Alithís Gnosis

Example:
Because of my love for dogs, my heart firmly and absolutely believes my dogs who have died will be waiting for me at the Rainbow Bridge. (Look it up).  There is absolutely no shred of doubt in my heart. None whatsoever. Anywhere.
My mind knows, based on what is true, that it is a complete fantasy.
I am stuck believing with ALL my heart and soul, something that is a complete fantasy, and is not true.
In that regard, but about different subjects, you and I share the same affliction.
We have brains ... we must use them.
That is what adults are supposed to do.
As Yoda says, if I remember correctly .... : "There is only DO .... There is no try"
Do or Do not There is no try Yoda.mp4

That’s right, those that stayed alive until 1975 got to be part of the 6000 years existence of mankind, and they also got to see the dramatic global changes that started humanity downward for the worse. So, yes! Stay alive until 1975.

True Christians became one step closer to God’s fulfillment. No one, but no one can change that with distorted Watchtower publications. People can read ALL of them in its proper context, and perhaps experience the delight 1975 brought to those loyally serving god. They savored and relished every minute of it. To know at some distant point, none of this will matter, for all of us will be judged according to our deeds.

There seems to be a disconnect when it comes to sincerity. Former witnesses here never have any.

Grey Reformer:
Your entire thinking processes are contaminated by your honorable but misguided agenda.
You cannot defend what is indefensible, and expect to win an argument based on reason and logic when evaluating TRUTH.
What I just quoted from you is SCARY ... to a logical mind.
It uses the same lack of reasoning that "...all prostitutes wear shoes ... so all people that wear shoes are prostitutes".
Grow up !!

Exactly! I gave actual facts and you just keep giving non-specific generalities and complaints that a small percentage of the actual facts and evidence from Watch Tower publications were also found on an apostate website, and therefore you seem to feel that they can therefore be ignored or distorted. Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing that sincere people will see right through, and they will see us as more and more dishonest. It's disappointing. How about some actual facts?

Seems a bit dishonest since apostate sites quote Watchtower publications as you do. What does that prove? That you think in the same lines of distorting the facts? How about some actual facts that everyone here implies.

Grey Reformer:
Please go back and re-read what you have written in the last several weeks. It is all extremely consistent.
You care NOTHING about actual facts ... if it disagrees with your agenda.
In the very first issue of the Watchtower, Bro. C. T. Russel stated that ( heavily paraphrased) "The truth is the truth, no matter what the source ... if Satan tells you something that is true... it's still true".
That is still true today.
 

 
 

 
You may want to download BOTH  JPGs,  but especially the quote from Bro. Charles Taze Russel, which started the whole shebang of modern day Jehovah''s Witnesses ... based ON THIS PRINCIPLE. ... " What is Truth ?" It is high resolution, and easier to read when downloaded and enlarged.
 
 

How is it any different from ex-witness view then, that you agree with their distorted facts? That means you are deliberately adding to the false narrative that you are trying so hard to convince people here you are again'st. People can't have it both ways. This doesn't make any sense on an intellectual level when people support opposing views. Either directly or indirectly by agreeing with incoherency through up or down votes.
You have contradicted your stance with the Watchtower. But, I guess this is what's happens when you go to an apostate site like JWfacts to gather the material.
Then why be judgmental toward the Watchtower. If you don’t want to judge former witnesses for their hatred and prosecution? Then why is it so simple to imply the Watchtower has done something wrong, when in reality as you stated, it never did.

Where is the red line for that kind of behavior? That people find it easy to pile on, on a misconception.

False. Everyone should deny falsehoods.
I agree that former Witnesses can be dishonest. I wouldn't judge them as the least honest people alive.  I have seen evidence of some dishonesty among some, but don't think any human even has a way to know if they are more or less honest than current Witnesses. My guess is that they would be about the same, on average -- less honest on some topics and more honest on some topics, depending on whether they are trying to promote or protect a specific ideology.
I don't defend the views of ex-Witnesses except where the evidence happens to coincide with their views, in which case we don't have much choice if we are honest. I'm opposed to dishonesty so I try not to deny evidence. If some of that evidence is found in their distorted publications, we should still be willing to look at the same evidence, even while identifying how they have distorted the use or conclusions made from it. This does NOT mean we will agree with their views, especially if they are distorting the evidence. Furthermore, we don't even need to look at their views to make a judgment on the accuracy and relevance of the evidence they present.
By "evidence" here, I'm referring specifically to quotations from Watch Tower publications. After checking a few hundred of these quotations found on many different sites, I get the impression that ex-Witnesses are even more careful than Witnesses when it comes to accuracy of the actual quotes. I've also seen some misquotes and misuse of context, mistakes, and outright dishonesty from some ex-Witnesses, too. But for the most part I think they realize that their argument is immediately lost, if a Witness were to find an inaccurate quote.

I believe you fall short on this one since it can be applied to you and others here.

Indeed. Who's denying that former witnesses are the least honest people alive? My question is, why then defend their views with your own opposition and with the same distorted publicans they use here by so many of you. So, no one should deny, deny, deny the falsehoods anyone says about the Watchtower and 1975.

I don't want to state anything that is not true. Yes, I've seen former Witnesses distort the facts about 1975. I've heard claims that the Watch Tower publications actually predicted that Armageddon would be here by 1975. The people who claim that are not being honest. That was never said in the WTS publications. A couple years ago, on this forum (or jw-archive.org) I even pointed out that someone had tampered with a recording of Fred Franz to make it look like some things were said in a way that they were never said. That showed the depths of dishonesty that people will sink to. And there are very many more subtle ways that people show their lack of honesty, sometimes from opposers and sometimes from defenders.
Therefore, if any of us want to be able to honestly defend against these accusations, we should know exactly what's true and what isn't. We shouldn't just deny, deny, deny. But we should also be aware of what was said, and not just accept things out of context. We should get a full and comprehensive historical view of the issue so that we are not guilty of cherry-picking various quotes and examples and anecdotes out of context.
So if you believe I have distorted anything about the issue, please bring up the specific example and your evidence. We've seen so many examples of persons on all sides of this issue, who just like to state things without evidence, but this just means they are promoting distortion themselves.
Anyone who makes claims that are not backed up by evidence might just be showing a lack of care about truth and honesty. That's not necessarily dishonesty, and it might just be based on strong opinions or personal experiences, or believing what one thinks one must believe to keep small pieces of their world view (belief structures) from collapsing. But people who make claims that are contradicted by evidence and who cannot or will not try to present relevant evidence to support their claims, well, unfortunately, those people really are being dishonest, even if their motive is to hang on to an ideology or belief structure they know to be important.

Then what's your point about taking the wrong approach to a topic that you know to be false. Former witnesses distort the facts, as it's done here. So, what's the difference if you call yourself a witness and it amounts to the same distortion.
Who is being dishonest here?

I guess it depends on how seriously we consider "honesty" and "truth" to be in our teaching:
(1 Timothy 4:15, 16) 15 Ponder over these things; be absorbed in them, so that your advancement may be plainly seen by all people. 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to you. (Philippians 4:-8) .5 Let your reasonableness become known to all men. The Lord is near. . . . 8 Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, . . . continue considering these things. (Proverbs 14:25) . . .A true witness saves lives,. . .
(2 Timothy 2:18) 18 These very [men] have deviated from the truth, . . .  and they are subverting the faith of some.
(James 3:1-5) 3 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment. . . . . 5 So, too, the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it makes great brags. See how small a fire it takes to set a great forest ablaze!
(John 4:22-24) . . .. 23 Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.”
(John 14:15-17) . . .. 16 And I will ask the Father and he will give you another helper to be with you forever, 17 the spirit of the truth, which the world cannot receive, because it neither sees it nor knows it. You know it, because it remains with you and is in you.
(Psalm 40:10, 11) . . .I do not hide your loyal love and your truth in the great congregation.” 11 O Jehovah, do not withhold your mercy from me. May your loyal love and your truth constantly safeguard me.
(Psalm 51:6)  6 Look! You find pleasure in truth in the inner person; Teach my innermost self true wisdom.
If a person is stating something that's untrue, then, yes, it's true that they might just be stating a falsehood that they believe to be true. But in that case what is the reason for the lack of care, the lack of attempted verification, the reason for the willingness to believe something false when it often would have been no trouble at all to make a true statement in its place. Is there a motive that tends to make someone blame others when they themselves are to blame? Is there a motive for a string of repeated falsehoods, even when the person believed each falsehood to be true at the time. Should we learn from our mistakes? Is it worse if the promoter of their own private interpretations of scripture is forced to defend against clear scriptural counsel in order to continue promoting a private interpretation of scripture.
If this type of dishonesty keeps happening, even though it requires kicking against the goads, then there is likely a problem worth looking into.
 

To most it just means that we have faith in the Slave that they will not ask us to do anything unreasonable, even though they have asked us to obey in the future even if it does seem unreasonable. I don't think they will ask us to do anything more unreasonable than some of the unreasonable requests on blood doctrine inconsistencies, organ transplants, divorce for "spiritual" adultery (but not for areas of immorality they have not yet defined under the scope of porneia), etc.
They will, evidently, ask us to believe things that are unreasonable or even patently untrue. Men in leadership positions can't usually go more than a few weeks without needing someone to believe something that isn't reasonable or true. That's also the nature of human leadership. That seems to get worse with committees as often as it gets better.

Of course there was an attempt to say when, quite clearly .  It must be rather a predicament for those who make claims, or "attempts", that are forever immortalized in print! I believe Russell was being honest at the time of his attempts, and truly believed what he was saying, otherwise he would have not published it. The fact that he tried to get around it the way he did after his words failed highlights typical human weakness. True, one should expect better from someone who claims to be a messenger, and faithful and wise servant of God, but it wouldn't be the first time human failings manifested themselves in those of whom we would least expect it. That is exactly why, and I know you are on the same page with me on this, we should be cautious about claims and "attempts" made by anyone, even, (or should  I say especially?) those at the top.  I know, many would disagree and pretty much believe what the Slave says, to the letter. There is another website, run by Witnesses, that is strongly monitored for any negativity against the slave.  The other day in FS a sister who I admire and who has her head screwed on right, made a surprising comment. She said that if the Slave told her to do anything she would do it. I am assuming she didn't mean jump off a bridge, because she is not that kind of a person, and has her own views on a few things. So I am assuming she meant "within reason" . But anyone hearing her, who doesn't really know her, could have got the wrong impression.
It is a big dilemma to say the least when we know the Slave has erred in the past and can err in the future (by their own admission) and yet we are still supposed to be obedient to it (now, and in the future when we receive "lifesaving instructions that may not make sense from a human stand point"). I was discussing this with my step dad (elder) and he admitted it was a difficult situation. He said we just have to trust Jehovah. Also, and I've mentioned this on another occasion, we will obey God as ruler rather than man, which means when obedience to man would result in disobedience to God, then we don't go there. This applies to any man. Br. Jackson insinuated this also in his ARC hearing.
 

Russell himself said he was ashamed of Second Adventism with all its false predictions. He was embarrassed by the Adventists yet he took little else from them besides their chronology. From the start, he was drawn to their chronology system. He often claimed that he was not so interested in the chronology but focused on Christian character instead, yet he made belief in the updated Second Adventist chronology the single criteria that separated the Foolish Virgins from the Wise Virgins.
Here's an example of the kind of dishonesty I refer to that always seems to accompany the topic of chronology in every religion that focuses on it. It goes all the way back to the first few months of Watch Tower publications:
Here are some statements from the January 1881 Watch Tower magazine:
This is a question doubtless that many ask themselves, viz: "How soon will our change come?" This change many of us have looked forward to for years, and we yet with much pleasure, think of the time when we shall be gathered unto Jesus and see Him as he is. In the article concerning our change, in December paper, we expressed the opinion that it was nearer than many supposed, and while we would not attempt to prove our change at any particular time, yet we propose looking at some of the evidences which seem to show the translation or change from the natural to the spiritual condition, due this side or by the fall of our year 1881. The evidence that our change will be by that time, increases since we have seen that the change to spiritual bodies is not the marriage. While we thought the marriage to be the change, and knowing there was three and a half years of special favor to the Nominal Church (now left desolate) from 1878, we could not expect any translation this side of 1881, or during this three and a half years. But since we recognize that going into the marriage is not only being made ready (by recognizing His presence) for the change, but also, that going in includes the change itself, then the evidences that we go in (or will be changed) inside of the time mentioned are strong, and commend themselves to all interested as worthy of investigation. Aside from any direct proof that our change is near, the fact that the manner of the change can now be understood, is evidence that we are near the time of the change, for truth is "meat in due season," and understood only as due. It will be remembered that after the spring of 1878, (when we understand Jesus was due as King) that the subject of holiness or the wedding garment, was very much agitated. And aside from the parallel to the end of the Jewish age, and favor at that time being shown to the Jewish nation, which implied the presence of the King, the consideration of the wedding garment, was also proof of the correctness of the application, for "the King had come in to see the guests," [Matt. 22:11] and hence all were interested in knowing how they stood before Him. Now as the inspection of guests is the last thing prior to our change, which precedes the marriage and we are all now considering the change. It would seem that the time for it, is nigh. We shall now present what we adduce from the types and prophetic points as seeming to indicate the translation of the saints and closing of the door to the high calling by 1881. . . . [skipping a large portion on these evidences, some of which were considered "proofs" of 1874 that evidenced the correctness of 1881.] If this be a correct application (and it seems harmonious) and the time of building is seven years, then we would expect our change by or before the fall of 1881, as from 1874 to then would be the time given for building. . . .  by coming into a knowledge of the Bridegroom's presence, etc., during the seven years harvest [from 1874 to 1881] . . . and as the seven years are about complete, that we will soon follow by being changed. Matt. 25 and the parallelism of the Jewish and Gospel ages, seem to teach that the wise of the virgins "who are alive and remain" must all come in, to a knowledge of the bridegroom's presence, by the fall of 1881, when the door—opportunity to become a member of the bride—will close. . . . We suggest as quite possible, that the change may come to some prepared before that time. . . .  "Yet seven days [years] and I will cause it to rain upon the earth," should be significant, because we have expected trouble, in a special sense, about 1881, and, according to the type, we must enter in by that time. . . . We used to think it would be in the midst of a great trouble that we would be changed, but now we do not. . . .  If the three years mentioned in connection with Aaron has any bearing, then it would teach our change as coming this side of 1881, as three years from 1878 would bring us inside of that time. . . .  We now have taken prophetic measurements and allegories together, [R182 : page 5] five different points seeming to teach the resurrection of the dead in Christ and change of the living between the fall of 1874 and 1881. Two or more witnesses are enough to prove any case, as a rule, and certainly God has given us abundant evidence. We are also glad to notice that all these things only corroborate previous truths, thus proving to a certainty each application as correct and causing the old jewels to shine brighter. The five lines of argument briefly stated are these: 1st. The days of Daniel ending in 1874, at which time the resurrection commenced, and since which, the dead have been going in to the marriage. 2d. The end of the seven years from that time, as marked by the parallel, of the end of the "seventy weeks" in the Jewish age ending in our year 1881, at which time we all should be in and the door closed, being the end of time of special favor to the nominal church before commencement of trouble which follows our change. [skipping more, etc. etc. etc.]
There are some cautionary statements built into the article, and statements that this is not proof, just evidence. But note what is done with the evidence. Intelligently-minded people know what this evidence means. And spiritually-minded people know that the faithful and wise servant is providing "food at the proper time" [meat in due season] and that this is the proper time for wise virgins to distinguish themselves from foolish virgins. Also, all this evidence is only evidence on its own, but as it adds up, it becomes "proof" to those who appreciate that God is giving us this evidence in abundance, and that even two of these five lines of evidence should therefore constitute enough to "prove any case" as a rule.
Here are some statements from the May 1881 Watch Tower magazine, p.224, on the same topic, now that the time for hesitation was due:
The WATCH TOWER never claimed that the body of Christ will be changed to spiritual beings during this year. There is such a change due sometime. We have not attempted to say when, but have repeatedly said that it could not take place before the fall of 1881. This was a true statement. The Watch Tower had not claimed that the body of Christ will be changed in 1881, only that the evidence about 1881 should be seen as proof by intelligent and spiritually minded persons who have a true faith and appreciation for God's truths. From this point forward, after failure was obvious, it would be easy to cherry-pick quotes that showed that no one had specifically said it would happen by the fall of 1881  -- even though it was supposed to obvious that for some it would likely happen even before the fall of 1881. But even this is just technicalities and semantics. It's true that they hadn't said it would definitely happen.
Still, there is dishonesty in the attempt to sweep all the embarrassment away. It's in the phrase: "We have not attempted to say when . . ." Is this a true statement? Was there really no attempt to say when the change would take place? That previous article on the topic of when, in January 1881 --only four months earlier--  might as well have been called "When Will the Change Take Place?" It was nothing if not an attempt to say when!
The claim might be technically true. But is it honest?
 

James Thomas Rook

The service year has not concluded. I seriously doubt that any information within a regional convention would have the results for next year totals. This year totals are posted in JW.org

*** w18 August pp. 4-5 par. 8 Do You Have the Facts? ***

8 There is another danger in quickly forwarding e-mails and text messages. In some lands, our work is under restriction or outright ban. Our opposers in such lands may purposely circulate reports designed to instill fear or to cause us to distrust one another. Consider what happened in the former Soviet Union. The secret police, known as the KGB, spread rumors that various prominent brothers had betrayed Jehovah’s people. Many put confidence in such false reports, and as a result, they separated themselves from Jehovah’s organization. How sad! Thankfully, many later returned, but some never did. Their faith was shipwrecked. (1 Tim. 1:19) How can we avoid such a disastrous outcome? Refuse to circulate negative or unsubstantiated reports. Do not be naive, or gullible. Be sure you have the facts.

If this is true, then they would be using the same information posted in JW.org. Meanwhile, the service year ends in September.

I remember when this was a hot topic ..... 1966 .... I had just graduated from High School..
I was young, and had NO life experience ... and took it all at face value, as presented.
51 years later, and never having seen one particle of evidence of demon activity at any time
... anywhere ...  I am less concerned.
I did give it some thought in one 2014 Bible Movie "Son of God",  when they cast an actor that looked exactly like Barack Obama, as Satan.
 

One under Demon Attack should calmly.....investigate his house and household articles. In some few cases the house may be the cause of trouble and the best thing to do is move out.
The Watchtower December 15, 1966, p.742
 

James Thomas Rook

The service year has not concluded. I seriously doubt that any information within a regional convention would have the results for next year totals. This year totals are posted in JW.org

*** w18 August pp. 4-5 par. 8 Do You Have the Facts? ***

8 There is another danger in quickly forwarding e-mails and text messages. In some lands, our work is under restriction or outright ban. Our opposers in such lands may purposely circulate reports designed to instill fear or to cause us to distrust one another. Consider what happened in the former Soviet Union. The secret police, known as the KGB, spread rumors that various prominent brothers had betrayed Jehovah’s people. Many put confidence in such false reports, and as a result, they separated themselves from Jehovah’s organization. How sad! Thankfully, many later returned, but some never did. Their faith was shipwrecked. (1 Tim. 1:19) How can we avoid such a disastrous outcome? Refuse to circulate negative or unsubstantiated reports. Do not be naive, or gullible. Be sure you have the facts.

This afternoon (Saturday) was our weekend meeting, and the public speaker said that at the Orangeburg, SC Assembly last weekend it was said that the Brotherhood had dropped to 7,500,000 worldwide.
It was my impression that we were at somewhere around 8.2 million, and growing.
That means (if true) that even with several BILLION HOURS of public witnessing .... there was a net LOSS of 700,000 JWs.
So, have we actually had that much decrease, and does anybody have any "official" numbers to verify what I heard today from the platform?

So for decades where we were told that our worldwide increase was PROOF of Jehovah's Blessing....
This would then be PROOF of what exactly?
Or am I just being too picky?

Wait a minute!
Oh... nevermind.... we already got rid of the song "Theocracy's Increase".......
new light.
Continue on.

Yes. If you are going to go hogwild over critical thinking, then go all the way. Turn it upon the Bible itself. The reason we can look at the Bible the way we do is because we have 'tasted and seen that Jehovah is good.' It is experience that determines how we look upon things. But if you hail from the world of criticism, you cannot conceive of unity. You have never seen it. Leave these people to their own devices and there is no Bible book written as presented. Every one of them is a hash of conflicting authors with warring agendas. It is the only reality these scholars have ever observed and it colors all of their scholarship.
Bethel will never let go of 607, I don't think, because it enabled them to hit the nail on the head. The entire world only goes to war for the first time ever once in all millenia and they hit the year. Other years are known for various world leaders losing their library cards. Nothing packs the punch of 1914. If the entire world going to war concurrently for the first time ever isn't peace being taken from the world, what is? 
Even if the overlapping generations threaten to separate - and I wouldn't hold my breath on that - they could simply say that a generation is a loose term of a certain time period - say, like the 'industrial age.' In 1974 a brief snippet in the Watchtower quoted some source with that outlook, and I recall thinking that that view might surface again some day. @JW Insider can find it, no doubt. It was in the Watchtower's equivalent of 'watching the world' - a series that ran for awhile of 3 items to a page.
A few weeks ago there appeared in the meeting the Kingdom Rules book on Isaiah 11.  Discussing the return of the Jews from Babylonian exile and how they would be encouraged by Isaiah's prophesy about the animals, it said: "The lion would eat straw in the sense that it would not devour the Jews' cattle." They didn't have to do it. They could have said "God will supply them with bales of hay in order to feed the lions." Okay? They are not hung up on whether words are literal or figurative. 'Generation' will go more unconventional yet if it has to.
I am handicapped in the 607 discussion by not knowing anything about it. But it is less of a handicap then one might think. @Ann O'Maly trots out the 100 year old quote that profane history cannot be trusted because it is written by men of conflicting motives in a Satan-controlled world. She hopes anyone reading the quote with think the GB stupid. The quote differs hardly at all with 'history is written by the victors,' which she probably quotes with an air of superiority in other discussions. @Arauna pointed out before what anyone with discernment knows already - that the land of scholarship is one of big egos (she was speaking Egyptology, I think, but it is across the board) where the 'victors' to all they can do discredit whoever they have temporarily out-argued - defunding them, even banning them from access to materials. 
You don't go slobbering over critical thinking as the be-all and end-all. It is too easily outmaneuvered by other interests.