TrueTomHarley

It is to prevent this that the current persecution is all about. 
this is a fine report, Kurt.

Do they? Or do they not remind us of journalists who all day, every day, identify problems for others to fix. And when the fix is in, they point out what is wrong with that, too. It's a great job to have.
 
Possibly. But does it not just as equally provide fuel for those with flame throwers?
I don't think it has worked that way on this forum. People leave with approximately the same level of empathy they had on arrival. It is a fruit of God's spirit (you can probably tease it out of the list somehow) not dependent or necessarily helped by public airing.
When they devise a new Bible training school there at headquarters, they put themselves through it first. This indicates to me that they are not devising material to 'control the masses' - (I can hear some making that accusation now) Instead, they recognize that all are to be 'taught by Jehovah,' themselves foremost. It is a recognition of their own shortcomings, as descendants of Adam, and a renewed determination to seek what is higher.
To whatever extent it is true that the new ones are having a love-in and the old ones fought like cats and dogs, should we attribute it to public discussions? Or to being taught by Jehovah?

C'mon! The context has to fit the lyrics employed. I just can't stick it in anywhere!
 

Now you've got it!
That sun that went behind the moon the other day - shouldn't it have emerged by now? Have I done anything wrong? Is it from @The Librarian? No more musical poems, I promise.

Do I have cause for concern? Stop citing music LPs, @James Thomas Rook Jr., or you may have to learn the hard way, as I have!

Now you've got it!
That sun that went behind the moon the other day - shouldn't it have emerged by now? Have I done anything wrong? Is it from @The Librarian? No more musical poems, I promise.

Do I have cause for concern? Stop citing music LPs, @James Thomas Rook Jr., or you may have to learn the hard way, as I have!

Now you've got it!
That sun that went behind the moon the other day - shouldn't it have emerged by now? Have I done anything wrong? Is it from @The Librarian? No more musical poems, I promise.

Do I have cause for concern? Stop citing music LPs, @James Thomas Rook Jr., or you may have to learn the hard way, as I have!

I wouldn't like to have 'crossed' King David when he was ruling. These are things that are 'too high' for me.
Uriah will surely have a reality check when he discovers that David, not only had him killed, but had him carry his own order of execution to Joab. Moreover, Jehovah overlooked it, went on to bless David greatly, and blessed his son by his ex-wife even more. "What am I - chopped liver?" he will say.
And that is only because David had the hots for his wife. Imagine if he thought Uriah was messing with the kingdom!
There are some things you do not mess with and people of the last days are too stupid to know that. Reporters peer into the pants of leaders to tell of their soiled underwear and are dumbfounded that said leaders get mad.
As to the brothers back then, I won't attribute ill conduct to any of them. I will follow the counsel given somewhere that if a friend has consistently proven himself honorable, you do not turn upon him at the first questionable report. You think: "well, probably there are things I do not know about." Having said that, one can always revert to the remarks already made about David behaving unseemly.
That is the nature of rumors. You don't want to get caught in one. Most likely there was a grain of truth somewhere that someone built on and others blew it viral. Imagine what can be done, for example, with reports that men are sitting naked together in the sauna. It's why one must always be cautious about what they relate. I keep thinking of the scripture that tells how Jehovah feels about spreading contention among brothers.
I don't see any reason, per se, to vilify men like COJ. But neither do I want to sanctify him. There's a time to back off. Even if he felt maneuvered into a tight spot, he could have always clawed his way back, making whatever amends he had to.  Michael Jackson made the Thriller album and, to deal with the fallout, expressed regret over doing that type of music, which was woven into a magazine article on (then) questionable music, he being quoted anonymously. True, he later came to grumble about that 'discipline,' but it may have been better had he taken it to heart. His later years didn't really go that well for him, did they?

Threadmeister? Great. I hereby rule that no one can make more than two posts in this thread containing lyrics from My Fair Lady. 
So show me you understand, and, if you did it, then just you wait because I know the street where you live, and with a little bit of luck, we'll carry on without you. But right now, I've got a customer to face.

The reason why you cannot accept 539 BCE as the only secular date which is truly verified is because you use mainly Babylonian sources to try to verify the date and their dates are all over the place - not reliable (reigns which are too long and impossible to correlate etc.)
The Persian and Greek sources gets us to the truth.  Please look up when the battle of OPIS took place and between who....?  This took place before Cyrus went right into Babylon.
This will give you a good idea why 537 BCE is correct for the return of the Jews to Jerusalem - which in turn proves that 607 BCE and 1914 is accurate.
The reason for the 'myopia' is an inability to accept that the slave (very imperfect and uneducated though they may be) may just have made a big mistake and accidentally got it RIGHT - because Jehovah was guiding them. The problems came when someone's ego got the better of them and they abused their power and were removed.... 
All the knowledge in the world cannot fight against the knowledge of Jehovah... and he can use his spirit to assist who he wants?  When a "mistake" (some people used their influence to say it is a mistake) turns out to be spot on later - as more historical facts were opened up - is it not quite revealing?  Don't you agree? 
Even if you feel you have "special insight" this does not mean that you have.   The ability to show the 'fruits' is cooperation, to subject your free will to Jehovah and help with the preaching work - become a slave of Jehovah and help the rest of his "slave".  (A slave has no personal power but has to do as he is told - the preaching).  Personally I would refuse to go out with someone who does not accept that Jehovah is guiding his people or "recognize" the 'slave' because we have to "help" our brothers with the commission they were given.
ANOTHER important question: How would you run such a large organization as ours when you have no special business training and you are responsible for the management and written content which goes out into the entire world; massive operations on a large scale and all on donations.....You have to try to manage other problems in congregations too - on top of millions of laws in every different country etc etc.  Did they fail in some aspects or re-act instead of being pro-active?  Of course they did.  CEOs do not even get it right...
CEOs which earn literally millions of dollars per year do not get it right and move around from company to company (we know what is going on in the banking industry and many Fortune 500 companies - don't we?)  and.......they do not have to cope with Satan's focus on them, trying to undermine the smooth daily operations set in place.  Some upstart - which you trusted and put in a trusted position - comes and wants to disrupt everything and starts a little group because he now has superior insight and becomes rebellious.  (Satan did the same thing to Jehovah because Jehovah is mild tempered and kind).  I think those put in place of responsibility would be hurt and shocked but in the end would guard the heritage of Jehovah -  put this first.  Would you not? And there will be some who will be taken in by this rebellion - will they not? 
Our history was not clean from the start - we recognize that completely.  And while they Russel and friends fumbled in the dark they accepted teachings from other religions which were in line with scripture.  In their ignorance they were determined to be guided to bring the truth to others. The immortality of the soul was one of the first teachings they rejected and we all know the reason why Russel stopped publishing with his associates and went out on his own to create the watchtower.
It was only after some cleansing of their teachings (Jehovah inspected them - where does that fit in with your dates?) that Jehovah appointed them as the slave.  They will guard the heritage they have received and try to keep the organization clean from anyone who tries to destroy it.
Has everything gone perfect in its management - NO.  Was there injustices - maybe?  But the main focus should be the preaching and the vindication of the true name of god and his promises.
I suspect we will see many more actions by Satan to discredit Jehovah and his organization (run by uneducated, imperfect men) before the final end - and he will use brothers with the spirit of Judas to do this.   If anyone in this circle does not think that we are going to have a terrible time of it - think again.
The forces of Satan is stacking up against us and the world has become a very violent place - and it is escalating. When they finally lash out at us they will be happy to find some soft target to vent all their anger against. 
LAST THOUGHT:  Is there any other Christian organization on earth which is unitedly preaching the good news of the kingdom as indicated in prophecy about the time of the end in Matt 24:14.    The proof is there!  To me it is a miracle!  
There are so many secret organizations with most of the worlds money in their pockets, who want the world to be united in ONE government.  There are many religions who want to rule the world and are prepared to use the sword to obtain it.  There are forces moving in the EU and the UN which is trying to bring in laws to control all people.  When this happens - we will be told to stop preaching.... and our neutrality will also become an issue........ it will be an attack.... but we will see great apostasy before this.  
 
 
 
 

I wouldn't like to have 'crossed' King David when he was ruling. These are things that are 'too high' for me.
Uriah will surely have a reality check when he discovers that David, not only had him killed, but had him carry his own order of execution to Joab. Moreover, Jehovah overlooked it, went on to bless David greatly, and blessed his son by his ex-wife even more. "What am I - chopped liver?" he will say.
And that is only because David had the hots for his wife. Imagine if he thought Uriah was messing with the kingdom!
There are some things you do not mess with and people of the last days are too stupid to know that. Reporters peer into the pants of leaders to tell of their soiled underwear and are dumbfounded that said leaders get mad.
As to the brothers back then, I won't attribute ill conduct to any of them. I will follow the counsel given somewhere that if a friend has consistently proven himself honorable, you do not turn upon him at the first questionable report. You think: "well, probably there are things I do not know about." Having said that, one can always revert to the remarks already made about David behaving unseemly.
That is the nature of rumors. You don't want to get caught in one. Most likely there was a grain of truth somewhere that someone built on and others blew it viral. Imagine what can be done, for example, with reports that men are sitting naked together in the sauna. It's why one must always be cautious about what they relate. I keep thinking of the scripture that tells how Jehovah feels about spreading contention among brothers.
I don't see any reason, per se, to vilify men like COJ. But neither do I want to sanctify him. There's a time to back off. Even if he felt maneuvered into a tight spot, he could have always clawed his way back, making whatever amends he had to.  Michael Jackson made the Thriller album and, to deal with the fallout, expressed regret over doing that type of music, which was woven into a magazine article on (then) questionable music, he being quoted anonymously. True, he later came to grumble about that 'discipline,' but it may have been better had he taken it to heart. His later years didn't really go that well for him, did they?

I wouldn't like to have 'crossed' King David when he was ruling. These are things that are 'too high' for me.
Uriah will surely have a reality check when he discovers that David, not only had him killed, but had him carry his own order of execution to Joab. Moreover, Jehovah overlooked it, went on to bless David greatly, and blessed his son by his ex-wife even more. "What am I - chopped liver?" he will say.
And that is only because David had the hots for his wife. Imagine if he thought Uriah was messing with the kingdom!
There are some things you do not mess with and people of the last days are too stupid to know that. Reporters peer into the pants of leaders to tell of their soiled underwear and are dumbfounded that said leaders get mad.
As to the brothers back then, I won't attribute ill conduct to any of them. I will follow the counsel given somewhere that if a friend has consistently proven himself honorable, you do not turn upon him at the first questionable report. You think: "well, probably there are things I do not know about." Having said that, one can always revert to the remarks already made about David behaving unseemly.
That is the nature of rumors. You don't want to get caught in one. Most likely there was a grain of truth somewhere that someone built on and others blew it viral. Imagine what can be done, for example, with reports that men are sitting naked together in the sauna. It's why one must always be cautious about what they relate. I keep thinking of the scripture that tells how Jehovah feels about spreading contention among brothers.
I don't see any reason, per se, to vilify men like COJ. But neither do I want to sanctify him. There's a time to back off. Even if he felt maneuvered into a tight spot, he could have always clawed his way back, making whatever amends he had to.  Michael Jackson made the Thriller album and, to deal with the fallout, expressed regret over doing that type of music, which was woven into a magazine article on (then) questionable music, he being quoted anonymously. True, he later came to grumble about that 'discipline,' but it may have been better had he taken it to heart. His later years didn't really go that well for him, did they?

How does this fit with 1 Corinthians 1:26-29?
"For you see his calling of you, brothers, that there are not many wise in a fleshly way, not many powerful, not many of noble birth, but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong things to shame; and God chose the insignificant things of the world and the things looked down on, the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, so that no one might boast in the sight of God."
I'm not on familiar ground here, as I had never heard of COJ prior to this discussion, though I knew there must be someone to fill his role.  To the extent there is an appeal that the intelligencia are the only ones qualified on such things, God appears contemptuous of it. He not only puts up with the foolish things of the world - he chooses them over the 'wise men.'  Pure academic 'muscle' carries little weight with him, much less 'credentials.' It doesn't quite make sense to me, but there it is.
The twelve were decidedly not intellectuals. They were 'workmen' who had learned to handle the Word aright. Paul had intellectual cred, but I would not be quick to suppose he thereby did all the brainwork. He took direction from his educational inferiors. Plus, his lasting stature is not that he was an in-house thinker. He was primarily a doer, whereas the superfine apostles who were always trying to thwart him, boasting of their credentials, were not.
There is the biblical scholarship that starts on the premise that the biblical sayings are innocent (of untruth) until proven guilty, and biblical scholarship that presumes them guilty until proven innocent. It makes a difference in the conclusions derived, just as it does in the justice system.
I should do research to see if this COJ was a doer like Paul, or did he mainly fancy himself an in-house thinker? But probably someone will clarify this for me.

What preaching campaign did he or the other man go on to found?
Look, I understand that the above question could be seen as blowing off research and reveling in ignorance. But as @Arauna has helped us to see, 'scientific research' in this system of things is no more than the children's game 'King of the Mountain' to prove "who's da man?" - not unlike those big, stupid, (blush) male animals ramming each other with their horns. The victors shove everyone else off the field. It happens everywhere in science. The fault does not lie in science, but in those who put slavish faith in it. Today's science is trumped by human politics - call it 'male ego' if you must - every time, so that it must be taken with a grain of salt.
How is anybody like me ever going to know this? They are not. They are safeguarded only when they assume that 'science,' like everything else in this system of things, is contaminated, and must not be relied upon as an absolute.
So it goes back to 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 dissing those who rely on their education and 'facts.' Other verses expand upon it. Jesus says "whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life." What a stupid thing to say IF his main concern is to persuade devotees of 'facts!'  But if his prime concern is, not heads, but hearts, then it is flawless.
So you put your efforts into the preaching work and trust in God, who does not appear overly concerned that his people are RIGHT in the eyes of contemporary scholarship. Sometimes that stuff changes, even though it be a tsunami. it reverses course and goes right back into the hole from which it came.

What preaching campaign did he or the other man go on to found?
Look, I understand that the above question could be seen as blowing off research and reveling in ignorance. But as @Arauna has helped us to see, 'scientific research' in this system of things is no more than the children's game 'King of the Mountain' to prove "who's da man?" - not unlike those big, stupid, (blush) male animals ramming each other with their horns. The victors shove everyone else off the field. It happens everywhere in science. The fault does not lie in science, but in those who put slavish faith in it. Today's science is trumped by human politics - call it 'male ego' if you must - every time, so that it must be taken with a grain of salt.
How is anybody like me ever going to know this? They are not. They are safeguarded only when they assume that 'science,' like everything else in this system of things, is contaminated, and must not be relied upon as an absolute.
So it goes back to 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 dissing those who rely on their education and 'facts.' Other verses expand upon it. Jesus says "whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life." What a stupid thing to say IF his main concern is to persuade devotees of 'facts!'  But if his prime concern is, not heads, but hearts, then it is flawless.
So you put your efforts into the preaching work and trust in God, who does not appear overly concerned that his people are RIGHT in the eyes of contemporary scholarship. Sometimes that stuff changes, even though it be a tsunami. it reverses course and goes right back into the hole from which it came.

I like the bunker video in which the elder reflects at home how he groused at counsel from another elder. His wife says: "please tell me that you didn't argue with him."   (perhaps not a direct quote due to memory, but very close)
It's a little like when we decided to home-school our children and decided the question "you think you can do better than the professional educators?" was not the correct one to ask. "How can we do worse?" fit better. (city schools then, as now, were absolutely dismal in performance, despite non-stop declarations of 'reform' - each one of which is taken as a fait accompli) So it is with women. The question is not: "How can they do better than the men?" It is "how can they do worse?"
I also like (this time it is an exact quote) this statement from the August broadcast: "Right down to our day, rarely have women been afforded the dignity that God wants them to receive. However, Jehovah makes clear in his word the Bible that women and men have equal standing before him. In fact, he indicated that women would play a vital role in the outworking of his purpose."

I like the bunker video in which the elder reflects at home how he groused at counsel from another elder. His wife says: "please tell me that you didn't argue with him."   (perhaps not a direct quote due to memory, but very close)
It's a little like when we decided to home-school our children and decided the question "you think you can do better than the professional educators?" was not the correct one to ask. "How can we do worse?" fit better. (city schools then, as now, were absolutely dismal in performance, despite non-stop declarations of 'reform' - each one of which is taken as a fait accompli) So it is with women. The question is not: "How can they do better than the men?" It is "how can they do worse?"
I also like (this time it is an exact quote) this statement from the August broadcast: "Right down to our day, rarely have women been afforded the dignity that God wants them to receive. However, Jehovah makes clear in his word the Bible that women and men have equal standing before him. In fact, he indicated that women would play a vital role in the outworking of his purpose."

How does this fit with 1 Corinthians 1:26-29?
"For you see his calling of you, brothers, that there are not many wise in a fleshly way, not many powerful, not many of noble birth, but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong things to shame; and God chose the insignificant things of the world and the things looked down on, the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, so that no one might boast in the sight of God."
I'm not on familiar ground here, as I had never heard of COJ prior to this discussion, though I knew there must be someone to fill his role.  To the extent there is an appeal that the intelligencia are the only ones qualified on such things, God appears contemptuous of it. He not only puts up with the foolish things of the world - he chooses them over the 'wise men.'  Pure academic 'muscle' carries little weight with him, much less 'credentials.' It doesn't quite make sense to me, but there it is.
The twelve were decidedly not intellectuals. They were 'workmen' who had learned to handle the Word aright. Paul had intellectual cred, but I would not be quick to suppose he thereby did all the brainwork. He took direction from his educational inferiors. Plus, his lasting stature is not that he was an in-house thinker. He was primarily a doer, whereas the superfine apostles who were always trying to thwart him, boasting of their credentials, were not.
There is the biblical scholarship that starts on the premise that the biblical sayings are innocent (of untruth) until proven guilty, and biblical scholarship that presumes them guilty until proven innocent. It makes a difference in the conclusions derived, just as it does in the justice system.
I should do research to see if this COJ was a doer like Paul, or did he mainly fancy himself an in-house thinker? But probably someone will clarify this for me.

There is such a thing as 'God,' you know.

After I dust off JTR in the ministry, let's you and I get together and sing a few rounds.

OK, but since your challenged me .. I get to pick location and time ... How about downtown Charlotte, NC the weekend nights of September 9-10 at the NE corner of Trade and Tryon Streets, at 12 midnight, for some hotel witnessing?  
The night clerks usually have time for conversations between robberies, and assaults.   We could even watch some Confederate Monuments be torn down, or during breaks, roll some drunks!   SEE YA THERE!
If you have a First-Aid kit, you might want to bring it.
I will pencil you in.

After I dust off JTR in the ministry, let's you and I get together and sing a few rounds.

After I dust off JTR in the ministry, let's you and I get together and sing a few rounds.

What is this nonsense about male egos?
"One man in a million may shout a bit. Now and then there's one with slight defects. 
One perhaps whose truthfulness you doubt a bit. But, by and large, we are a marvelous sex."
It is discouraging to me that you would so quickly write off an entire gender with – HEY!! BIG BOY, @James Thomas Rook Jr.!!. THAT’S ANOTHER SLAM AT THE GB YOU JUST MADE!!     
Oh YEAH?!
Oh YEAH?!
Oh YEAH?!
Field service, punk! Let's settle this in field service!! Working together - YOU and ME!! High Noon! Or are you too CHICKEN?!!

What is this nonsense about male egos?
"One man in a million may shout a bit. Now and then there's one with slight defects. 
One perhaps whose truthfulness you doubt a bit. But, by and large, we are a marvelous sex."
It is discouraging to me that you would so quickly write off an entire gender with – HEY!! BIG BOY, @James Thomas Rook Jr.!!. THAT’S ANOTHER SLAM AT THE GB YOU JUST MADE!!     
Oh YEAH?!
Oh YEAH?!
Oh YEAH?!
Field service, punk! Let's settle this in field service!! Working together - YOU and ME!! High Noon! Or are you too CHICKEN?!!

That's pretty amazing. Just yesterday I tested myself to see if I still could sing that song, and just last week I played it through Amazon Alexa to my 17-month-old granddaughter. To my wife's chagrin, I still know every word to that song, and likely the entire Harrison/Hepburn repertoire for that neo-Pygmalion masterpiece. (When I grew up there were only a few movies we were allowed to watch and only about 4 records with lyrics that my father played for us. Therefore they got overplayed.)