TrueTomHarley

Unfortunately, after my experience, a thief could break down my door, yell "Peace and Security," and I would roll over and go back to sleep.
There's too many ways things can be spun. I leave it to others and focus on the work that is engrossing in its own right. i take the party line without fuss, but always tentatively, for maybe it will change someday.
Meanwhile....oops...sorry - just had to dodge a missile from RocketMan

I ever think the key fact is that the Trinity violates common sense. Everyone knows that, but not always the implication.
It means that the burden of proof will always be upon them, not us - as it is with anyone trying to sell someone any bill of goods that flies in the face of reason. Sometimes a thing that goes against common sense turns out to be true. But the threshold of proof required is always high.
At most, they can come up with a handful of verses which, in any other context but the Bible, would be instantly dismissed as 'figure of speech.' They read 'crocodile tears' in a book or magazine, and instantly catch the meaning. They read it in the Bible, and it is proof we are talking crocodiles.
They are firmly convinced but it is not from Scripture. Therefore, it must be from something else - who can say what? But it is not Scripture.
In my experience, if you don't make headway with them in ten minutes, you will make none in ten years.

Maybe I'm not giving you enough detail for whatever you are trying to ascertain. Here's some context to hopefully clarify things.
As I said, in school I had questions to ask my religious teacher and was fobbed off with those "chatechismal" answers due, as you suggest, to him likely being "unsuitable" to handle such questions. My questions were prompted by a desire to seek information and understanding, not doctrinal controversy. Arian/Athanasian disputes were unknown to me at that time. I never heard anything about such matters until many years later.  I drew no solid conclusions from these encounters, but they had the effect of rather dampening my interest in religion for some years. These matters, particularly RC church related, became very low on my list of priorities. 
When my interest in religious matters rekindled in my 20s, it encompassed more than Christianity. It prompted the attention of active RC relatives who wished to return me to their fold. The topic of the Bible became current in my mind, as they stated it as an authority for their religious persuasions (despite not having a copy of it). Around the same time, a magazine article on Tyndale stimulated my interest and I saw the Bible as a historical enemy of established religion, particularly the RC church. This was due to the vehemence with which they suppressed it. This made it appealling to me. This led to me obtaining a copy of the 1611 King James Version (KJV) which I started to read.
My earlier questions on the relationship between Christ and God resurfaced, not in an anti-trinitarian context, but along with questions about evolution and mankind's origin, is there only one way to God, and anything else of controversy, like the possibility of extra-terrestial life etc. 
In the course of this, one friend provided the Challoner NT (which I still have). He drew attention to the 1Jo.5:7 text as a way of providing scriptural authority for the Catholic church as the original historical champion of the (seemingly) scriptural doctrine of the Trinity, the central tenet of Christianity. The argument was something like 'the Bible says God is triune, the RC church first defined, then defended, and promotes this, therefore the RC church is the true Christian religion.' This challenged me, until I found a marginal note in my KJV saying this text had "been inserted".
After,  I went and checked the rendering of this verse in other versions, I found that it was inconsistently present, which seemed to confirm it's spurious nature. This delighted me at first because it undermined the authority of the RC church and it's dogma. But then I became outraged, because I saw the attack on Tyndale to be from the same source as what I perceived as  interference with Bible text to support something that I now found questionable as a result. I had absolutely no knowledge of Arian controversies at the time, although I had some awareness of the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition and other atrocities.
So, the "non-Trinitarian matters" I was interested by, and that prompted the concern of relatives and some friends, were religious ideas from Hinduism, Buddhism, or anything else that was current at that time. The Trinity for me at that time was a facet of Christianity as I knew it then. I had no idea it was a historically disputed doctorine, or that there could be established, non-trinitarian Christian groups. Actually, perhaps that is what prompted the paranoid response of my religious teacher back in my early teens. That's something I have never considered until now. Anyway, with my acceptance of the RC Church as having any religious authority now defunct, my interest in the Bible as God's Word alive, my questions on Jesus' relationship to his Father remained.
So are you saying it is possible to have Arian ideas(leanings) without having heard of Arius or his ideas? 
 

Ford had just pardoned Nixon. After a bruising several months of the Nixon Presidency under assault, people ate up Ford's promise of better times ahead and the words he used to describe them.
At a convention I attended, the speaker worked his way through end-time themes, before holding aloft that morning's paper with the huge headline:  "Peace and Security." 
"Have you seen today's headlines?" he cried.
It was irresistible. I would have done it, too.
It will absolutely happen. But there have been false positives along the way.

There are some who, if they came to my door merely as themselves, I would run in terror.

Or get someone to help you lift it up in case you are getting up there.
Well - heavy things are afoot these days in the news. Maybe they will make all other points moot.

What about sometimes just going to the door to meet and converse with people - and forget all about the kingdom? Is there ever a place for this? It was the conversation this morning in our car group.
Not as a regular thing. As part of a learning curve. Not all of the friends have 'people skills' yet they've volunteered for a work in which it is vital - or at least it makes the job go more smoothly.
Just visit to meet neighbors. If they ask why you've come, tell them you're a Witness but you aren't there to talk about that unless they want - 'My people skills aren't what they could be and I want to improve them' you could say.
I suspect it will get no worse results than some of those we already get. Some will want no part of it, likely most, some will be suspicious, but if you are successful in developing people skills, you will instantly detect that and change tacks. Or just thank them for their time and move on.
Thoughts? Don't use it as a back door - a sneaky way to get in a witness. Say, if asked, 'some time I could tell you about the paradise earth, but I don't want to do that just now. I just want to meet people,' and talk about what's right before you - their garden, bumper stickers, family - whatever strikes your eye.
"Whatever you may say will not be used against you." I don't know that I would say THAT, but if you're just out to improve people skills, you can do anything you want, since the object is to connect with people - not to 'give a witness.'
My guess is that a certain percentage will, though this is not your object, begin to ask you how you came to choose the work you are doing? They will be disarmed. And you will not take advantage by arming. That will be for some entirely different time with someone else.
For those who feel they are 'on duty' and MUST give a witness, they could slip in a tract or a card, especially when asked. "Here's a tract, but I don't want to talk about it just now." You get the idea.
Has anyone ever done this?

We better catch some shuteye, Otis. JTR is at it again. Something tells me we're going to get a call from TopCat O'Malighan tomorrow 

We better catch some shuteye, Otis. JTR is at it again. Something tells me we're going to get a call from TopCat O'Malighan tomorrow 

Next time it may not be just your furniture, @James Thomas Rook Jr.

Next time it may not be just your furniture, @James Thomas Rook Jr.

I just got a call that @James Thomas Rook Jr.has been insulting God's organization again. He may have to learn the hard way.

Next time it may not be just your furniture, @James Thomas Rook Jr.

I just got a call that @James Thomas Rook Jr.has been insulting God's organization again. He may have to learn the hard way.

Show it to the householders. See it if sweeps them off their feet.
Ah, well. It is what it is. I think I got something or other years ago at the Pioneer School besides just the group photo, though I could be mistaken. I never it up on my office wall, though.

I, who am from the area, have never heard this term. However, it IS true that the concluding speaker at a Syracuse District Convention several years back observed how everyone present had imitated Acts 28:12.
Putting into port at Syracuse, we remained there for three days; 

Interesting questions as we attempt to rationalise the "machinations of the devil" and his demons! Are we saying that we are too intelligent to fall for their childish tricks?
Another experience I had was with a Sikh family in London in the mid 80s. I met them in field ministry. They were experiencing encounters with what they believed was a spirit in their house. The manifestation they all experienced comprised of noises and bangings for no reason at night. Two of the teenagers in the family were being thrown out of bed inexplicably and one showed me that he had bruises and scratches on his back amd arms which he said occurred on a number of occasions at night with no visible cause. I could only advise them to study, to learn about prayer and to learn about Jehovah, his purposes. and how to draw close to him by means of following Bible counsel in all areas of life. It was difficult to know where to start with them. Their experiences preceeded my contact with them so could not be connected with them "starting to study the Bilble". They were looking however for a quick fix, some sort of exorcism ritual I think. They did not take up the offer of a study anyway,  and moved away from the area. I do not know what became of them. I took them at their word because they appeared to be genuinely frightened by their experience. Their story and concerns were consistent over a number of visits with no apparent agenda.
Jehovah gives us sufficient information in Scripture to warn us about spiritism, its origin and danger. It's not difficullt to understand the need to keep well clear of its manifestations. Trying to analyse how the Devil works over and above the information provided in the Bible seems to be playing into the hands of one who is "far more intelligent than us" and dead set on our lasting harm.

What about sometimes just going to the door to meet and converse with people - and forget all about the kingdom? Is there ever a place for this? It was the conversation this morning in our car group.
Not as a regular thing. As part of a learning curve. Not all of the friends have 'people skills' yet they've volunteered for a work in which it is vital - or at least it makes the job go more smoothly.
Just visit to meet neighbors. If they ask why you've come, tell them you're a Witness but you aren't there to talk about that unless they want - 'My people skills aren't what they could be and I want to improve them' you could say.
I suspect it will get no worse results than some of those we already get. Some will want no part of it, likely most, some will be suspicious, but if you are successful in developing people skills, you will instantly detect that and change tacks. Or just thank them for their time and move on.
Thoughts? Don't use it as a back door - a sneaky way to get in a witness. Say, if asked, 'some time I could tell you about the paradise earth, but I don't want to do that just now. I just want to meet people,' and talk about what's right before you - their garden, bumper stickers, family - whatever strikes your eye.
"Whatever you may say will not be used against you." I don't know that I would say THAT, but if you're just out to improve people skills, you can do anything you want, since the object is to connect with people - not to 'give a witness.'
My guess is that a certain percentage will, though this is not your object, begin to ask you how you came to choose the work you are doing? They will be disarmed. And you will not take advantage by arming. That will be for some entirely different time with someone else.
For those who feel they are 'on duty' and MUST give a witness, they could slip in a tract or a card, especially when asked. "Here's a tract, but I don't want to talk about it just now." You get the idea.
Has anyone ever done this?

Actually, I think that is the answer.
I did start it as a joke, you are right. But I also recognized that, at its root, it was the answer. Jesus didn't do it. Judas stole from the money box. A simple account system would have caught him. Yet Jesus never did it.
Expanding, we have 1 Corinthians 6:2 
do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you not competent to try very trivial matters? Do you not know that we will judge angels? Then why not matters of this life?
If the holy ones back then were to be entrusted with our spiritual lives, were they incapable of handling 'unrighteous riches?'
Accounting methods are rather strict now in the congregations. Two brothers count all donations from the contribution box. Two sign off. It is all under the supervision of the Secretary. It is similar at the circuit level. Are we to imagine it disappears above the circuit level? What disappears is anyone feeling they have an obligation to report such things to you. In your case, I can easily understand it. If you twist undeniably good deeds to make them seem vile, exaggerate any missteps, and ignore any mitigating factors, and without exception impute bad motives, what would you do when you found they upgraded from Pepsident toothpaste to Crest?
Should they report? I guess you could make a case for it. But I think the greater case is for not doing it, in view of 1 Corinthians 6. It's not the exact same thing, but in principle it is.
What is public accounting? It is a requirement imposed by government upon public corporations. Does it work? It can be circumvented. A relative of mine works for a publicly traded company which recently bought another publicly traded company. His company is a very well known name, and the purchased company is well known to industry groups. It turns out that the purchased company managed to conceal billions of dollars of fraud, despite public accounting, and the buyer is now in danger of going under. (and the relative worries about his job)
In Rochester, Wegmans is the premiere company putting the city on the map. It replaces Kodak in that role. Arguably one might say Paychex instead of Wegmans, but I'll hang with Wegmans. People love Wegmans. It is Whole Foods where, if you plan, you can avoid spending your whole paycheck. (if you don't - watch out! - but with minimal fuss, you can) It has been called the best run grocer in the country and perhaps the world. There are 70-80 stores in the eastern U.S. Whoever does the ratings - is it Forbes? - consistently ranks it among the top ten best places to work in the entire country.
It is a private corporation and never reports to the public. Does that mean it keeps no accounts? No. It just doesn't feel the obligation to report to the rank and file.
The demand to render public accounting, to me, seems but a manifestation of another form of human self-rule - in particular, democracy. It is faith that the people should scrutinize every nickel spent and that is the only way to keep those running the show honest. As the examples above show, it is not necessarily a valid premise. It is easily circumvented.
I was joking when I said we could smell fraud when Anthony Morris upgrades to a bigger dorm room, but once again, there is truth to it. Let there be some evidence of chicanery before you assume your democratic method is the be-all and end-all. If they released financial reports they would have to add layers and layers of Bethel experts to defend themselves against countless people like you that simply want to take them down and use any possible pretext to do it. It would be rather like the Mueller investigation, which is the continuation of an effort that has lasted almost a year now to dig up evidence of wrongdoing with regard to the President and Russia. So far they have found none, but the mandate is unlimited and is not confined to Russia, (this is my understanding, but I could be wrong) Since the POTUS is human, they will certainly find something in time, and will attempt to use it to take him down - which is the sole object in the first place. Should Bethel do the same for its enemies? They just want to take it down.
The line that invariably gets the largest applause at the Regional Convention is: "Would you like to convey your greetings to Bethel?" It is obvious why that is. People look around them and see evidence everywhere that whatever donations they have made are being spent wisely. The many examples referred to in the previous post prove that to them. They don't feel the need to monitor Bethel for crooks and they are confident that, should crooks appear, the overall upright character of the organization will handle it.

What is this?   
'If it requires us to do any more than come out of our Quonset hut, it is God's problem.'
Because you must not muzzle the ox while it is threshing.
I don't use the expression "bitter apostate." It seems to me a stereotype which does not always hold true. But  sometimes it is exactly the proper expression.

They may no longer do anti-types at Bethel, having had too many blow up in their face, but that doesn't mean I don't do them. Ralph Kramden, the hefty loud-mouthed bus driver of the 'Honeymooners' TV show, is the antitypical Nebuchadnezzar.
Each show he began by blustering. Each show he was totally humiliated. Each show he was contrite at the end. And each new show he totally forgot the lessons learned from the one before. So it is with Nebuchadnezzar.
And what is it with Nebuchadnezzar and the magic-practicing priests? He picks a fight with them right out the gate in chapter 2 of Daniel:
"Then the king said to them: “I have had a dream, and I am agitated because I want to know what I dreamed.” The Chaldeans replied to the king in the Aramaic language: “O king, may you live on forever. Relate the dream to your servants, and we will tell the interpretation.” The king answered the Chaldeans: “This is my final word: If you do not make the dream known to me, along with its interpretation, you will be dismembered, and your houses will be turned into public latrines."
Why? What did they do? They are yanked out of bed to learn they must tell the king what his dream IS in addition to what it means? Now they will have to sit each in his house, without any arms or legs, and watch people come in to pee on their couch and poop on their carpet. There's bad blood between the king and them, somehow. How it came about is not described, but it hardly seems fair he should pick on them.
Or does it? If the king made such demands, it is likely because he is fed up with their claims that they can do things like that. They are always playing him for a sucker with their air of religious mystery, and he has had it up to here. That's my guess, anyway.
We're used to quoting Daniel 1:20 to show how, after a short trial period in which the Hebrew captives did little more than eat vegetables, the king found them "ten times better than all his magic practicing priests." We're used to saying it is because of God's blessing that Daniel was elevated so high. Probably so, but I'll bet it is more a reflection of how worthless he found the priests. It was a pretty low bar they set, and Daniel leapt it without fuss.

Moreover, the confidential letter that you quote as though experiencing sexual climax does no more than expand on the consideration already announced publicly. Witnesses are well used to hearing about how that this or that circuit expense will be met if everyone contributes such and such an amount. This is always followed by the clarification that it is not suggested each member pony up that amount, but rather that the congregation in aggregate do so.
What your 'secret letter' reveals is that even that fair policy is not held fast to. Elders know their flock. A poor congregation can lessen their share. A well-off congregation can increase it. Ours increases it regularly because @The Librariantells them I make a bundle off my books, the meddling hen. But others lessen theirs.
Any Witness stumbling across your coup de grace will come away with increased respect for Bethel's consideration. They will also not be surprised. For decades they have heard about their surpluses benefiting other lands with deficits. They know it is hopelessly out of the reach of many third world congregations to afford their own Kingdom Hall, and they are thrilled to know their funds are spent thereby. Even @James Thomas Rook Jr., who rails about giving up local control of his money, probably does not begrudge that. 
You consistently try to advance the notion that Witnesses are being fleeced by their organization. You consistently have your ears pasted back. In the end you are reduced to saying 'well - you have your opinion. I have mine.' It gets old.

Moreover, the confidential letter that you quote as though experiencing sexual climax does no more than expand on the consideration already announced publicly. Witnesses are well used to hearing about how that this or that circuit expense will be met if everyone contributes such and such an amount. This is always followed by the clarification that it is not suggested each member pony up that amount, but rather that the congregation in aggregate do so.
What your 'secret letter' reveals is that even that fair policy is not held fast to. Elders know their flock. A poor congregation can lessen their share. A well-off congregation can increase it. Ours increases it regularly because @The Librariantells them I make a bundle off my books, the meddling hen. But others lessen theirs.
Any Witness stumbling across your coup de grace will come away with increased respect for Bethel's consideration. They will also not be surprised. For decades they have heard about their surpluses benefiting other lands with deficits. They know it is hopelessly out of the reach of many third world congregations to afford their own Kingdom Hall, and they are thrilled to know their funds are spent thereby. Even @James Thomas Rook Jr., who rails about giving up local control of his money, probably does not begrudge that. 
You consistently try to advance the notion that Witnesses are being fleeced by their organization. You consistently have your ears pasted back. In the end you are reduced to saying 'well - you have your opinion. I have mine.' It gets old.

What is it with your infantile obsession over this? Do you expect me to gasp at discovering they know what money is?
In your 'secret letter' that you gleefully post, you somehow manage to ignore how the elders may choose to adjust any contribution total up or down depending upon the economic abilities of the congregation. Nobody running an organization puts less emphasis on specific money donations than does the Watchtower. 
More telling is the fact that, at that same meeting, finances were atypically discussed at length, yet you somehow do not even notice it: From the God's Kingdom Rules book, the subject has, at long last, got around to 'how the work is funded':
ON ONE occasion, Brother Charles T. Russell was approached by a minister of the Reformed Church who wanted to know how the activities of the Bible Students were managed.
“We never take up a collection,” explained Brother Russell.
“How do you get the money?” asked the minister.
“If I tell you what is the simplest truth you will hardly be able to believe it,” replied Russell. “When people get interested in this way, they find no basket placed under their nose. But they see there are expenses. They say to themselves, ‘This hall costs something . . . How can I get a little money into this thing?’”
The minister looked at Brother Russell in disbelief.
“I am telling you the plain truth,” continued Russell. “They do ask me this very question, ‘How can I get a little money into this cause?’ When one gets a blessing and has any means, he wants to use it for the Lord. If he has no means, why should we prod him for it?” *
2 Brother Russell was indeed telling “the plain truth.” God’s people have a long history of making voluntary contributions to support true worship. In this chapter, we will examine some Scriptural examples of this along with our modern-day history. As we consider how Kingdom activities are being financed today, each of us would do well to ask, ‘How can I show my support for the Kingdom?’
And there is much more. Whereas you do not hesitate to publish confidential letters, I am reluctant to publish excerpts from public books out of regard for copyright law. I don't think I have done it before. I do so now only to address your childish tantrum. Of course any organization uses money - any ten-year-old knows it . The real point is that no one seeks it less obtrusively or stewards it more wisely, even with techniques that your colleague in arms, @James Thomas Rook Jr., rails about, coming from the other side, where he tries to portray wise stewardship as stealing 'his' Kingdom Hall. He didn't really 'give' anything, did he? He just put his assets in another pot that he wants not to let go of. 
Your leaked letter makes us look good, not bad, as you have hoped. An ungodly organization would say "put the screws to them, no matter what!" Ours says "the elders may choose to raise or lower the amount based on the economic abilities of the congregation." And should their goal comes up short nonetheless, they simply readjust the goal, confident that those of greater means will make up for the deficiency of those of lesser means.
 

I liked "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" where Hugo explained that the number of floors beneath the surface of the church was roughly the same as those above.