Anna

Just to introduce another item into this consideration. It seems that the number 12 or its multiples in the Bible always appears as literal, never symbolic.
Jacob's 12 sons (males) were exactly 12   The 12 tribes of Israel were actually 12, not 13   The Levitical priesthood was organized in a multiple of 12, namely 24 divisions (1Chr 24: 1-19)   The recruitment of assistants and officers who served David were organized in groups of 24,000 per month, from the 12 tribes, giving a total of 288,000 soldiers. All multiples of 12, and all exact numbers, real and non-symbolic.   Also, Jesus literally chooses 12 apostles, as we know. Literally.   The following is very interesting, in my opinion. When there were only 11 faithful apostles alive, just before Pentecost, they prayed intensely to Jehovah for guidance during those days (Acts 1:14), as a result of which, it was for divine guidance that they chose a twelfth apostle again, thus when Spiritual Israel began at Pentecost there were literally 12 foundations.   And, precisely at Pentecost, how many were gathered when the nucleus of the anointed ones who would go to heaven was formed? 120. Another multiple of 12 (Acts 1:15) It is true that in Revelation numbers like 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 are symbolic. But I have my reservations for 12 or 144,000 as symbolics.
Indeed, if 144,000 is symbolic, many things are fixed, as has already been said: the large number of Christians during the past 20 centuries who will easily have exceeded that number. The problem of replacement anointed ones, and I suppose others that now escape me.
The best answer I can give is: I'm not sure, I don't know.

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....

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....

It might sound odd, but the constraints of time, pay, and motivation were what got me to get my degree.
Before I started to study, I was working full time at TI as a computer operator (got lucky, I was working construction, cleaning carpets, delivering beauty supplies and working at Taco Bell and delivering newpapers and an opportunity came up at TI and I got in learned it all there).
I was taking classes on/off at the University, but not really going anywhere w/it. I didn't get diagnosed as having ADD until later as an adult. I just thought everyone was so slow, spoke so slow that I couldn't concentrate on what they were saying because they took so much time to say so little, so I'd space out in school or read and got good grades just because I was apparently "smart". But, unmotivated.
After I became a JW, I wanted to pioneer, but I was married and even though my wife worked, there was no way I was going to have her support me, so I began looking for work anywhere where I could get a flexible schedule. I was slated to go work the swing shift, which would mean I could go to class in the morning (I was taking 1 class at a time), then meet for field service at noon. Then work. But then I'd miss meetings. No. Can't do that. Then there were layoffs. I think I mailed about 600 copies of my resume to every place in the area that had the word "computer" or anything computer-sounding in the business name.
I got a job as a production control clerk (get it w/a schedule from 6 AM to 2 PM!) Yay!...So I signed up to regular pioneer, got accepted. I went out right after work and long weekends and evenings.
But I wanted my wife to be able to pioneer too, so I began thinking about what I could do to get paid more. The barrier wasn't my coding ability, computer admin skills or the like - simply that I didn't have a degree. Then I remember years ago reading this book by John Bear on nontraditional college degrees. There was a program through "The University of the State of New York" (now called Excelsior) which then would give you 30 hours of college credit if you could score high enough on a subject GRE. So...I thought, nothing ventured, nothing gained, lets see ...I got the course catalog, the degree requirements and the lot and studied the whole thing. It turns out that IF I got all my tests done BEFORE I registered, I wouldn't have to pay an exorbitant cost-per-credit-hour for the hours gotten via testing. So I decided on three subject GRE's and some CLEPS. I got the ARCO book on the GRE for psychology, studied it, took the prep tests in the book and it looked like I was ready. I registered for the test, went down to the University where it was proctored and a month later I got the response - YAY I scored in the top 8% of those who took the test that year! (cha-ching 30 hours). So I did the same w/Education and Sociology, took the CLEPs and essentially got 100 hours of college credit in three months. That w/other CLEPS taken before I'd enrolled (Spanish), I'd really only taken a handful of courses on campus.
That's when I had the University and ETS send my transcripts along w/my enrollment and prospective degree attempt to The University of the State of New York, for $175. They responded in about two months and said CONGRATS! Send in $375 for your completion and graduation!.
Then my current employer instead of saying constantly Xero, you're so smart, you should finish your degree, or If you WERE so smart you'd finish your degree was saying "Wow. All that coding you did really was good! This degree proves it!" (paraphrased for sarcasm).
All this done while I was pioneering and because I wanted my wife to join me.
So I eventually got a different job, w/ a more difficult schedule, but I was still able to pioneer and my wife was able to quit her job and pioneer as well.
None of this would have happened if it weren't for JWs.

Could it be that only mentally unbalanced or competitive people find themselves obsessed with who is or isn't anointed? The recent video made it clear that this is an internal decision by an individual and that there's no objective way for anyone to know if someone is or isn't anointed. The minimal behavioral conduct required to be considered "Christian" is clear from scripture and we can all look at someone and see if the behavior we can observe is in line w/scripture. On the other hand we don't have body cams and recordings from a persons mind or anything like this so we can know 24x7 whether they're OK.
It seems all the worrying of this bone is about organization. Does Jehovah use this organization known as JW's?
You decide as an individual. If Jehovah chooses to NOT use it, you'll know. No one needs a bunch of whiners to look for unscriptural lint left in the washing machine to know whether the clothes cleaner still has cleaned the clothes to a usable degree.
Ok. You can go back to nit picking.

It would also resolve the issue of there having been more than a million partakers who faced death for their Christian faith rather than give a pinch of incense to the Roman emperor, or contaminate their conscience with other forms of idolatry or blood. It's either that or explicitly allow for the idea that an earthly hope had been opened up generally to Christians before 1935.

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....

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....

I am not too comfortable with this idea either, only because of the simple fact that Jehovah gave the Bible to everyone, and he gives holy spirit to anyone asking, so that they can understand the Bible.  From experience I have known spiritually mature brothers and sisters express some ideas which were not at the time "officially" taught, but did become so later on. It seems like they had divine insight? Or was it just that they were very good Bible students and reasoned on things logically? Even ones who had not known what Jehovah's Witnesses taught,  like @Gone Away were able to work some things out that were contrary to popular belief in Christendom. I believe it is the capacity of every good Bible student, whether of the anointed or not, to have insight. The important thing is though to have the wisdom to wait if we have reasoned out something which is not an "official" teaching. Are we going to get upset about the 1% or more that we think is not right, and forget about the bigger percentage that has benefited our lives as one of Jehovah's Witnesses? I have know people who had previously been involved in all kinds of religions who upon reading one of JW publications have declared "this is the Truth". One studious lady (a staunch Catholic) who became a very good friend of mine, even flung the "Truth Book" across the room because she could see that what she read made perfect sense and that what she had previously believed was wrong, and that upset her so much. My own mother in-law, who had always been God fearing, after reading the "Truth Book" , said all those unanswered questions she had were answered, and all the pieces of the puzzle came together. There are many, many more examples I could cite, and I am sure you have read the many experiences of people who have benefited from learning from a small group of anointed Christians who collected their perception of what the Bible "really" teaches into publications, which helped them understand the Bible's message more clearly. I think when we start doubting  the "exclusive group" it is good to focus on the positive things we have gained from our "associating" with them.

Nothing to do with not being transparent. It's quite normal if someone wants to be part of a club,  they have to meet club rules. The JW only club is just that: for JWs only. Nothing dishonest or secretive about that. The scripure you quote applies to relationships and interactions with people, even then, the scripture doesn't mean you have to indiscriminately tell everyone everything. You have examples in the Bible where faithful servants of God did not say everything they knew. There is a time to speak, and a time to be quiet.

It's already there

I think that if you understood the whole picture of Russell's attempt (and the difficulties) to make all scripture fit into one complete view, you would never call it blasphemy. In fact, I don't think you could even provide any "proof" that he was wrong. Take the following two passages from 1 Corinthians for example:
(1 Corinthians 12:12) For just as the body is one but has many members, and all the members of that body, although many, are one body, so too is the Christ.
(1 Corinthians 6:15) Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?
Paul could easily be interpreted as saying that each and every one of the "Anointed" (which is an English word for the Greek word "Christ") are therefore all included in the "Anointed." Therefore this interpretation was imposed back upon Ephesians 1:9, so that the very doctrine of all 144,000 being gathered into the Christ, was considered to be the "mystery" or the "sacred secret:"
(Ephesians 1:9, 10) 9 by making known to us the sacred secret of his will. It is according to his good pleasure that he himself purposed 10 for an administration at the full limit of the appointed times, to gather all things together in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth. . . .
The better understanding, of course, is that the 144,000 are in close union with Christ, and only the primary one, the Head, should be called "The Christ" or the "Anointed One."
(Galatians 3:16) . . .. It says, not: “And to seeds,” as in the case of many such, but as in the case of one: “And to your seed,” who is Christ.
 

The guy gets smarter by the second.
I actually didn’t know that it was possible to block on this forum. 

I had, but like when Jesus said "When you've seen me, you've seen the father", I think he's saying that you can't really get much closer as a human to understanding Jehovah as limited as you are ("you don't get the earthly things, how could you get the heavenly things"?). So there's an awe and wonder that can never cease when it comes to Jehovah, but when it comes to a created being, you can sort of wrap your mind around that. Being noncontingent is something I'll never (nor can I by dint of my contingency) get. A timeless being who created time and space....I read a book a couple of years ago by Douglas Hofstadter - "Surfaces and Essences" where he argues that it's analogies all the way up and all the way down. You can't understand anything except by way of analogy. But for an analogy to begin, it has to be perceived, which means you have to have the sense organs and the brain (more analogical devices) designed by Jehovah to process the "external world" (whether this is physical or spiritual) and interactively build on the grammar of repetitive experience to be able to understand the external vs the internal. But no matter what as individuals we have limits (unless or until Jehovah opens more doors to our perceptions).
So grandfather may be an analogy, but as analogies go, it's one of them.
Reminds me of a brother who used the phrase "in connection with" when he wasn't making the connections. I joked "Bob could say "Jehovah God in connection with the Garden of Eden", stop there and look at the audience as if there was some point he'd just made, when he'd made none - he simply created a set, Let X be the set of (Jehovah, Garden of Eden}. That tells me nothing.
So analogies are impossible to avoid, but having an analogy isn't the same thing as having the truth and as the scriptures say "the reality belongs to the Christ". (if I'm remembering that right)

There was a time when speaking only to ones specifically involved in something was not interpreted as an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of everyone else.

Nothing to do with not being transparent. It's quite normal if someone wants to be part of a club,  they have to meet club rules. The JW only club is just that: for JWs only. Nothing dishonest or secretive about that. The scripure you quote applies to relationships and interactions with people, even then, the scripture doesn't mean you have to indiscriminately tell everyone everything. You have examples in the Bible where faithful servants of God did not say everything they knew. There is a time to speak, and a time to be quiet.

Yes and no. You have to be approved to join the JW Only club first in order to read the contents and comment. 

Nothing to do with not being transparent. It's quite normal if someone wants to be part of a club,  they have to meet club rules. The JW only club is just that: for JWs only. Nothing dishonest or secretive about that. The scripure you quote applies to relationships and interactions with people, even then, the scripture doesn't mean you have to indiscriminately tell everyone everything. You have examples in the Bible where faithful servants of God did not say everything they knew. There is a time to speak, and a time to be quiet.

You have to admit, though that if you think of Jesus as a High Priest and you going to him with a sacrifice to offer on your behalf to Jehovah, you'd make eye contact and speak to him. I mean it's not like he's a guard at Buckingham Palace. It also says he's a high priest who isn't unaware of our own failings, so maybe the need for some chattiness is understandable too. I'm not really worried about what any other human has to say about all this. Like somehow I'm asking any human for permission on any of this - quite frankly I'm not. I also know that people are going to do what they're going to do no matter what I say or don't say. I just know that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence when it comes to prayer.  (Plus any reading of Hebrews would lead one to imagine that there would be some communication w/Jesus for him to "sympathize with us" as a "high priest" on our behalf w/Jehovah. Still in public I'll pick one or two things I feel the congregation can say amen to and get off the platform and not ramble on like some pharisee...BUT when I'm in my private chamber....different matter I may ramble.)

Yes and no. You have to be approved to join the JW Only club first in order to read the contents and comment. 

I must admit I never thought of thinking of God as grandfather 🤔🥴

I guess I never really thought of it that way. Jesus himself sets the example  as to whom to pray to. He appears perfectly content with his role of “simple mediator” and I’m not sure I would want to do end runs around it, as though it is enough for most people, but not enough for me—as though I have extra appreciation and extra love, so I have to speak with Jesus, too.
Can you pass along a simple hello or some such appreciation just to him? Well, I dunno, maybe you can, but in doing so I begin to feel that maybe I am trying to be more appreciative than God, more righteous than he, more loving than what he lays upon Christians to do through his written word. 
Is it a little like when Jesus makes to wash Peter’s feet, Peter says “No way!” then upon reproof, says “also my head my hands!” and Jesus says, “Just do the feet, won’t you? That’s enough. That works. You don’t have to go beyond it.”
I think when we fervently thank God for the gift of his dear son, which we especially do around Memorial time, Jesus counts it as enough. If we say, “I must talk to Jesus, too,” will he not say pretty much what he said to Peter?”
We can’t just waltz in and talk to either one of them as though we are chums. The only reason we can speak freely with Jehovah is through the merits of Jesus’ ransom sacrifice. What is the basis for speaking directly to Jesus? 
Why not say hi to all the angels, too? They also do plenty in our behalf, though of course, they don’t approach Jesus. 
I’m sure its not the worst faux pas. The sentiment probably is appreciated, as when Jesus did not think ill of Peter for wanting the complete bath. But having laid out the “chain of communication,” I am not sure the merit—and it may even cause offense—to try to go beyond it. Jesus is perfectly content that all glory should go to the father. Having done that, does he say, “You know, it would be nice if you thanked me, too?” There’s no indication of it.
He himself takes no liberties with avenues of communication. When immersed in a squabble over Moses’ body, he says to the Devil, “May Jehovah rebuke you!” He doesn’t say, “Well, I am the son, the first-born. Surely I can handle this one.”
Same as you, just thinking aloud.
(I notice that the “balanced view of an anointed one” (Witness) ends in the same way that her typically unbalanced views do—that the GB is no good, and that you ought to consider her and her “renegade anointed” as your true source for guidance.)