Thinking

7 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Yes. Transfusion of blood is an organ transplant.

Because JWs accept transfusion of product rendered from blood than JWs are exposed to all the dangers of transplantation.

Scripturally the notion of "eating" is something done for nutrition. We can render several products from the donor blood supply.

Let's talk about a product from blood we are supposed to reject, the one called red cells. If you solely transfuse red cells in an attempt at parenteral nutrition the patient will get no nutritional benefit and the patient will die from starvation.

Now let's talk about a product from blood we can accept, the one called cryosupernatant plasma. If you solely transfuse cryosupernatant plasma in an attempt at parenteral nutrition the patient will get nutritional benefit and you have an opportunity to prevent a patient from starving to death.

Hence, in relation to "eating" we have the contradictory position where a product we are told to reject provides no nutritional benefit when administered intravenously where of a product we are told we can accept it does provide nutritional benefit.

 

You are talking a lot just as the brothers have to talk a lot to explain something so simple…..there is no need to give such a salad of words…..when the brothers explain all of this like you did my eyes just glaze over …..the society talks like it..you talk like it….others talk like it…..for and against and it never ends..over and over and over for years and years I’ve seen this play out on line.

You are talking about eating…about nutrition…it’s nothing to do with either of that…it’s about respect …..Respect to Jehovah….just like Eve was supposed to show respect to a certain fruit from a tree…..blood can be likened to that.

Get away from this medical intellectual word play…yes yes I know the brothers use it and I guess it’s a must at times..but cryosupernatant is still a small part of the full blood…..and a lot of this is straining the gnat talk….if you do not agree with the blood aspect..then best not to get baptised…I would respect and welcome you either way.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Which "biblical rule", interpreted through the practice of WTJWorg, can cause more harm to JW members?
The "blood rule" or "two witnesses rule"?

I am not a supporter of blood transfusions for medical reasons. But on the other hand, every medicine or method of treatment has its own dangers.

Well the blood issue is a command..not a WT rule…..

the two witness thing was a rule and did cause great damage.It’s now been amended…but too late for so many …

Men did what you are talking about..men who had no right to…these sorts have always existed amongst Gods people….causing him great grief…and a mess he has to clean up.

3 hours ago, Anna said:

The premise is that fractions of the 4 major components of blood may be regarded as being no blood. So if someone accepts a transfusion of these fractions it is not regarded as a blood transfusion. 

On the other hand  having a transfusion of whole blood or it's 4 major components is considered as breaking God's law and therefore is deemed a disfellowshiping offense, unless the recipient of the transfusion has acted under duress and is repentant. 

On the ward and in medical institutions a blood transfusion is considered as dangerous and a organ donation/placement/ transplant

A accredited medical person must start the delivery and stay by their side taking all their observations every ten minutes for an hour…then every 15 minutes then every half hour …then hourly.

I was not born into our faith, I was an adult and worked in the medical field so it was a subject I had to make sure of. Scripturally I don’t understand why anyone cannot understand there is no difference as to eating the blood and being fed the blood via a tube…..you are being FED blood via a tube….this does not require a scientific explanation..it is common sense…

If everyone understood as to who gave their blood and the incredible amount of parasites and bacteria that are not screened for you wouldn’t ever want one.A Erica s should be especially wary of this, your screening is terrible as are your sources of blood.

Jehovah claims the blood and we need to respect the PRINCIPLE  behind it.

He is not fanatical..he knows we consume cooked blood in even the bled meat..but it is honoring him to pour it out onto the land thus giving it back to him,

It’s such a simple thing to understand …It’s the principle We need to observe……he even forgave those who did not follow his instructions as in King David’s account ….thus persons can and should be forgiven if they are sorry for having a transfusion.. 

 As to fractions..every vaccine and anti venom from snake bite etc has fractions in them.

JWs have the right understanding ..like it or not….as to wether it should be a conscience matter…well I considered that seriously for some time but then that would make fornication  and idol worship a conscience matter…so I had to step back from that reasoning…..

You all do as you want..no skin of my nose…

5 hours ago, Errikos Tsiamis said:

Ultimately, it is up to church leaders and parents to discern the readiness of a young person for baptism, taking into account their level of understanding, maturity, and commitment to the Christian faith. I

Ultimately it is up to Holy Spirit as to wether a child or anyone is ready for baptism.

You’re wrong on this one ….your teaching an invisible dogma of our organization and no young person ….especially a child can ever understand the weight and the cost of loyalty to Jesus and Jehovah.

I speak from a lot of experience in the truth..and talking with some very sad cases.

What some of the elders and parents do to these young ones is nothing short of spiritual abuse. Their young shoulders cannot carry such a heavy yoke that even we adults struggle with….

From their own lips they admit they had no idea what they were really doing nor the cost of taking such a stand but the pressure of pleasing their parents and the congregation was a major part .

You are very wrong on this brother…and I’m am very heavy hearted that we have not learned from our past.

On 10/19/2022 at 1:23 AM, Anna said:

Oh dear...now this sounds like I am saying Americans can't help being stupid. I think I've been watching too much Blacklist and I'm beginning to sound like Aram Mojtabai. Those who have watched the show will know what I mean. I should just shut up...

it’s the same over here…Australians are stupid too…😀

On 10/1/2022 at 2:00 AM, ComfortMyPeople said:

(Daniel 11:43) . . .And he will rule over the hidden treasures of gold and silver and over all the desirable things of Egypt. And the Libʹy·ans and the E·thi·oʹpi·ans will be at his steps.

I guess this assessment is a bit controversial...

Yes it is but nevertheless extremely interesting…very very interesting so thanks for sharing 

4 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

Does seem very strange when a person can, as i did, just resigned from the JW org. It would seem that a person is being asked to be 'punished' by the Edlers for some reason....  Does it not go against 'company policy' though for Elders to not disfellowship a non repentant sinner. 

They were not interested in company policy…..they wanted to follow Christ’s lead and were interested in her life and well being and we’re aware of her mental health at the time…..by the way she wants to come back….

Our elders are now very very kind ….I’m sure there may be still some of the old kind…..three strikes and your out….but the society is trying to weed them out or retrain them…..

18 hours ago, Anna said:

I am surprised they did. Usually they don't disfellowship someone just because they ask to be disfellowshipped (?) The only way I think that would work is if you handed them a letter of dissasociation...(?) But what do I know....

And yes, if you want to join the closed club you can.....as Tom said, it might be more beneficial for you than here only. 

We had some one asked to be disfellowshipped …the elders didn’t want to but she was insistent…..so they did…but it seems now the elders are loathed to disfellowship anyone,,,they really try hard to get the person to take a break….

13 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Hmm. Well, we DO have to work on that. On the other hand, police are known to develop a sort of “gallows humor” due to what they have experienced. Maybe it’s something like that with you too.

You didn’t have to say this. No one here would ever have known. The fact that you did say it nonetheless indicates several things: 1) respect for the arrangement of the congregation of God, 2) a personal sense of honor, 3) proof that you do what you do out of fear of God and not humans, and 4) a desire not to ensnare others, even unknowingly, into violating congregation discipline not to engage with disfellowshipped ones. My respect for you has steadily heightened, and with this it goes through the roof. 

At the same time, I still see no reason you should not join the closed club, nor for @Annato reject your request when you make it. Disfellowshipped ones can attend meetings, in fact they are encouraged to do so when repentant. I’ve no doubt that the ‘honor system’ would compel you to behave there as though sitting in the Kingdom Hall. There’s no reason to cut yourself off from proper association, particularly as there are those there who are just the ticket for you to be readjusted. Find things worthwhile and you could even repackage them for the crowd here. I mean, the malcontents here repackage and run again the same pablum ad infinitum. No reason you can’t repackage stuff as well.

Well, yeah. I see where you’re coming from. But there’s no need to add to it unnecessarily. You should come, as the eagle does, to the carcass that is JWI—and all the others, too. 

I’m not sure what to make of this. Yes, you don’t want the Truth to be spoken of abusively. But with the elders apparently willing to keep you on board under some lesser form of discipline—well, I’m not sure one has to be less forgiving than God. Lots of sins are exposed these day. Adding them up, Jehovah’s people still have less than the population in general, because of the godly principles they diligently seek to apply. Even without holy spirit, it rubs off through sheer repetition.

We all fall short many times, James says. The truth of the matter might be as when Bud was replacing my car brakes and he couldn’t figure out how to reinstall the anti-rattle clip. “What’s one more rattle on a Ford?” he said at last as he threw it away.

Maybe I can serve as a character witness for you someday. I’d like that.

”Dear, TTH. Please don’t offer to serve as a character witness for Pudgy. We’re well away that he’s a character.”—the brothers.

This was a lovely post….and Pudgy please come over…your our brother!!!!!

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I don't think the question was about what the "Flood" represented, but what the "Ark" represented. The Children book says it represents God's organization, as you saw. But I only brought up the Children book because someone here had just mentioned the book. You could actually go to MOST of Rutherford's books and find a similar statement.

Here's his book "Riches" (1936)

. . .

...

If it sounds odd to say that the "other sheep" must work with Jehovah's witnesses, it was because, in those years, only the anointed remnant were called Jehovah's witnesses. The "other sheep" were called Jonadabs.

In the Salvation book (1939) he also says the Ark represents God's organization. Curiously, this time he made Noah represent Jesus instead of the faithful remnant (faithful and discreet slave), but still had his sons and their wives represent the "other sheep" (Jonadabs). In this particular book (Salvation) he somehow left out the faithful remnant.

At any rate, you are probably aware that Rutherford consistently says that Noah's Ark represents God's organization, and that this means only Jehovah's witnesses could expect salvation.

Yes I’m aware of teaching on this..thanks for the info 

49 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

At the International Congress in Vienna, I think 1989 or so, they repeated that nonsense about marriage and children.

I must have zoned out at that one…

2 hours ago, Anna said:

Just to clarify a few things. I am not averse to cooperating with instructions. That is not what I am talking about at all. And I am very appreciative of the constant reminders in WT studies, talks etc. which help us to remain in pure worship. Very grateful for it, and I think the GB are doing an excellent job. And our family does have a backpack ready (ha!)
What really irritates me though is this constant need to harp on about the reason to obey now .....the reason being that if we get used to obeying now,  it will mean our salvation in the future when we have to obey this one last instruction (whatever "impractical" thing that will be) to get saved. That is wrong. It's like a veiled threat. 

Sometimes I wonder if Jehovah allows these things to see who will follow man and who will have worked on their faith hard enough to to see thru this…bit like when Aaron built the golden calf and many even tho they demanded it were prepared to get all excited and party over it….where as others quietly stood back knowing it wasn’t right….actually I dont know if they quietly stood back as I would imagine Kaleb and Joshua have at least something to say about it….but been respectful of Aaron’s position I suppose…….there always seems to be these tests of following men or Our God…and again as Anna I don’t mean their excellent biblical advice…just these odd things of comparing themselves to prophets etc..

sorry JWI we seem to have derailed your and Wally’s communications 

31 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I'm not sure when, specifically, a change was made on this teaching. I still hear the connection between Noah's ark and the earthly organization in recent GB talks. Also this relatively recent Watchtower from 2006:

*** w06 5/15 p. 22 par. 8 Are You Prepared for Survival? ***
Just as Noah and his God-fearing family were preserved in the ark, survival of individuals today depends on their faith and their loyal association with the earthly part of Jehovah’s universal organization.

It was stated by a bethel brother at an assembly…we were quiet relieved to hear it..it was when they were asking us if we had kept up with the changes…that was one of them….2006 is old news now.

Also brother Luchiani ( however you spell it )  gave a very recent talk on …only Jesus knows who will be saved…it was a excellent talk…you could tell he was reminding us…it wasn’t as blatant as the talk at the assembly and that talk was well after 2006 

Yes I still hear some talks given saying our life will depend on our loyalty to the org…..but I have never heard them equate the org with the ark since that assembly talk..

just on a side note I know it’s an organization but personally I prefer Gods people to organization…..the Israelites were GODS PEOPLE….the Jews were GODS PEOPLE…..The Christian’s were GODS PEOPLE….perhaps it’s something that’s just me…a little bit of a quirky thing,

10 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I wasn't trying to beat round the bush. I agree that a lot of damage was done to many. For example, my father and his two sisters (my aunts) received the Children's book in person at the St. Louis assembly. The Children's book made my father and his two sisters reconsider marriage and having children, because it made having children in this system appear untheocratic. My father of course decided to marry and have children, but my two aunts did not have any children, and in later years they were both quite sad about having followed these "instructions from the Lord."

In 1950, the Watchtower was already loosening up on those instructions, as you can see from a Watchtower article that year, but still with the remaining implication that if you want "perfect" children, you should wait:

*** w50 6/1 p. 176 Letter ***
The flood was a real physical catastrophe to the old ungodly world. The Battle of Armageddon will be likewise a physical catastrophe to this present evil world, and not something just spiritual. The ark of salvation that we enter is not a literal ark but is God’s organization; and as for Noah’s family’s not having children while in the ark, if the “other sheep” class’ now having natural children in the “ark” condition vitiated the picture of the childlessness of the ark’s occupants, then the anointed remnant’s having natural children now would also vitiate the “ark” picture or type. But it does not. Children born now are not born in fulfillment of the divine mandate reissued. When God reissued this mandate to marry and reproduce to Noah after the flood (Genesis 9:1, 7) the mandate was fulfilled in a typical way by a token fulfillment, 70 (10 X 7) generations being listed in Genesis, chapter 10, as springing from Noah and his sons. In the same way the fulfillment of the divine mandate reissued after Armageddon will be, not by crowding it with inhabitants to the saturation point, but by a token fulfillment that will allow for the resurrection of the dead with plenty of room for these resurrected ones. Thus, as pointed out in the Watchtower article “The Apostle’s Counsel on Wedlock”, February 1, 1947, page 45, column 2, footnote, God will show that he can have the divine mandate fulfilled in a very literal way in vindication of his world and he will give a faithful demonstration of its fulfillment. Those having part in its fulfillment will still ‘serve God in his temple day and night’ (Rev. 7:15), they will fulfill Deuteronomy 6:7 as to bringing up their children, and their children will fulfill Ephesians 6:1-3 as to obeying their parents, in the same way that the anointed remnant and their children are instructed to obey these divine commandments.

It’s okay JWI…I hadn’t actually finished my comment when I posted…and I’m just grateful the teaching has been changed….Jesus was a stumbling block for his own people…..and I beleive the organization at times has been like that with their own…a stumbling block.".the sadness of it at times is just overwhelming for those who dont survive.

58 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I think that TTH says he is currently reading the book "Children" which includes this idea, but it started earlier. Rutherford tended to make EVERYTHING fall into only two categories, either it was part of Jehovah's organization or Satan's organization:

Children, p.67

Of course, this included not just the earthly part of that organization, but the focus was on the heavenly part. So it was not so much different, in principle, than the way we understood Paul's words in Galatians about Sarah vs. Hagar:

Children, p.79

Of course, Rutherford uses the term organization 160 times in the book Children alone. The problem, in my opinion, is when he focuses too much on the earthly part of the organization, and he accepted that the word of the earthly organization should be seen as the equivalent of the "word of the Lord" himself. The "confusion" started with his very early idea that Jesus came to inspect his "Temple" in 1918. This Temple was the earthly organization, even though you wouldn't have expected that the "Temple" would picture something earthly. There are many times in the publications (under Rutherford) where "salvation" is too closely attributed to the organization, and not Jesus and Jehovah.

Organizational directions, no matter how mundane, became "instructions from the Lord."

Watchtower, 7/1/43, p.204

 

C’mon  JWI..we both know he had the power to scotch that new light dead in the water…he promoted it…and to write it in the Childrens book is even worse…in fact disgusting…

That became a solid teaching we were taught and taught others…it mis represented Jesus ..and was based on a lie….why can we not just come out and say that…it helps no one trying to beat round the bush with this..

It did an enormous amount of damage to so so many….and also to Jehovah’s own name and personality .

Walter Rutherford was more than a legal head and lawyer protecting Gods people…he was and did change scriptural understandings and even tho disclaimed the name of Pastor…he acted as such…no matter what he said publicly….and bought in lots on New Light that since then the modern day GB have had to rectify…

On 5/22/2022 at 3:24 AM, WalterPrescott said:

The above-mentioned comes from my collection of the "Stand Fast Bible Students", a pamphlet called the ship by Bro. C.E. Heard in 1919.

When one does a Historical research of the Watchtower, all coalitions and offshoot sect (associations) are considered! <><

It's not about one's age, but the experience of that research. In my case, 50 years! This is why, I have yet to find fault with the Watchtowers teachings, and it's understanding. 

One day, over 8 million followers will dwindle to some. The question is, what side will we be on. 

Choose Whom You Will Serve (Deuteronomy 10:12–22)
14 Now, therefore, fear the LORD and serve Him in sincerity and truth; cast aside the gods your fathers served beyond the Euphrates and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. 15 But if it is unpleasing in your sight to serve the LORD, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living. As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD!”

One day, over 8 million followers will dwindle to some. The question is, what side will we be on.
 

this wasn’t said so bluntly as said here….but  Bethel brothers in recent past have said it as innuendo….sort of read between the lines…and if you were not alert to his talk..it could be missed…

5 hours ago, WalterPrescott said:

Let's make this hearsay, abundantly, clear! There is NOT recorded statement anywhere in the Bible Student Era to support this assumption. 

Rutherford, started with the Bible Students as an attorney. He wasn't baptized as a Bible Student until much later. If he had any concerns about the Watchtower, it would have been legal matters like that of the legality of the board of directors. The early stages of Rutherford's stay in the Bethel House, was to protect the legal matters of the Watchtower. That included Russell.

Did he or did he not change the understanding that the ark no longer represented Jesus and baptism to meaning the ark represented the organization? 

18 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I already gave a short answer with my opinion on this question. I found it funny that I just got to a part of Persson's book where he answers the same question. It's unbelievably long. I just found it funny that someone put so much work into answering that question and even draws on some material where I never would have thought to look. In one case I didn't even know that the material existed. 

Persson uses a couple of the same ideas that I used in my answer. But many more, too. I don't think it's at all important to read all of what I'm about to paste below, but I wanted to let you know that it's only about HALF the information he actually uses in the book to answer the same question:

Thank you…I know we dont often take into consideration these all lived  a whole different world and era….what was okay back them…would never be legally possible today nor even an accepted thing in the community,,,

And again some of this is here say or passed down..some written and with proof …all I know even tho I prefer Russell’s demeanour and his will for how things should go forward….we owe Rutherford credit for many things,,,,but I still think he unnecessarily laid the ground work for beating the sheep and making the truth harsh…just not what Russell wanted,

3 hours ago, Pudgy said:

 

 

Walter:

I realize I am not talking about an apostate book, but which do you think has better survived the last 100 years …. The 20 or so books written by Russel and Rutherford, and others, circa 1914, which if taught now would be considered apostasy, or the writings of Edgar Rice Burroughs, circa 1914, who among about 20 or so books, wrote “Tarzan of the Apes”?

( a town North of Los Angeles was renamed Tarzana, California in honor of Edgar Rice Burroughs, and recently one of the most expensive movies ever made “John Carter” from his book “Princess of Mars”).

I await your promised harsh, negative response.

He might not answer so I will ….probably the books like Tarzan of the apes edgar rice may have outsold  Russell and Ruthfords books. …that’s what Jesus said…not many would listen…and the apostasy you talk of was what they thought was wrong coming out of BTG with all that garbage still on their backs…and just being human I guess…personally if I have found Russell the genteel one and much more humble than  Rutherford ,…Rutherford changed quickly things so important and  spiritually  correct about Jesus and the ark and waters of the flood..represent him to it now representing the org...now one comments on that here but the ramifications of such a massive blunder and probably pride pushed so many good brothers and sister away..

I actually think and I could be wrong the beating of the sheep began then…I’m so relieved the modern day GB returned that to the original understanding,,,,,mind you some things Russel thought and wrote needed to be changed…sorry for butting in..hope that was okay and I hope Walter answers you NICLEY!

3 minutes ago, WalterPrescott said:

 

Converted image to text. 

“And straightway Jesus constrained them—.” This does not mean that they were shoved into the boat; it does mean that they were told that was the best thing to do. Why? I believe that ship represents the same thing as the 27^th chapter of Acts; viz.: The Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, and I know why Jesus “constrained” them to get into it. No one could get into the Kingdom without it. There is no other way to get a crown. I know why he constrained them, if this was a picture. The Watch Tower was God's agency, and when we say the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, ewe could use a shorter word, we could say Pastor Russell. It is one and the same thing. For up to the time that

Pastor Russell died, it was Pastor Russell and you know it was. You know that his will was carried out to the letter in every single iota. He was God’s servant to take charge of the Harvest work. The Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society and Pastor Russell were one and the same thing. Do you think that you could have gotten your crown and gone into the Kingdom without Brother Russell?

Is it any wonder then that “Jesus constrained them to get into the ship?” No one who is a truly consecrated and spirit-begotten child of God could have become so during this harvest age, without Brother Russell or the Watch Tower.

“And when he had sent them away .. he went apart to pray.”"—Went up into the Kingdom where you and I are going. “And when the even was come.... tossed with the waves for the wind was contrary. And in the fourth watch Jesus came unto them, walking on the sea.’-—It might be that each watch represented a year and from 1914 to 1915 might be number one; 1915 to 1916, number two; 1916 to 1917, number three; 1917 to 1918, number four—the time that Jesus came. He came in the fourth watch, the fourth year after the times of the Gentiles ended.

Interesting

4 hours ago, Thinking said:

Well all I can say after reading that is…bethel must have been like a nut house!!..and appears run by nuts!…

I certainly would not want any of my children to go there….adults or not!

As one older elder said here and of whom I would trust my life with..this was said from the platform and said with some despair in his voice.

THERE IS NO ONE IN THIS WORLD YOU CAN TRUST BUT JEHOVAH AND JESUS..NO ONE.

and I stand by his wise words…….sheesh 

oh and thanks for those links…I will look them up for sure…

Joseph Franklin Rutherford (1861-1942): From a large Calvinist family; formerly a small-town lawyer in Missouri; at least once appointed to serve as judge in a case; politically active in Democratic politics. Custodian of Pastor Russell’s last will and testament. Apparently dismissed from Bethel in early 1915, living in Monrovia near Los Angeles, working as a lawyer for a department store in Los Angeles. Forceful in disposition and persuasive. Debated Rev. John H. Troy at First Baptist Church in Glendale, California, April 21-24, 1915.
 

this comes from one of those links….I had read Rutherford had been dismissed from bethel by Russell just before his death….does any one know if this is a true statement….

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

He doesn’t like Shultz? Who could not like Shultz?

Shultz recently told me that in his ‘scholar group’ he pointedly told off Rolf and it was apparently heated enough that he thought one or the other of them might be kicked off, and that he didn’t care if it was him, even though Rolf was a one-person minority.

He had previously tweeted of a certain “moron” in his group. I observed that every group was a moron and inquired if it was in connection to a certain dastardly deed where Rolf had played his hand. It was.

I have floated the possibility with another of that group that it might be a fine thing to add me to it, even allowing that I am so not much a scholar as a seedpicker—peck a seed here and poop it out there, just like they said of Paul.

So far no one has taken the bait.

Wow that group sounds terrific…..I like Shultz tho I have not read of him much lately….I still have a book of his here to read….saving it for when and if the internet goes down…..I really hope those scholars are humble enough to let a little pooping seed picker in amongst them…. 

2 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

That’s just it. I didn’t keep track of who. Nobody I knew personally. He expressed nothing toward me but good will. It was some form of media communication, the exact form I forget.

Yes if only we could keep track of who said this and that….not to worry….

6 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I don’t see any mention of him there. 

Yeah, I suppose you could get worked up over certain things. But to the point of missing the big picture? When he was baptized “into Christ” did he thereafter become brother to the 95% of Christians who equate Jesus with God?

This statement is telling to me: “I myself was sure that the Branch would not dare to do anything.” Isn’t there such a thing as overestimating your own importance? 

Recently Elon Musk proposed to buy Twitter. “I’m sure the left wouldn’t dare do anything,” he said.

 

 

That’s the key to all of this……step back and look at the big picture…and take the time and relentless prayer to do that……

9 hours ago, Anna said:

It is my bad @Thinkingfor saying jumping and thanks JWI for the correction. Just goes to show how fleeing out of a window or balcony becomes jumping out of it. That is what had stuck in my mind, I did not mean jumping as in jumping from a great height in danger of hurting oneself, but figuratively speaking as in running away....it sounds more dramatic but easily givers a false impression. I had wanted to read the whole account again for accuracy but I was on my phone and all my files were on the computer. The account is in a booklet called Harvest Siftings that was later reprinted in a WT of the same year I believe.

Here it is in PDF file of Harvest Siftings. It will give you a good idea of what transpired during that period, at least from the point of view of Rutherford and others. The bit about the window saga is on page 6.

https://ia600902.us.archive.org/5/items/WatchtowerLibrary/booklets/1917_shf_E.pdf

 

 

All good..🙂