Evacuated

This movie was part of the evening entertainment program for the delegates attending the 2014 International Convention at Atlanta Georgia. It is about 58 minutes into the program. Generous brothers and sisters sharing their many talents, including film making.
http://www.channelmovie.online/watch/evening-program-entertainment-atlanta-international-convention.dDckqFEwRSx/
http://www.atlantadelegates.com/

It would've been nice to know the wording and context. Perhaps the writer was thinking that Sodom was the city (singular - not Gomorrah) that had the mob. But it doesn't say how extensive the mob was. We are also told that Sodom was a wicked city, but was homosexuality the only thing that made it wicked, or was it corrupt in other ways? That's what I'm wondering. If you come across the article again, please post a link as I'd like to read it.
It could well be that more information comes to light about Hezekiah's bullae and the reason for symbol choices.
But your comments prompt some musings:
Is it a case of only believing archaeological finds that harmonize with our interpretations/ understandings of Bible accounts while rejecting those finds that don't?
Are you thinking that the bullae might be fakes?
Also, if our confidence in the Bible isn't backed up by historical evidences, then couldn't it be argued that we might as well have faith in Aesop's fables?
 

This movie was part of the evening entertainment program for the delegates attending the 2014 International Convention at Atlanta Georgia. It is about 58 minutes into the program. Generous brothers and sisters sharing their many talents, including film making.
http://www.channelmovie.online/watch/evening-program-entertainment-atlanta-international-convention.dDckqFEwRSx/
http://www.atlantadelegates.com/

Let's not overlook the fact that the timeless lesson on the result of faithful stewardship bound up in these verses at Matt 24:45-47 holds up regardless of the specific application to the Governing Body's role in modern times as part of the sign of the last days. It would be a highly myopic application here that ignored the necessity for ALL Christians to faifhfully discharge their responsibilities as stewards of Jehovah's undeserved kindness (compare 1Cor 9:17; 1Pet. 4:10). On the other hand, I see no reason to doubt that the oversight of spiritual shepherding that we currently see in the congregation has been assigned to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses (regardless of membership number or place of domicile), in fulfillment of Jesus words at Matt 24:45. The outcome of faithfully discharging that responsibility is described at vs 46-47.

I have no time to reinvent the wheel at the moment so I will refer you to the appropriate Watchtower Article on this matter:
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2013533

Not at all. In fact, the Governing Body must identify themselves as the "faithful and discreet slave." They would be wrong not to identify themselves as such. 

But we won't stop trying ....will we??

For the past three years, Thai officials have been using the Witnesses’ publications to address social issues.
Source

This is a sad argument about the repercussions of the indefensible and despicable behaviour of people who call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses.
The monetary and reputational sanctions against all who are associated with the organisation is an additionally sad outcome for the extraordinary naivety displayed by all participants in this disgraceful scenario.
Hopefully, instructions like this:
and this:
"In all cases, the victim and her parents have the absolute right to report an allegation to the authorities.—Galatians 6:5."
and this: 
"If any congregation elder learns of a case of child abuse in which a child may still be at risk of significant harm two elders must contact the Legal Department at the branch office for legal advice on compliance. A report to the police or other appropriate authorities will be made immediately by the congregation elders if it is determined that a child is still at risk."
will be the start of a worldwide trend rather than an exception. (It is noteworthy that this policy is available to all members of the congregations in UK wishing to see it.).
The outcome of action as instructed will have serious impact, especially where allegations are involved, but (in my opinion) this will be just recompense for any engaging in questionable conduct of this nature, and similarly for those who even skate close to the boundaries of propriety in this regard.
Romans 13:3-4 can be be applied appropriately here.
This is a welcome move in the right direction despite the fact that methods to be applied for the appropriate determination of risk appear vague, and there is little on supporting victims. However, the UK branch of Jehovah's Witnesses appears to be less encumbered in this area than than the current UK Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse:   http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/636/636.pdf
The outcome of the Australian Royal Commission deliberations scheduled to start in March 2017 will be of great interest.
This debate continues.....sadly. 

This is a sad argument about the repercussions of the indefensible and despicable behaviour of people who call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses.
The monetary and reputational sanctions against all who are associated with the organisation is an additionally sad outcome for the extraordinary naivety displayed by all participants in this disgraceful scenario.
Hopefully, instructions like this:
and this:
"In all cases, the victim and her parents have the absolute right to report an allegation to the authorities.—Galatians 6:5."
and this: 
"If any congregation elder learns of a case of child abuse in which a child may still be at risk of significant harm two elders must contact the Legal Department at the branch office for legal advice on compliance. A report to the police or other appropriate authorities will be made immediately by the congregation elders if it is determined that a child is still at risk."
will be the start of a worldwide trend rather than an exception. (It is noteworthy that this policy is available to all members of the congregations in UK wishing to see it.).
The outcome of action as instructed will have serious impact, especially where allegations are involved, but (in my opinion) this will be just recompense for any engaging in questionable conduct of this nature, and similarly for those who even skate close to the boundaries of propriety in this regard.
Romans 13:3-4 can be be applied appropriately here.
This is a welcome move in the right direction despite the fact that methods to be applied for the appropriate determination of risk appear vague, and there is little on supporting victims. However, the UK branch of Jehovah's Witnesses appears to be less encumbered in this area than than the current UK Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse:   http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/636/636.pdf
The outcome of the Australian Royal Commission deliberations scheduled to start in March 2017 will be of great interest.
This debate continues.....sadly. 

Certainly true, but don't forget that Jehovah can make an opportunity for any person seeking sincerely to learn the truth. And that is regardless of any wrong ideas or practices they may have or engage in through their ignorance.
Acts 17:22-31

Probably scratching the surface..........

Good reasoning!

Reverting to the original question and ignoring the complex analysis of detail since, could we reword this as:
Did the demon influencing the teachings of the "Nation of Islam" plagiarise Watch Tower Teachings (erroneous or otherwise) from Rutherford's Time, to create confusion in the minds of the "ignorant and unstable"?
or is that going a "bridge too far"?

Which category is that?
There are all sorts of evil-doers who want to be a part of the organisation but who are excluded by their practices.
I have known some get baptised without completing a Bible Study program and an assessment of progress made. Someone like that (at a later date) may feel they actually had not dedicated themselves to Jehovah at the time, do so on the basis of improved understanding, then resubmit for baptism. They determined the validity of their earlier dedication themselves. I would say that the incidence rate of this happening now would be comparatively rare.
I have known others who submitted for baptism having followed all procedures and have become a part of the congregation but were subsequently found to have ulterior motives and merely served as infiltrators, intent on some selfish objective. There may have been a relationship, sexual or otherwise, involved. I have heard of other instances in times of persecution or ban where informers have infiltrated. Truly determined evil-doers of this type may be difficult to detect, but I have confidence in Paul's words at 1Tim.5:24. In time, some of these ones remove themselves, or get removed, sadly, not without damage on occasion. It would be highly unlikely that any of the perpetrators in such scenarios made a dedication at all.
Another scenario was discussed recently in the Watchtower 15/2/2010 p23:
"At the time of baptism, for instance, an individual may secretly have been living in a situation or engaging in a practice that could have resulted in his being disfellowshipped if he had already been validly baptized. Could he make a dedication to God in such circumstances? Such an individual would have been in a position to make a valid dedication to Jehovah only if the unscriptural conduct had been discontinued." 
As for those who have engaged in serious wrongdoing prior to dedication, but who have repented and turned around, then 1Cor. 5:9-11 applies. And for those who lapse (or relapse) into such sin AFTER dedication, such a matter of itself would not render their dedication invalid. On the contrary, on the basis of their dedication, Jehovah will require an accounting. Rom.14:12.
So, the answer to your question "Are all who were/are baptized still bound to this vow?" is actually:
NO! Only those who have made an acceptible dedication to Jehovah are.

Of course it applies to child molesters
If you are going to make these statements then please back them up with evidence. How do you know known molesters are being treated the same way as they were before they were found out? How do you know nothing is done?
Indeed. If there is no proof of murder, drunkenness or fornication then not even the Law can do anything about it. The congregation leaves it in Jehovah's hands until there is evidence. You now the saying, "innocent until proven guilty".
How is that policing???

To encourage Christians to appreciate the need to pay what they vow. This includes more than dedication. At a age when disloyalty characterises human society (2Tim.3:2), this would seem to be "food at the proper time".
????? Actually, the article says "There is no way to undo a dedication vow, taking back what we promised God". Ecc.5:4-6. And to my understanding, as the dedication vow is between Jehovah and the individual making the dedication, well, that's where the dedication issue remains. 
Now, if a person wants to use "invalid dedication" as an excuse for engaging in a sinful course of life, bringing reproach on both Jehovah and the Christian congregation, that's a whole different ball game. Their course will need handling as a judicial matter and a decision made accordingly. That could include a determination on the validity of their dedication as noted in the Watchtower you refer to.
If a person wants to use that same excuse as a justification for no longer engaging in preaching and disciple-making or attending Christian meetings, well, attempts would be made (as previously posted) in harmony with Gal.6:1.
Humans are free to take whatever action they choose to take with regard to Jehovah's requirements. They have to also accept the consequences of the actions that they take.

This is the key to discussion on this kind of a topic. Jehovah is the one through His son Christ Jesus, who will decide on a person's capability of making a dedication, the validity of that dedication and, whether they are living up to that dedication. Pro.16:2; Pro.21:2. And this should inspire confidence as we can be certain that Jehovah, “the Judge of all the earth,” will always do what is right, “for all his ways are justice.”—Gen. 18:25; Deut. 32:4.
If an individual "changes their mind" about dedication, then that is a matter between themselves and Jehovah. No one would really know this had occurred unless the person actually told others. They might exhibit a spiritual problem in their behaviour without engaging in a serious practice of sin. Christian elders obviously have a duty to assist a person spiritually if they become aware that an individual has decided to follow the disastrous course of reneging on their dedication. Gal.6:1. But in itself, it is a matter between the individual and Jehovah. If that person becomes involved in serious sin. elders have to take action and have additional responsibilties in keeping the congregation clean in this regard, (1Cor.5:12-13) . An unrepentant practicer of serious sin must be disfellowshipped. 
However, none of this would undicate necessarily that they had "changed their mind" about dedication, or sought to "undedicated" themselves, only that they had failed to live up to the terms of that dedication. And Jehovah has provide a means through Christ's ransom for those who sin, even though dedicated, to repent and return to Him. Surely that is the thought at Gal.3:13. 
As for an age limit on baptism, this has had lengthy discussion elsewhere on the forum, for example: 
 

Child Labor is a rather emotive term in this day and age don't you think??
What we are seeing is an example of Ps.148:12-13 or Matt.21:15

Notrhing to be afraid of. The Jesus they knew and loved was alive. No confusion possible due to his appearing in a totally physical form.
 
Quite happy with this as well, but not as applying to the 'only Potentate' of 1 Tim.6:15. Obviously both Jesus and Jehovah are 'Mighty Gods'.
So you see yourself as a 'boxer delivering a beating'? Poor basis for a discussion of this nature if so.
I think I am saying that from your responses,  this has already taken place.
With regard to your three questions, I do not understand the term being "declared righteous" to have degrees. As for the destiny of Christians on resurrection, the subject has been "done to death" in this thread. It appears to be a take it or leave it situation Question 2: no change. Question 3: Already addressed.

I understand Ph.2:9-11 to indicate that every intelligent creation will be subject to Christ. 
As Ps 37:29 speaks of righteous ones living forever on earth, so this constitutes one destiny.
Obviously, a heavenly hope is held out in the Scripture also (Heb.3:1), so this relates to the other destiny. 

Hmm. You have a low opinion of the resurrection    

That the Jesus they knew and loved had indeed been resurrected. Jesus exhibited the same spirit that he displayed at John 16:12-13. No need to subject his already buffeted disciples to terrifying manifestations such as those experienced earlier by Daniel when confronted with a spirit being (Da.10:8-9). Jesus did not find it necessary to overwhelm them with proof that he had been resurrected in the manner required to move the insolent Saul as later recorded at Acts 9:3-9.
 
Agreed, but would qualify this with a reference to 1 Cor.15:45 which says of Jesus: "The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." This is not what Job had in mind.
 
Agreed. That is the conclusion I draw.
 
Agreed. However, pre-Christian believers will not enjoy a resurrection like Christ's.
 
With regard to 1Tim.6:15-16, I know this is disputed. I am happy to read this as a contrast with earthly rulers and therefore as referring to the glorified Jesus in the heavens. (Not sure why you have Mighty God in parenthesis here?)
However, your proposed view does not change the understanding of 1John 3:2 where Christians who will  "see him just as he is" will of necessity be unable to do so if resurrected as humans, flesh and blood.
This is patently obvious. But...it is clear to me! "Funny old world" someone said to me yesterday when they realised that a lifetime of Bible reading had not led them to discern even that God had a personal name.
Compare Jesus words at Matt.16:17:
"flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father in the heavens did"

Well then, Jesus appearances in an apparently human form were "positive proofs" to his disciples of the fact of his resurrection and not the nature of his resurrection. There are a number of examples in scripture of spirits (angels) appearing in a tangible human form in order to carry out assignments. (And apparently unauthorised examples of the same).
The reality of a resurrection for humans in human, physical form was not a new concept to faithful worshippers of Jehovah, because of the resurrections already recorded in scripture. Even before these, Job spoke of the possibility of a man living again after "compulsory service" in the grave at the call of God. (Job 14:15). Interestingly, when Jesus resurrected Jairus' daughter, he ordered her to be given food, a very physical provision. And circumstantially, Luke the pysician's record of this miracle has no hint of a spiritual aspect to this resurrection. Martha's faith in Lazarus being resurrected on the last day was based on these examples in part, so I cannot see her as having a concept other than that of a physical, earthly resurrection of humans in human form. This would have been considerably reinforced by what she then witnesed in connection with her brother, Lazarus.
It does not seem feasable (to me) that Paul would need to discuss at length the nature of the body provided for those resurrected if the topic involved being resurrected in a fleshly human form when so much prior evidence already existed for this kind of resurrection. (And to which he did not refer). His discussion involved a resurrection to spirit life in the heavens, with an appropriately provided body and quality of life suitable for such a destiny, and for which a body of flesh and blood would be obsolete.
The description of the glorified Jesus in the heavens at 1Tim.6:16 indicates that "no man can see" him and this is appropriate for one who "is the image of the invisible God" Col.1:15. So, for those who are described, in connection with Jehovah, as destined to "see him just as he is", then their having the privilege of also seeing the glorified Jesus just as he is would seem a logical conclusion. This would not be an experience for any man of flesh and blood, resurrected or otherwise.
As stated before, 'every knee in heaven, on earth, and under the ground'  will bend in the name of the Christ eventually. Ph.2:10. So, all humans will be Christian not least in the sense that they will all have benefited from the ransom paid by Jesus and his tasting "death for everyone" Heb.2:9 and their having excercised the requisite faith in that provision. John 3:16. It is obvious from all that is discussed in the Scriptures that a heavenly resurrection hope is held out to some of those Christians. It is also clear that "the inhabited earth to come" that is subject to Jesus will be inhabited in part by humans like Job who looked forward to an end to their compulsory service in the grave (or Sheol), and this by means of a physical, earthly resurrection. 

@Ann O'Maly. Nice embroidery. No difference to outcome mind you.