ASV; CBW; Darby; GNV; JB; KJ21; KJV; MLB; NEB; REB; NKJV; LB; MKJV (Green); NLV; RSV; WEB; WE; Young’s. 
Many of them do not mention an alternate reading of 'me' in a note! And, likewise, many of the Bibles which do translate ‘ask me’ in this verse do not mention an alternate reading without ‘me’!!

The prestigious The Expositor’s Greek New Testament (Vol. 1, p. 824) also omits “me” from its text and does not even bother to address the matter in its voluminous notes.  Bible Analyzer calls this 5-volume work “The Premier Greek Resource.”

This is a disputed text. There exists manuscript evidence that ‘me’ may not have been used by the original writer.  (Also see http://sahidicinsight.blogspot.com/  - Nov. 2, 2010 - where ‘Memra’ explains the importance of the ancient Coptic translation of this verse.)

However, there is no such dispute about John 16:23 where John wrote: “... whatever you ask the Father for, he will give you in my name.” We should ask the Father (not the Son) in Jesus’ name. Therefore 'me' at John 14:14 is even more in doubt.

Bowman has access to a copy of (and is quite familiar with) the 1984 NWT Reference Bible. He repeatedly quotes from it and refers to notes in it in both this 1991 publication (Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses) and his 1989 publication, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John.

Yes, the 1984 NWT Reference Bible (which does have notes, of course) says in a footnote for John 14:14:

14* “Ask,” ADIt and in agreement with 15:16 and 16:23; P66 [Aleph]BWVgSy(h,p), “ask me.”
Source:
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2010/11/john-1414-from-rdb-files.html
 

I don't see ME in this interlinear
https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh14.pdf
 

I will put that on our watcht list, although my husband will probably say we've already seen it. That's the trouble, when it comes to movies I have a brain like a sieve, well not just movies. I tell him if I ever get Alzhimers he won't notice the difference....
Yes, I hate that too. It's such a pity when good quality movies are peppered with swear words, they grate on me like nails on a chalkboard. They are really not necessary. The other day we watched something pretty tense (don't ask me what it was) and it had no swear words in it at all! It didn't take away from the story. In fact I doubt anyone, even the most cuss filled people, would have objected. I can't see anyone saying; well I can't watch this, there isn't a swear word every 2 minutes. 
I used to hate it even more when our teenage soon would  watch something with us. He would casually say: mum, that's nothing, I hear that at school all day....
That is cultural. The more you see it the less you notice it. I lived in one country where the sisters were dressed more sparse on top. Everyone else was. Nobody seemed to care. Then I moved to the USA and I had to adjust my wardrobe slightly.  It's funny, but even movies are categorised differently here. Nudity (without sex) gets you an immediate R, but gory violence a pg 13, whereas elsewhere, only violence (and obviously explicit sex scenes) gets the R treatment. 
In any case, as my mum would say, in paradise we are all wearing fig leaves. Hey, even Rutherford thought it ok to depict Eve topless....

I will put that on our watcht list, although my husband will probably say we've already seen it. That's the trouble, when it comes to movies I have a brain like a sieve, well not just movies. I tell him if I ever get Alzhimers he won't notice the difference....
Yes, I hate that too. It's such a pity when good quality movies are peppered with swear words, they grate on me like nails on a chalkboard. They are really not necessary. The other day we watched something pretty tense (don't ask me what it was) and it had no swear words in it at all! It didn't take away from the story. In fact I doubt anyone, even the most cuss filled people, would have objected. I can't see anyone saying; well I can't watch this, there isn't a swear word every 2 minutes. 
I used to hate it even more when our teenage soon would  watch something with us. He would casually say: mum, that's nothing, I hear that at school all day....
That is cultural. The more you see it the less you notice it. I lived in one country where the sisters were dressed more sparse on top. Everyone else was. Nobody seemed to care. Then I moved to the USA and I had to adjust my wardrobe slightly.  It's funny, but even movies are categorised differently here. Nudity (without sex) gets you an immediate R, but gory violence a pg 13, whereas elsewhere, only violence (and obviously explicit sex scenes) gets the R treatment. 
In any case, as my mum would say, in paradise we are all wearing fig leaves. Hey, even Rutherford thought it ok to depict Eve topless....

Nathan W Pyle's alien comics are hilarious. Without kids, I don't think I would have known. Do you think the WTS will ever make use of something like them to help show the folly of Birthdays (aka Emergence Days)? Or Valentine's Day?

Okay, I went through it. Yes, I do like it. I just needed the energy of a brand new day. I only put my daily Bible reading ahead of it—I hope nobody minds. The spies getting all weak-kneed in the promised land, bunch of wusses.
The blog & artwork is generational, and I am of an older generation. But I did like it, the simple drawing with bright colors.
My daughter keeps sending me a similar set of cartoons that are likewise generational, but they grow on one. Beings from another planet poking gentle fun at customs by describing it in words they don’t quite have.

I’ll check out Chicago if I can. I may have a hard time sneaking it past my wife. I see some review that there is language throughout. I get it that it would be historical, but to her a #@!* is a #@!*
It’a hard even to get a murder mystery in, since they always start with someone being killed. 
We did recently watch Bridge of Spies (for the 2nd time, and I rarely watch anything a 2nd time) But Tom Hanks can turn anything into gold and this Spielberg movie is gold to begin with. 
 

Sigh—I don’t want to be crude, but the unaccustomed volume of friend requests means I’d better not see much cleavage and preferably none at all. To say you are approving friends based upon not seeing cleavage, I know sounds crass, but there you have it. I can see why social media wears people out. My wife has those things too, you know.
Don’t people know that I do nothing but think about God all day?

👍Yes, I agree

I know you are being sarcastic, but if anything changed, then it wouldn't be for the first time, you know that. And really, it is not a fundamental problem whether the number is literal or not, (even though I said it could solve the problem of increasing partakers, as you say, it could be because some have dropped out etc.. ) Ultimately God knows the correct interpretation, we can only do our best to understand it, and we can be wrong, as so many others in Bible times were. I am not worrying about it.

I know you are being sarcastic, but if anything changed, then it wouldn't be for the first time, you know that. And really, it is not a fundamental problem whether the number is literal or not, (even though I said it could solve the problem of increasing partakers, as you say, it could be because some have dropped out etc.. ) Ultimately God knows the correct interpretation, we can only do our best to understand it, and we can be wrong, as so many others in Bible times were. I am not worrying about it.

I have wondered about that too, for the same reason. If the number was not literal, it would help in solving the problem of ever increasing partakers each year. I would not be surprise if it was dropped one day....

Many of Christendoms clergy seem to go with this view and probably not a few of Jehovah's Witnesses.
All I can say is that if in connection with animals "death is no more", then something else will have to be no more!!..........

See the deal is 1. Jehovah is using at least 1 org 2. Instructions are coming from this org 3. The instructions are scriptural
Whether someone is wearing a magic beanie is immaterial. Now if they come up w/some new junk and it's not in the Bible, I had better see some Moses-like Miracles performed and the new junk better harmonize w/the previous junk.
Man do people geek-out on this. Do you imagine Jesus would do this? Or ANY of the apostles?