Albert Michelson

I'd be very interested in what you would consider proof that the teaching isn't true. 

Ok show me what I misrepresented 

Yeah I haven't really done a sweep of all the doctrines to see which ones are type and anti-type still but I'm sure there are more than just the three that I listed.

Sorry I was rushing through my breakdown of some of these things so I didn't explain it very well.  I think you included this in your list of issues with the 1914 teaching but I personally believe that the Bible makes it pretty clear that Jesus took the throne after ascending to heaven  in the first century.  So his rulership continues for an  unspecified amount of time and at some point during that rule the 144,000 would be resurrected  and they would begin to rule with him but only for 1000 years.  So what I was trying to say is that it is their rulership that is only 1000 years not his. 
 Now I know there are some technicalities here because technically the organization teaches that there are two kingdoms.  The whole kingdom of the son of his love thing that they instituted in order to explain how Jesus could have taken kingdom power in the first century and then taken it again in 1914 

For some reason they brought one back. (Malachi 3:1)  I think after realizing that they had demoted Russell from the FDS, they realized they needed him again for some kind of continuity attached to the "Watch Tower" name.

"Unity at all costs" - Hayden C. Covington. Vice President of the WTB&TS, and by his own claim, a member of the Governing Body.
Willing to disfellowship someone, and EVERYONE for holding to TRUTH, when it was different from what he admitted in court, under oath ..... was false.

That's really the crux of all the problems with the organization. Rank-and-file JWs do not have the right to question any doctrines--even with Biblical support. Only the GB can correctly interpret the Bible. Only the GB can make "refinements" in doctrine. If we have a disagreement with a doctrine, we must quietly wait with the hope that it might get changed someday.
A Governing Body taking the lead is not a bad thing. It keeps our organization...organized. But the Governing Body has no external auditor to scrutinize its ideas. The Bible should be that external auditor, but the Bible and the GB are intertwined. The Bible can't stand apart from the GB. Only the GB's interpretations of Scriptures are correct. Therefore, they can always discern the Bible in a way that supports the status quo.
I believe that's the case with the "two overlapping generations" theory. For decades, the organization said the generation was one group that saw Jesus' presence in 1914--it was apostasy to suggest otherwise. It's clear now that that idea was wrong. I guess a combination of ego and a fear of losing credibility means the GB won't let go of 1914 and the generation. So, they force the square peg in a round hole. They use weak Biblical evidence to make the old idea "work" while maintaining a sense of urgency (the second group is older now so we must be close!!). It's not about a Bible interpretation that makes the most sense anymore. It's about maintaining the facade that the org knows what it's doing and that we are still on the threshold of the new system. No doubt in a few decades (if this system persists) another "refinement" will come along that will have the same purpose (wash, rinse, repeat). If you type random numbers in a keypad it may eventually unlock, and eventually this system will end. So, if the org exists at that time of the end maybe they can say they were right to keep us on the edge--even if the evidence was incorrect. (I believe they use this justification currently in God's Kingdom Rules! paraphrasing from memory: "We were wrong on this but it kept everyone zealous at that time.")

He's fortunate, one of my friends was out for 5 years and then found out that the elders disfellowshiped her. She still has no idea why she only found out because her mom told her. She wasn't doing anything that even qualified as wrong in the eyes of the organization. For every example you can put forward I can  guarantee I have another. 
The fact is that according to the organizations policy's you cannot tell anyone you want your no longer a witness. 
I refuse to believe you're this dishonest. Don't start resorting to double speak now. The implication of this statement is that if they don't apply to be disassociated then they can tell anyone they want they're not witnesses without getting disassociated or disfellowshiped which is false.

Funny that's exactly how being a witness was/is for many people I know. 
 
No the thing that I'm "all orgasmic about" is the freedom to do objective analysis of claims and to speak and believe honesty. As I said before the comfort you receive from the answers you get from your leaders is all fine and good but don't act like because you get to feel all warm and fuzzy inside that that says anything about the truthfulness of your beliefs or that someone else is going to see that as a fair trade for honesty. 
 
Nope I find them equally manipulative ( except for big independent thinking idk what that is) however the difference at least in the country I live in is that I'm allowed to  openly criticize this corruption and pointed out.  As I said before you may feel that the warm feelies are a good trade off for intellectual honesty and freedom of thought/speech but I do not. 

Nothing unusual about that .. the Catholics have been doing that for 1700 years ...once ANY human organization reaches a certain size, money, power, and position (or fear of losing it ..) becomes the controlling factor.  This is especially true of those claiming divine approval.
It was even true of the Japanese Empire, during WWII, with the Emperor of Japan as their god.
It "comes with the territory".  It did in Jesus' time, and it does now.
Nothing new.
Samo Samo.
There never have been any exceptions ....
There are none now.

It is possible but I wouldn't say it's easily avoidable.  And again as I've stated many times it requires one to essentially take a vow of silence and live in perpetual fear.
 
 I would say that it's more like the Pharisees who encourage their followers to cast the followers of Jesus out of the synagogues.  It's more a matter of information control and uniformity then anything else.
 
 And yet he was raised without any opportunity to hear or see contrary evidence.  I wanted to get baptized at 10 as well because that's all I knew.  But this is a lifelong commitment that they are never allowed to retract.  And yes it is the organizations goal to get these kids young and to entrap them.  As I said before if they can do that then they can ensure that they will either stay in or that they'll keep their mouths shut if they leave.  The latter prospect seems to be what you are advocating for and I find it ironic considering the circumstances.  As I have already pointed out witnesses regularly go to peoples homes and encourage them to leave their faith systems and join their's.  They encourage them to speak out against the false teachings of their former religions and yet for a Jehovah's Witness to do this very thing is met with cruelty.

If the meetings were this open I would consider going back but only to engage in a respectful discussion. Ironically the early Bible students did this very thing. 

It is possible but I wouldn't say it's easily avoidable.  And again as I've stated many times it requires one to essentially take a vow of silence and live in perpetual fear.
 
 I would say that it's more like the Pharisees who encourage their followers to cast the followers of Jesus out of the synagogues.  It's more a matter of information control and uniformity then anything else.
 
 And yet he was raised without any opportunity to hear or see contrary evidence.  I wanted to get baptized at 10 as well because that's all I knew.  But this is a lifelong commitment that they are never allowed to retract.  And yes it is the organizations goal to get these kids young and to entrap them.  As I said before if they can do that then they can ensure that they will either stay in or that they'll keep their mouths shut if they leave.  The latter prospect seems to be what you are advocating for and I find it ironic considering the circumstances.  As I have already pointed out witnesses regularly go to peoples homes and encourage them to leave their faith systems and join their's.  They encourage them to speak out against the false teachings of their former religions and yet for a Jehovah's Witness to do this very thing is met with cruelty.

I don't know, I haven't heard the talk yet.
Just kidding. I can see this going either way. It makes more sense to me that Jesus meant the other sheep were the literal gentiles. But then again not everything that appeared to apply to literal Israel appears to be strictly about literal Israel, and the Bible gives us some good reasons to see Israel as a kind of "type" of the heavenly Jerusalem, and of course Christ's Bride which is associated with the 144,000. Since that Bride includes people of the nations, an argument can be made for a "spiritual" rather than a "literal" application.
I'm usually for the most simple and straightforward explanation however, and I suspect that if this topic were opened up to entire congregations with only 15 minutes for each of these two perspectives -- I'd say that the simpler perspective would win the day.
Meaning of course that the difference in "little flock" and "other sheep" is this:
(Galatians 2:8) . . .for the one who empowered Peter for an apostleship to those who are circumcised also empowered me for those who are of the nations. . . I think Jesus pretty much gave away the answer when he said:
(Matthew 15:24) He answered: “I was not sent to anyone except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (John 10:16) . . .And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those too I must bring in. . .

I used the word "marked" because there is no term for "disfellowshipping" in the Scriptures. So I assume that a level similar to our "disfellowshipping" existed for extreme cases, but it must have still fallen under the category of "marking" which obviously was just a reputational warning to protect the congregation. A person can be met with in private, but if there needs to be a public marking or judgment of that person, then the reasons should be as clear as necessary to the congregation. I'm all for transparency.

Yes, sometimes. But this part was only meant to be partially hypothetical.
In spite of mistakes, I have never seen a directive where there is not an attempt -- usually successful, imo, to make it Bible-based. I think that the problems when this has failed has been a lack of input. Not that plenty of good input wasn't available. Before 1978, Bethel elders and "table heads" were full of ideas that they were sharing with other Bethelites. The Writing Department was full of a lot of intellectual honesty. I think the Aid Book project probably contributed to a new appreciation for the fact that so many of these commentaries from Christendom had remained very valuable resources for 100, 200 and even up to nearly 300 years. And yet if someone were to go looking carefully through our own Revelation and Ezekiel commentary from only 60 years earlier, we suspected him of being an apostate -- just for reading our own publications.

Nice idea, but how do you have one without the other? If you shun, it's always going to be emotional blackmail.

I am, I'm trying to raise awareness so that no one else gets tricked into joining this cult.

But as I've said before and as I'm guessing you're already aware.  The organization knows that it's 1914 teaching and it's claim to be in God's representative's is  demonstrably false.  The only way that they can maintain a parishioner base is to blackmail their members into either remaining part of the group or remaining silent if they leave. 
 The primary reason Jehovah's Witnesses are called a cult is because of the emotional  blackmail that is used to keep people in the organization even if they don't believe. 

Dissasociation
Well that's logical isn't it?
 
Simply put, and in a nutshell, you cannot be one of Jehovah's Witnesses if you disagree with any of the fundamental teachings and make it an issue in the congregation.  It's logical. Unlike Christendom, where it's a free for all, Jehovah's Witnesses for the most part, believe all their core teachings. If there is something they feel very strongly about, and no longer believe it is true, to the point of not being able to remain one of Jehovah's Witnesses in good conscience, then they dissasociate themselves. This is a choice they make willingly. Conversely, it's impossible to be called a Witnesses if you willingly and unrepentantly  do the things you mention either.  If you join a club, you've got to abide by the club's rules, or you will have your membership revoked. Or if you no longer like the club's rules, you cease being a member (dissasociate yourself)
The question though is, and this leads it back on topic, should someone who wants to quit being one of Jehovah's Witnesses be made to chose between his beliefs and the family.

I was only going by what I thought you were implying. But now that you've clarified what you meant, we can say it's not about numbers either way.

Well, there's at least one pre-teen that gets baptized at most conventions and assemblies, so it's nothing new, and visible to all.

Please if you can @Albert Michelson, limit the amount of images which say basically the same thing, as these tend to clog up the thread. Thanks

I always find it interesting that JWs try and use these scriptures to defend shunning  when in reality Jesus was warning the Christians of that time that if they left Judaism and began to follow him that their families would Shun them and cut them off.  His words indicate that if someone was intimidated by this threat and they loved their relationships with their family more than they loved him that they really weren't worthy of him. However he never encouraged his disciples to  shun their family  he is simply warning them that their families will try and use the threat of estrangement to keep them from joining the movement.