AllenSmith34

Allen, I noticed that the IP address for "Gray Reformer" did indeed resolve to Canada, but only up until today. As of today it no longer resolves to Canada but to some other place. Just thought you might like to know that.

That would be correct. Witnesses that understood knew well enough not to speculate. Commonsense, should dictate, that if God wanted? He could end this system and bring judgment day, anytime he wishes. But, there is a purpose for a timeline. To give every person a chance to repent, thus saving their mortal soul to the last possible moment of human existence as we know it, and live it.

Enough said, thank you.

Indeed. But, an easy way for the orthodox church to influence the Kremlin to remove an opposing church that doesn’t advocate the killing of another human being through a political process. (I.e. a political pawn) Which governments are at play?

So, there is no hatred from the Watchtower toward the Russian Federation, other than having to put up with the mandates of earthly governments as they come to change. If you study history? You will find the same prospects in Jesus time.

Although, the topic of conversation is “appreciation” to a certain person. I have no stomach to poke fun at a person due to his outer appearance or the way he conducts himself in public with mannerisms. That is more telling of others than “Lett” himself. A given fault of humanity, especially those that don’t study scripture as they should. 1 Samuel 16:7

Of course, letter writing has nothing to do with a political agenda. That irrational idea is a knee-jerk reaction to cover a false statement and it has sinister implications written all over it.

Just as Russia used the Watchtower as an excuse to actually retaliate itself against the United States because of its sanctions. The Watchtower became a pawn in a governmental chess game.

I never said it was for a misguided purpose. I can't say I really agree with the purpose, but that was not a concern of mine at the time. My question was more about whether the book would be re-set (in new molten lead linotype) or whether it would be redone for offset printing, and perhaps even an upgrade to the artwork. Also, we had a set of proofreading changes that were not exactly the kind that that the proofreading department could just fix without permission. (And this has an expensive trickle-down effect on the other language editions.) They would be tied in with editorial decisions.
A few month later, for the updated "Truth" book (1968 edition vs the new 1981 edition), several references to 1975 and the probable imminent end in the 1970's, had to be removed and replaced with new content, but this was a more obvious editorial decision, not a proofreading decision.)

Many sincere brothers now are quick to defend the mistakes of the past by saying that the number of little ones who were stumbled was actually a good thing. We've seem multiple comments on this forum that make that claim. As the misguided logic goes, with 1975, for example, it was a kind of test that only stumbled those who were serving Jehovah with a date in mind.
To be fair, I think all this talk about the importance of obedience to men is a mistake. It is not hooked to anything so tangible as a calendar date so fewer people will be stumbled outright. But more people will be disheartened over time without being able to put their finger on exactly why. In my opinion it will be because they probably anticipated that association with fellow Witnesses would continue to enhance their love for Jehovah God and Jesus Christ in an overwhelmingly positive, uplifting, encouraging and heartwarming way.
In this case, perhaps the brothers in the lead feel that they need to cover all the bases, and prepare us for unknown possibilities. The problem, in my opinion, is that this emphasis on the importance of obedience to men has now been associated (e.g., summer conventions) with a kind of future "fear-mongering" about the conditions we can expect during the great tribulation. It creates an even heavier load by making us overly concerned about the next day, when we would prefer to think that seeking first the Kingdom would have freed us from such anxiety, throwing our burden upon Jehovah, knowing that Christ's load is light, and his yoke is kind.
(Matthew 6:33, 34) 33 “Keep on, then, seeking first the Kingdom and his righteousness, and all these other things will be added to you. 34 So never be anxious about the next day, for the next day will have its own anxieties. Each day has enough of its own troubles. But this makes it appear to serve the exact same purpose as 1975. This time, by associating these unspecified ways in which we will need to show obedience to men with a certain level of fear-mongering about the great tribulation, we will pay more than the usual attention to men. It should have the effect of ratcheting up the activity and anticipation by making the end seem even more imminent.
It reminds me of an experience at Bethel when I once had an opportunity to question Brother Franz about his plan to have us study a 1973 book a second time in 1981.
*** km 11/80 pp. 1-3 par. 5 Part I—Congregation Meetings ***
CONGREGATION BOOK STUDY: In January we will start studying the book God’s Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached. This 416-page book, published in 1973, contains vital information that is even more apropos now than when it was first released. Think of the hundreds of thousands of new ones who have been baptized since it was first published. My question was about whether we needed a new edition to change some inaccuracies, or whether it would go into print using the old press plates. His response was basically that we needed no update to it because "this is what the publishers need right now." [The book was basically a history of the Watchtower Society wedged into what are now half-obsolete explanations of Matthew 25.] But his idea was that it would somehow make people appreciate the Society, its place in our time, and therefore raise the level of activity.
So ultimately I think that the pendulum will swing the other way again, and there will be a kind of retraction of this method of making the end seem so imminent as a way to raise activity levels. The Bible indicates that this method can backfire.
(Proverbs 13:12) 12 Expectation postponed makes the heart sick,. . . Langston Hughes agreed:
*** g94 5/22 p. 27 Put Humor Into Your Life ***
Poet Langston Hughes once wrote: “Like a welcome summer rain, humor may suddenly cleanse and cool the earth, the air, and you.” Oh wait, not that one, but his famous one: "What happens to a dream deferred?"
Of course, those who become disheartened (over the current emphasis) will likely be "chalked up to" the fact that this served as a test to get rid of those who were not worthy. For most, including myself, the overall context of these "changes" is not as bad as I just represented it, since the overall point is not to fear men, but to expect Jehovah to come to our aid when the trouble seems completely overwhelming. But unfortunately, I fear that even the perceived combination of emphasis on "obedience to men" and "fear-mongering" will combine to create a new kind of burden that will not appear to reflect the true spirit of Christianity. 

Definition of politics https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politics
1a : the art or science of government b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government 2: political actions, practices, or policies 3a : political affairs or business; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government) b : political life especially as a principal activity or profession c : political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices 4: the political opinions or sympathies of a person 5a : the total complex of relations between people living in society b : relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view     By point 5a in explanation we are all involved in this process, as human living on Earth. By point 3a in particular group (WT JWorg) exist also political activities that is focused on events within society (members) and on other side how this religious group have to deal whit person outside of WT society (WT as Company and JW as religious body of members) In general use inside JW members, word "politics" are clearly viewed, i believe, as activity that is specific mainly or most for politicians and government that lead some country. JW members, in general, don't see how would even word "politic" be something that can be used in vocabulary of WTBT Society or JW congregations for internal affairs. This word sounds to much worldly to JW members, like sort of blasphemy. Even among  ordinary people in society (non JW) word "politics" have mainly negative connotations, especially when they looking how politicians acting.   

Heh, JW letters was addressed to Russian Government, Mr Putin, Medvedev and all other political characters that are in "position to changed" Court decisions. So, how can you considered that as Neutral colored letters? When involved at least two parts of governing,  political and judicial power. 
What JW consider as it is more powerful?   8 000 000 x i do not how many prayers in the day to JHVH ... or 8 000 000 letters of pray to Putin and Medvedev who "serve to Gods enemy, devil"? :))))

How do you define Christian Activism, Political Activism, and Civil disobedience?

What you're implying is what? That, Jehovah’s Witnesses send their letters to the Orthodox Church? At some point, making sense reflects upon the one making the argument.

Just like in 1975. It was a self-inflicted incident perpetrated by overzealous individuals that misunderstood the Watchtower message. Therefore, there was NO! Test of faith within the organization. However, there are still confused individuals that continue to mislead the public just as any former witness does to continue a known conspiracy theory. So, there is no need to defend the Watchtower with occurrences that were out of their control.

That is why perception is such a disingenuous and pretentious view for former witnesses and those that think along with, the same line of reasoning. That is why the GB work tirelessly to do God’s work as envisioned and made known by God.

Those witnesses that have a true heart to see this, don’t have a need to follow “blindly” as speculated, but with genuine faith. Those without faith and a weak heart set their minds to question God’s words.

That’s good the idea on perception can have logical reasoning behind conjecture. Although, since you bring up WWll, and Nazism as though it can be compared? What truth can be extrapolated when the Nazi governing church prayed to God for their success to win that war, while the ally churches prayed to God for their success in winning that war, pitting their own professed brothers of faith against each other

Aside from those that gave up their faithful brothers for fear of death to the enemy, even though Christ made it a point not to fear such an outcome? Where does the wisdom lie?

As far as some of your questions go, I will assume they are rhetorical.
About the other, I hold the same opinion Abraham Lincoln had when he was asked, during the American Civil War, whether God was on the side of the North ...or the South.
His reply was (possibly paraphrased...) "I don't think God got us into this war, and I don't think God will get us out of it."
The Allied Forces won because they had greater resources, an unlimited supply of soldiers, and because they developed the atomic bomb, first.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Jehovah God has influenced a single event in modern times.
If you know something more than I, that involves hard evidence ... please tell me.
 
 

Precisely. Now you have hit a snag with your own interpretation. Is the GB responsible for that? Every witness should be aware, the God of this world plays a pivotal role with the horrors that go on within society. Can we blame God for that?

The “assumption” is condemnation, but, who, what, when, where, and why? Facts seem to be appreciated but not when it’s not delivered, and rhetorical. That’s a double edge sword as well, since I have yet to see any.

Then we have just learned whose reasoning holds an irrational thought. Venturing into the past without a proper context leans toward desperation than facts.
I believe we have gone full circle with this assumption of, why perception is such a disingenuous and pretentious view for former witnesses and those that think with the same line of reasoning.

I was unaware sending letters to a government that disbanded the preaching work of a religious organization when it left other religions well enough alone, especially the Orthodox Church had anything to do with the Watchtower making a vote. What did all those letters VOTE for? If you can explain it with new evidence of truth, you reference as being, it would be greatly appreciated.

I would think, all those brothers, that sent in letters, in support of their brothers in Russia were doing so under the biblical guidance in Hebrews 13:1. If you have information to the contrary, please enlighten me.

However, if that assumption proves too difficult, then I must abide by what is mentioned in James 4:11 since this might become self-serving "In some very few cases your own perceptions may be true, but mostly they are simply just plain wrong." upon your own understanding.

GA asks, "Isn't this an exceptional case? Apart from obvious censuring of [apostates] within the Christian congregation at that time, am I overlooking another similar example in Scripture?"

Well, if so, then it's quite an “exception,” don't you think? If we want to look at "Scripture" in an overall sense, we have the prophets openly chastising the Israelite and Judean kings repeatedly, even a faithful one like David, right? Elihu castigating the “righteous man” Job, eh? Then there are those letters in Rev. 2-3. Only two congs there come up looking well, and again the accounts are public condemnations since they were written in Revelation and circulated widely.

But I think the book of Acts itself may be the greatest example. Before entering into that matter, a bit of background is necessary. I partake of biblical scholarship in the wide meaning of the term. By that I mean not just stale 19th-century commentaries that predate critical scholarship but real, current biblical scholarship, not foolishly accepting whatever such ones say (impossible to do anyway since such scholars are in frequent disagreement) but finding what is useful and true, separating the wheat from the chaff—all from the perspective of a faithful believer but also a genuinely critical thinker.

That said, there is much truth to the common contention among critical NT scholars about the book of Acts having a candy-coated bias that glosses over the tension between Paul and the Jerusalem heavies who preceded him in Christianity. In fact, for a faithful person this view has huge implications for why Jehovah did not have Jesus in contact with Paul while Jesus walked the earth—but then that is a separate matter.

Do you find it odd that nowhere in Acts is the Antioch incident ever mentioned? Or even Peter’s trip to Antioch? And then further “reinforcements” from James arriving there? Do you find it odd that Luke has a record at Acts 21:25 of James and the older men in Jerusalem telling Paul: “As for the believers among the nations, we have sent out, rendering our decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication” when according to Acts Paul not only knew all this but was an active participant in forming such a decision? Wouldn’t that be like Fred Franz telling JFR in 1939 that not all had the heavenly hope but that there was a great crowd who would live on earth? (Sorry the parallel is not exact but it’s off the cuff.) My point here is that the book of Acts is quite odd in multiple ways, and one of them is that the work really is an attempt to gloss over the heavy disagreements that existed within early Christianity among its leaders. Luke was a peacemaker who reduced the real tensions that existed to a spat between Paul and Barnabas over Mark—though even here we see the Jerusalem group (Barnabas and Mark) vs. Paul—and presented the early Christian leadership in an idealized manner. In reality it was regularly contentious, like BOE meetings frequently are today and like Ray Franz reports GB meetings often were in his day.

That’s all I have time for, but hopefully there are some things for you to think about here in response to your query.

New here and I'm still learning the ropes, reading various one's posts and so on. I guess I should try my hand at a "Controversial Post" that might rile some readers. That's not really my motive. Rather it is to stimulate some thought. It is certainly not to damage anyone's faith.

On the OP by JWI here (https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/56691-i-am-the-christ/?tab=comments#comment-95352) Space Merchant brought up the matter of JWs being Restorationists. There is much truth to that, whether the org has always wanted to admit it or not. The question to deal with in such a case is how far any group is willing to go in that regard. For example, if a group today really wanted to go full bore in imitating the first Christians, would not those already in authority literally lay their hands upon newly appointed men? That’s what the earliest Christians did.

That's a relatively minor issue, but a larger one is my focus. Let's grant that the brothers today pretty much do try and imitate the first Christians. They have a history, however, of not always wanting to do so. For example, in Ray Franz's first book he relates that when he was working on the Aid book and went to his uncle about what he was discovering regarding how the first Christians governed themselves, he got a response that basically showed Fred Franz knew all along that the way the org had governed itself up to that point was not the way the earliest Christians did. His uncle stated that changes from the way the first Christians did things were acceptable, specifically, "since Christ had taken Kingdom power in 1914, there could rightly be changes in the way things were administered on earth" (CofC pp. 24-5, 1st ed.; p. 28, 4th ed.). This was over the institution of the bodies of elders arrangement, something that, to the org's credit they adopted so as to become more in harmony with the biblical view. It is worthy of note, however, that FF knew the earlier cong. servant system was unbiblical, for years felt that was okay, and only agreed to change it when others put pressure on him to do so.

So what about today? In spite of many criticisms by outsiders and grumpy people who leave for whatever reasons (and a few are surely legit, though most are probably not), the basic structure of a governing committee/board/body is in imitation of the Jerusalem group of original living apostles and other leading figures there. But is everything today like it was in the first century? Did that early GB never openly criticize each other before the flock as today's GB is so careful to avoid doing? The incident at Antioch shows otherwise (Gal. 2:11-14). Here we have one member of the GB, Paul, calling on the carpet quite openly, "before them all," Peter and other GB men from James. Not only did he do this publicly in Antioch but he then sent out a letter to the congregations in Galatia declaring what he did. Furthermore, he did this knowing that copies of that letter would be made and circulated elsewhere.

Just how does the GB's practice of governing God's people today imitate that model? Could you imagine today’s GB imitating the first Christians in this regard? If one tries to make an exception here and say that in this area, it's OK to depart from the biblical model, then is it not hypocritical to criticize other professed Christians for not following the earliest Christians' practice and celebrating holidays like Christmas and Easter, or failing to preach the Kingdom of God as a real government?

That should be something to think about that will qualify as a controversial topic! Remember, please, this is not posted to harm anyone's faith but to cause individuals to think.

Yes, and it has been going on for years now, the fact that Rick Fearon has been mentioned only adds more fuel to the fire due to how everyone views Fearon, in addition to those who support and or alluded to whatever he says. If his own blood deem him as crazy, that should tell you something. I myself had a run in with those in support of anything Fearon says and it was not fun at all, but very aggravating to deal with such ones. Former members of Jehovah's Witnesses, those who are neutral and actually fight against the lies people make about the faith, often have to clash with former members who show a total disdain for the faith itself, which was the case with the whole stocks and bonds information of which people tend to spread conspiracy of, only for those who knows the information far better than the conspiracy spreaders, putting the truth into the light, which was successfully done regarding the Riley Trust and anything in connection of it, the same can be said about those saying the JWs have military connection when it is known JWs wouldn't even submit to nationalism, and or join the Navy, so the Navy contract claims are false. As for the tax return thing, it was brought up by a man named Jason Zelda, to which people have called out about his twisting of information regarding tax returns.
Other than that, it is always a constant war-zone when it comes to stuff like this, and some, even when proven wrong still rely on the falsehood information, some even now rely on such and claim it as truth, when the real truth that debunked everything has been made known years before and known by everyone.
Yes, JWs only use God's Word, the claim that JWs harbor weapons, poisons and other devices of destruction under their churches, be it in Warwick, to Pennsylvania, all the way to the Congo is unfounded. Churches that harbor weapons or the like are known as Christian Terrorist, such as Christian Militants, who also train children for combat and or the KKK, the modern day Crusaders, and several others, an example would be, a pastor, some years ago, took a gun out of fake bible to shoot an angry husband, for his wife had committed adultery with the pastor, who shot the husband during service in front of a crowd, for it is that crazy out there.
Since JWs are not of the mainstream Christendom and the fact they are Restorationist, there is 0% chance that they would have a stockpile of weapons and poisons, of which JW opponents make the claim they will soon distribute poisons to their members, the irony of it all is a JW opponent riddled an empty JW church with bullets from an assault rifle, the response and reaction from JWs was not of fighting fire with fire, pulling an AR-15 to seek out the culprit, no, they were concerned and very passive, as well as being aware of how people treat them, those who have a total disdain for them.
That is also true, that is why I was able to spot the 2 links that Witness posted as the top Google searched links, these same links are used time and time again to further make proof to a claim proven false many times in the past.

Looking good.
"How many times is my brother to sin and I am to forgive him? Up to 33 times?
Nay, I say unto you, 'Up to 34 times, and beyond, as the need arises."

Actually, there are 15 archangels, according to how many chassis styles Ford Motor Company has.
Gimme a break .... equating how many archangels there are according to the 12 signs of the zodiac ... which are artificial constructs that vary from culture to culture?
Tradition says that no matter which way Mickey Mouse turns his head, the ears always face  the viewer.
If the Bible does not say... everything else is conjecture .....
... ONLY.

Yeah, in general, no one really mentions anything that is not Biblical Cannon and or uninspired and only other Archangels are mention in these uninspired text, with the inclusion of Michael, in these uninspired canons, Gabriel is also considered to be an Archangel. However, in full Biblical Canon, inspired text, the only Archangel is Michael, pretty much the head honcho of God's Army, otherwise known as The Great Prince.