b4ucuhear

non sequitur
It depends on whether the human decision was based on God's standards. Job, Jesus, Jeremiah...were all pariahs at one time, but not in Jehovah's eyes. Humans are limited, not miraculously inspired, imperfect, and can be easily fooled - especially when they want to be - when it is the path of least resistance. Other times there is simply little you have the authority to do anything about. But you know that already right?
No.
I have no idea of what your are trying to say here. Sorry.
No.
Seriously? You know they are imperfect right? Like you, me and every other human in existence, they can make mistakes in thought, action and judgment. I'm pretty sure you already know and accept that, right?
Well if you call hundreds of thousands of JW's all over the world plus what has been revealed on the internet "secret knowledge" be my guest. Although I would add that certain information is classed as confidential as is true in any organization - religious or otherwise. 
You have it all backwards. Any appeal process is supposed to be exhausted before a final decision is made and later announced. (That assumes of course the men who are supposed to arrange the appeal don't have something to hide themselves. Then good luck getting an appeal - but that would be rare in my experience.)
Out of your mind maybe. I've only heard of this happening once and I agree with having a man's reputation restored in behalf of his friends and family who knew him. I would want that for sure if it was me. Apparently you wouldn't - that's fine. 
I can only speak definitively on things I have seen in person or from first-person accounts from people I know personally and trust as being the "real deal." I personally have been all over the world, but that still doesn't quality me to make a statement to the effect it was happening elsewhere to any large scale past where I am. While I have been to many places, I haven't been there in a capacity where I would be intimately acquainted with the judicial matters associated with each congregation, let alone which anointed Christians felt like they were being persecuted. Nor would I put much credence in internet stories that any anonymous person could invent. I don't even expect people to believe what I say. as scripturally I'm not providing the names of any witnesses to corroborate anything I have said here. That being the case, while I wouldn't categorically dismiss your assertion, neither would I categorically accept it as representing a world-wide scenario.                   I  I thank-you and appreciate your taking the time to explain your point of view and the sincerity you have of your convictions, but I can't say I buy it. I'm sure it sounds reasonable and logical to some/many people but your personal interpretation seems to go well beyond the scope of your reference in many respects. Too many for me to go into detail here. In fact, this is where I will choose to depart from this thread, as I feel I should take my own advice and not get enmeshed in pointless arguments with opposers who don't even agree amongst themselves. I respect all of your decisions to not want to be a JW. But that's not where I want to be. I like it here. I'm happy here. I'm fulfilled here. I have a rewarding, purposeful existence here with a bright outlook and good friends. I can't see me trolling internet websites in order push a negative and often hateful agenda. I have better things to do. So bye!

There is much, much more to be said in answer to this than you are making out. I don't usually buy into "they question how something was handled because they don't have all the facts" line - especially when in many cases it's the ones making the accusations on certain things that DO have all the facts. So I see that explanation sometimes as a dodge. But I will have to say that in this case, you apparently do not have all the facts - even if there are at times exceptions and legal considerations involved that provide an exception. But this has been hashed over many times before in numerous threads. Believe what you want.
Good points. Most people think of the physical and emotional pain and suffering Job went through when Satan attacked him. But really, there was nothing that wasn't common to men - for instance in times of war. Millions of people have lost everything. Lost their families, status in the community, their possessions, their health... So yes, Job lost a lot and suffered a lot. But Satan was more interested in compromising Job's integrity - his everlasting prospects based on his relationship with God. How did he do that? By making the test very difficult to rationalize or understand within the context of his faith. He made it appear as "discipline from Jehovah." As if God was unfairly disciplining him for something he knew he was not guilty of. Discipline can rightly be viewed as coming from Jehovah when it based on the principles and clear direction expressed in God's Word. It's "discipline" from Satan when it is used to deliberately harm innocent people or hide wickedness. Satan hasn't changed his tactics and still uses them. "All things were written aforetime..."

Agree. Satan is now using anyone to attack the anointed and he could definitely use fleshly men from within. The true anointed will not be taken in and become disobedient and turn against Jehovah.  In this example of the brother you mentioned, he remained faithful and steadfast and it was part of his commendable endurance.  Jehovah is the great compensation and a false witness he hates.

It's not all that uncommon that elders decisions are overruled or reversed on appeal (I wouldn't say it's common either though). In the case of one of the anointed elders, Bethel didn't even allow an appeal (not surprising since an appeal would have put more eyes on what they were endeavouring to cover up and he was exposing. It would have made them look pretty bad actually). But there is a provision that probably thousands of appointed men have made use of over the many decades that allows for an appeal in writing of the decision if the person feels strongly they were not dealt with fairly/scipturally. If a person is removed or disfellowshipped, my understanding is that it's pretty standard practice to be notified that they can appeal. Although some don't advertise it unless the individual specifically asks for it. It's no real secret - although most won't publicize confidential instructions - and neither would I if in that position. As to "where can we find instructions on that?: you would have to have access to written instructions and directions through letters and books. Apparently you don't - which I would say is a good thing frankly. Are there Bible examples of persons in authority who reversed their decision once they found out they made a bad decision? Yes, of course. Look it up. I'm not going to do your homework for you.  As for posthumous reinstatement, evidently the elder body thought it fair to right a grievous and wicked wrong committed by certain elders against an innocent man, which had tarnished his reputation. I can't imagine what that poor brother went through, yet he faithfully continued on and never saw justice in his lifetime. (1 Tim. 5:24) After all, Jesus didn't either did he as a human? Neither did many other faithful men (Heb. 11...) 

It would be unfair to paint with too wide a brush to basically say "everyone" is "always" this or that. Many/most brothers who serve as elders are loving shepherds who just want to do what is right. Who love Jehovah, love their families and love their brothers and sisters - regardless of whether you share their beliefs or not. But as has always been true, (whether in the times of the patriarchs, Israelites under Law and even the Christian congregation), there have been men who were "bad actors" who were anything but loving. Who grasped at positions of authority for totally the wrong reasons. Do we have men like that today? Although an "inconvenient truth," It shouldn't surprise us that yes, we do. In fact, doesn't the Jehovah clearly warn us against such ones in his word? Also, while recognizing my limited perspective geographically, I will grant you that from my "neck of the woods," there does in fact appear to be a concerted attack against anointed Christians from "wicked men and imposters" from within the organization. I personally know quite a few anointed Christians very well as close friends even serving with them and their greatest tests have come from within. I've seen it. Too often in fact to be a coincidence and not for doing bad, but exposing badness of other "shepherds." It's not that they were disliked - in fact most loved and respected them for the good lead they set spiritually - but I can only describe what I have personally seen as a murderous hatred. Well beyond what I would consider normal. Too clever, too orchestrated, too many outright lies and deception levelled against them to be coincidental. It seems more like a "machination" because of that. I'm not writing this to provide more "ammo" to opposers since as I had stated, I don't know if this goes any farther than my geographical area and it certainly does not characterize the vast majority of shepherds I know, nor does it necessarily describe the experience of anointed Christians elsewhere - but it's there. Yet, all of those are still serving with Jehovah's organization faithfully as pillars in the congregation despite Satan's evil efforts from men within. (Except for the anointed brother who died while disfellowshipped for years. He was posthumously reinstated when it was found that 3 "shepherds"/elders lyingly framed him in order to get him disfellowshipped. They in turn were disfellowshipped themselves when found out). There's a saying in my country: "Don't expect justice from Bethel." I would have to agree with that from what I have seen in my country. But I have also seen many good things. The bad shepherds you referred to in Jeremiah most certainly CAN at times describe men from within. But to my mind more appropriately describe those in Christendom as it's history shows. Of course, I can't mention sensitive stuff I know about to the average rank and file JW - it's too far beyond their scope of experience. But while I disagree with your broad application and decidedly negative only viewpoint, I also know things happen that shouldn't happen. 

It would be unfair to paint with too wide a brush to basically say "everyone" is "always" this or that. Many/most brothers who serve as elders are loving shepherds who just want to do what is right. Who love Jehovah, love their families and love their brothers and sisters - regardless of whether you share their beliefs or not. But as has always been true, (whether in the times of the patriarchs, Israelites under Law and even the Christian congregation), there have been men who were "bad actors" who were anything but loving. Who grasped at positions of authority for totally the wrong reasons. Do we have men like that today? Although an "inconvenient truth," It shouldn't surprise us that yes, we do. In fact, doesn't the Jehovah clearly warn us against such ones in his word? Also, while recognizing my limited perspective geographically, I will grant you that from my "neck of the woods," there does in fact appear to be a concerted attack against anointed Christians from "wicked men and imposters" from within the organization. I personally know quite a few anointed Christians very well as close friends even serving with them and their greatest tests have come from within. I've seen it. Too often in fact to be a coincidence and not for doing bad, but exposing badness of other "shepherds." It's not that they were disliked - in fact most loved and respected them for the good lead they set spiritually - but I can only describe what I have personally seen as a murderous hatred. Well beyond what I would consider normal. Too clever, too orchestrated, too many outright lies and deception levelled against them to be coincidental. It seems more like a "machination" because of that. I'm not writing this to provide more "ammo" to opposers since as I had stated, I don't know if this goes any farther than my geographical area and it certainly does not characterize the vast majority of shepherds I know, nor does it necessarily describe the experience of anointed Christians elsewhere - but it's there. Yet, all of those are still serving with Jehovah's organization faithfully as pillars in the congregation despite Satan's evil efforts from men within. (Except for the anointed brother who died while disfellowshipped for years. He was posthumously reinstated when it was found that 3 "shepherds"/elders lyingly framed him in order to get him disfellowshipped. They in turn were disfellowshipped themselves when found out). There's a saying in my country: "Don't expect justice from Bethel." I would have to agree with that from what I have seen in my country. But I have also seen many good things. The bad shepherds you referred to in Jeremiah most certainly CAN at times describe men from within. But to my mind more appropriately describe those in Christendom as it's history shows. Of course, I can't mention sensitive stuff I know about to the average rank and file JW - it's too far beyond their scope of experience. But while I disagree with your broad application and decidedly negative only viewpoint, I also know things happen that shouldn't happen. 

It would be unfair to paint with too wide a brush to basically say "everyone" is "always" this or that. Many/most brothers who serve as elders are loving shepherds who just want to do what is right. Who love Jehovah, love their families and love their brothers and sisters - regardless of whether you share their beliefs or not. But as has always been true, (whether in the times of the patriarchs, Israelites under Law and even the Christian congregation), there have been men who were "bad actors" who were anything but loving. Who grasped at positions of authority for totally the wrong reasons. Do we have men like that today? Although an "inconvenient truth," It shouldn't surprise us that yes, we do. In fact, doesn't the Jehovah clearly warn us against such ones in his word? Also, while recognizing my limited perspective geographically, I will grant you that from my "neck of the woods," there does in fact appear to be a concerted attack against anointed Christians from "wicked men and imposters" from within the organization. I personally know quite a few anointed Christians very well as close friends even serving with them and their greatest tests have come from within. I've seen it. Too often in fact to be a coincidence and not for doing bad, but exposing badness of other "shepherds." It's not that they were disliked - in fact most loved and respected them for the good lead they set spiritually - but I can only describe what I have personally seen as a murderous hatred. Well beyond what I would consider normal. Too clever, too orchestrated, too many outright lies and deception levelled against them to be coincidental. It seems more like a "machination" because of that. I'm not writing this to provide more "ammo" to opposers since as I had stated, I don't know if this goes any farther than my geographical area and it certainly does not characterize the vast majority of shepherds I know, nor does it necessarily describe the experience of anointed Christians elsewhere - but it's there. Yet, all of those are still serving with Jehovah's organization faithfully as pillars in the congregation despite Satan's evil efforts from men within. (Except for the anointed brother who died while disfellowshipped for years. He was posthumously reinstated when it was found that 3 "shepherds"/elders lyingly framed him in order to get him disfellowshipped. They in turn were disfellowshipped themselves when found out). There's a saying in my country: "Don't expect justice from Bethel." I would have to agree with that from what I have seen in my country. But I have also seen many good things. The bad shepherds you referred to in Jeremiah most certainly CAN at times describe men from within. But to my mind more appropriately describe those in Christendom as it's history shows. Of course, I can't mention sensitive stuff I know about to the average rank and file JW - it's too far beyond their scope of experience. But while I disagree with your broad application and decidedly negative only viewpoint, I also know things happen that shouldn't happen. 

Sometimes, I think we go overboard in insinuating the worst for words that have lost their original meaning in modern parlance and that have become just an expression for which there doesn't seem to be a better alternative. Years ago, (maybe even for some today) it was considered bad form to use the word "fortune" or "luck" - insinuating if we used those words we were invoking or crediting the "god of luck." Which to most people would seem absurd, but not to all - "unfortunately." I was reminded of how many people were on that bandwagon (along with other so-called deep insights people had dug up) when in our weekly Bible reading, I came across Genesis 30:11: "Then Leah said: "With good fortune!" So she name him Gad." Other translations use the word "luck." Was Leah a false worshipper who believed in the god of luck? Was she being disloyal, meriting capital punishment for worshipping/invoking false deities? Or could it be that sometimes a word-is a word-is a word. And everyone knows how it is used without reading all kinds of nefarious connotations to a word that simply doesn't have a better alternative? Nowadays, to most people it means that something happens by chance as in "time and unforeseen circumstance" - (which would be an unwieldy mouthful to use casually). Sometimes we just need to lighten up. 

I honestly had no idea that there was really so much concern over picking one pronunciation of YHWH over another. Especially when the actual original pronunciation is not perfectly known.
You keep saying things that make me think you really aren't really serious about this at all. I get the feeling you are only interested in the opinions that make it seem like the WTS is wrong, but you take no interest in understanding the entire picture. For example, I don't think that you are the least bit concerned about the transition in English from Hebrew "Y" to English "J." 
If I see you typing "Yeshua" for Jesus, or typing the Greek form "Iesous" for Jesus, then I'll really believe you are really serious about the Y and J issue. There is really no controversy. I don't think you really believe it's controversial yourself, unless you start spelling Jeremiah with a Y or Jesus or Joshua with a Y.
It's almost the same story here. Some languages don't really use a W sound the way English does. In German, it's almost always used only to make a V sound. Even though a lot of English words came from an older Germanic or Saxon word with the W in it. There were evidently differences in the ancient Hebrew pronunciations too. Remember that there were differences in the way that persons in Israel pronounced Shibboleth, where some said Sibboleth, instead. Other differences between Northern Israel and Southern Israel became more "pronounced" over the centuries. Semitic languages, like Aramaic, Amharic, Hebrew, Arabic, and Syriac all evidently had differences from each other with respect to the U, the V, and the W sounds. 
Reminds of the old joke where a man visits Hawaii, and goes up to an old, distinguished Hawaiian man:
Visitor: Excuse me. Can you finally settle this question for me? Is this place pronounced "Hawaii, or Havaii?"
Old Man: "Havaii"
Visitor: Ah!! Thank you! Thank you!
Old Man: You're Velcome.
Of course, there is evidence that if a language has cognates in a closely related language, where a "W" (vav) is pronounced as a "B" then it probably had transitioned there from a V sound before it transformed to a B sound. Gordon is correct in claiming that this gives evidence for a V sound, at least among some speakers of ancient Hebrew. In this he agrees with a few scholars that came before him. Of course, this transition might well have occurred 1,000 years after the Hebrew/Aramaic of Jesus's day.
Not exactly. Just because the "H" was silent and not sounded out like a hiss, it still has an effect on the previous vowel, so that we can be sure the last syllable was NOT pronounced like "wee." Also, it was just as likely not pronounced in the first syllable, "Yah." It's pretty clear that the shortened form of "Yahweh" was "Yah" as in the Bible phrases: "Praise Yah" or "Hallelujah." (You might want to think about how most people pronounce 'hallelujah' before getting too comfortable with a definitive pronunciation of J or Y.)
You don't pronounce the silent H in Jah or Yah, do you?
Thanks. You too.

I tend to agree with that statement. It can appear that some of the questions, while feigning interest, are little more than "click-bait" trying to lure JW's into yet more counterproductive interchanges - to attack them and try to weaken their faith. It's a trap the way I see it. While examining the "facts" and how much merit opposing points of view may have, can be valid in my world, there comes a point where you know that with some people it will be just a pointless back-and-forth. They used to be with us but no longer are and I respect their choice to leave. But why would I want to engage with individuals who basically are their own religion? They have have their own personal and singular point of view, but are now on their own - while we as an organization continue to flourish. "Every plant that my heavenly Father did not plant will be uprooted. Let them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into the pit."
  "And another thing..." It appears that even the experts are in disagreement on exactly how the Divine Name should be pronounced - and this, still going on thousands of years later. It seems to me that the exact pronunciation of how it was originally pronounced is not as important as loving and acknowledging who the name identifies - regardless of whether we pronounce it exactly as it was thousands of years ago. My name is pronounced differently in many different languages, but I still know when I am being addressed and am not so thin-skinned so as to take offence if someone in a different language pronounces it differently from that of my native language. I still know when I am being called in a crowd of people if someone yells it in a different language. It would be entirely different if someone yelled a generic title like "hey Mister" which could refer to anyone. God's name is distinctive enough that most if not all people would know who is being referred to as the Supreme Deity regardless of how it is pronounced in their particular language. It seems to me to be similar to another "tempest-in-a-teapot" argument regarding whether Jesus died on a cross or on a stake. Who cares? The big picture is that his death means something very important to all imperfect humans and we should honour and remember that sacrifice. Not overshadow it with doctrinal posturing (I know both sides do that - I am not really concerned about cross vs stake except for when people find it necessary to act like they are worshipping it.) 
 

I tend to agree with that statement. It can appear that some of the questions, while feigning interest, are little more than "click-bait" trying to lure JW's into yet more counterproductive interchanges - to attack them and try to weaken their faith. It's a trap the way I see it. While examining the "facts" and how much merit opposing points of view may have, can be valid in my world, there comes a point where you know that with some people it will be just a pointless back-and-forth. They used to be with us but no longer are and I respect their choice to leave. But why would I want to engage with individuals who basically are their own religion? They have have their own personal and singular point of view, but are now on their own - while we as an organization continue to flourish. "Every plant that my heavenly Father did not plant will be uprooted. Let them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into the pit."
  "And another thing..." It appears that even the experts are in disagreement on exactly how the Divine Name should be pronounced - and this, still going on thousands of years later. It seems to me that the exact pronunciation of how it was originally pronounced is not as important as loving and acknowledging who the name identifies - regardless of whether we pronounce it exactly as it was thousands of years ago. My name is pronounced differently in many different languages, but I still know when I am being addressed and am not so thin-skinned so as to take offence if someone in a different language pronounces it differently from that of my native language. I still know when I am being called in a crowd of people if someone yells it in a different language. It would be entirely different if someone yelled a generic title like "hey Mister" which could refer to anyone. God's name is distinctive enough that most if not all people would know who is being referred to as the Supreme Deity regardless of how it is pronounced in their particular language. It seems to me to be similar to another "tempest-in-a-teapot" argument regarding whether Jesus died on a cross or on a stake. Who cares? The big picture is that his death means something very important to all imperfect humans and we should honour and remember that sacrifice. Not overshadow it with doctrinal posturing (I know both sides do that - I am not really concerned about cross vs stake except for when people find it necessary to act like they are worshipping it.) 
 

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (1940) that children MUST salute WHEN told to do so, with NO excuses, the phrase “freedom of the human mind” was used to defend the minority, Jehovah’s Witnesses. The words were employed in the minority opinion. Today, the phrase “freedom of mind” is used to attack them! along with other ‘cults.’ It is an amazing reversal—from defending the rights of the minority from majority assault, to defending the rights of the majority from minority assault!
How does the minority pull off such a threatening stunt? Through ‘mind control’ and “brainwashing!’ It is an incredible charge and an 180 reversal of history! Freedomofmind.com is the url of the “cultexpert,” the founder of the BITE model, the means through which the nefarious minority manipulates members of the majority—through Behavioral control, Informational control, Thought control, and Emotional control. It is always someone else’s fault with these ‘anti-cultists”—its founder has progressed to calling half the country a victim of political mind-control! He’s not drunk too much of the Kool-Aid himself?
THAT is the takeaway point to be gleaned from the following article. It is not the point I had in mind when I initially wrote it. But it is the point that best endures:
....
Dave McClure
I worked with Dave McClure the circuit overseer—I used to stick to those guys like glue—one fine morning in the 1980’s. “We’re just calling on our neighbors in order to....” he began. The householder glanced at the Michigan plates on his car—it didn’t exactly suggest to a New Yorker that the man was a neighbor. “Neighbor?” he said. But Dave was never ever at a loss for words. “Well, I’ve got to fly the flag!’ was his chipper comeback. 
It was a perfect comeback. Michigan plates that year featured the most colorful backdrop of numerals against a flag that I have ever seen. Brother McClure was newly assigned to our circuit and hadn’t yet switched over his plates—you’re allowed a certain time interval to do so, I believe. I mean, it can’t be a requirement from the moment you cross the state line.
But it was a perfect comeback for another reason. When he was a boy, Dave McClure routinely got beat up by classmates for not flying the flag, or at least not saluting it. He told his experiences at a special assembly in Niagara Falls, New York. As only Brother McClure could do, he made getting beat up almost sound like fun—I mean, this is the fellow who, when in the presence of friends and confronted with something unexpected, would repeatedly and furiously move his hand from breastbone to abdomen and back again. He was just “staking himself,” as he would explain.
In 1940, the Minerville School District v Gobitis U.S. Supreme Court ruling held that Witness children could be compelled to salute the flag. Walter Gobitus was a Jehovah’s Witness whose child did not. Witnesses view declining the flag salute in any nation as a matter of avoiding idolatry. They connect the salute with God’s words to Moses that “you must not make for yourself...a form like anything that is in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth. You must not bow down to them...for I, Jehovah your God, am a God who requires exclusive devotion...” 
Walter, then 10, had told the local school authorities: ''I do not salute the flag not because I do not love my country. I love my country, but I love God more, and must obey his commandments.'' Didn’t cut it with the Supreme Court.
The Court decision signaled open hunting season on Jehovah’s Witnesses. Mobs surrounded them in their public preaching work. Many were accosted. Some were tarred and feathered, some were forced to drink castor oil. At least one was lynched. They were rounded up in their ministry and crammed into local jails, sometimes without charge—they were contemptible enough in the eyes of respectable society so as to be denied the rights afforded everyone else. One brother tells of how he would always carry a toothbrush with him in the ministry so as not to be unprepared should he spend the night in the hoosegow.
Note the majority Supreme Court opinion of Justice Felix Frankfurter: “National unity is the basis of national security. To deny the legislature the right to select appropriate means for its attainment presents a totally different order of problem from that of the propriety of subordinating the possible ugliness of littered streets to the free expression opinion through handbills.” Note his contempt for the “possible ugliness of littered streets” from handbills, such as Witnesses were known for.
Justice Harlan Stone was the lone dissenter. He wrote that “the guarantees of civil liberty are but guarantees of freedom of the human mind and spirit and of reasonable freedom and opportunity to express them .” Note how “guarantees of freedom of the human mind and spirit” were presumed defenses for those who would think outside of the mainstream; note today how ‘anti-cultists’ have turned that logic on its head so that a ‘cult’ taking ones outside of the mainstream constitutes a violation of “the freedom of the human mind and spirit.”
Shortly thereafter, probably aghast at the violence they had unleashed, the Court had a change of heart. Three members signaled their changed views. Two others retired and were replaced by those thought more attuned to individual liberties. The matter came up for review again, wending its way though lesser courts until it ascended to the top Court. The plaintiffs in the case were named Barnett, Stull, and Lucy McClure. Dave was the young son of Lucy.
The decision reversed. The new majority opinion (released on June 3rd, Flag Day, 1943):
''If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein,'' Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote. 
The new minority opinion , written by the former winner, now the loser, Felix Frankfurter, included the grumbling:
“As has been true in the past, the Court will from time to time reverse its position. But I believe that never before these Jehovah’s Witnesses cases (there were many more besides those concerning flag salute) …..has this Court overruled decisions so as to restrict the powers of democratic government.”
Yes, that’s how it is with governments, democratic or not. They want more power. They don’t want to give it up. A certain amount is necessary, of course, so as to maintain public order and safety. Witnesses cede it to them willingly and render obedience. But when they grab for yet more - the consciences and souls of their citizens, someone has to call them on it. And that someone has often been Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The topic came up 45 years later. The first George Bush thought it a fine idea for teachers to lead their classes in mandatory flag salute. His electioneering opponent, Michael Dukakis, did not. The New York Times reviewed the JW items of decades past and even tracked down some of the original participants. “Mr. Gobitis,” it wrote, “now a 62-year-old piano tuner in Belgium, Wis., has followed the 1988 salute debate closely, and a bit disgustedly. ‘It's hard to comprehend why they're raising this issue again,’ he said. ‘They're ignoring our constitutional development and history.’ It reminded him, he said, of a passage in Chapter 16 of the Book of Revelations. ‘To Jehovah's Witnesses,’ he said, ‘all this political fanfare boils down to is 'the croaking of frogs and expressions inspired by demons.’”
And you know, I just can’t get over the reversed use of that phrase, “guarantees of freedom of the human mind and spirit and of reasonable freedom.” Then it was used to protect the minority from the majority. Today anti-cultists use it to protect the majority from the minority, lest ones of that minority ‘deceive’ them by ‘manipulation’ and ‘mind control.’ 
As for Dave McClure, my old Circuit Overseer, he would have been serving our circuit somewhere around that time. But if he ever had thoughts about the 1988 brouhaha, he never shared them with me. He passed away in Florida several years ago.

To me, the problem arises when you attempt to slice and dice a name/word that is not meant to be and infer meanings that were never intended. For instance just using the example of "fortune" listed earlier. "Fortune" is one word. But if I slice it up into "for" as in pro something and "tune" as in music, I might come up with the conclusion that "fortune" actually means someone is Pro-Music. An entirely wrong definition of what "fortune" really means. But to be sure, before I finish this response, I will attempt to find a better example that directly relates to this discussion. Be back in a while...
OK, I'm  back now...here is something you might find interesting: (Not written by JW's or the organization btw. I won't include the site because I don't want to direct people to a non-JW site but it/and others are easy enough to find...)                    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Culprits Turn “God” into “evil” (The Loaf of Bread Illustration)
Let’s call this my “loaf of bread” theory, for lack of a better illustration. Many former Jehovah’s Witnesses, as well as others who are either fooled by others or who denounce the name, suggest that the name of God Jehovah means “god of ruin”, or “god of destruction”. They take to this by watching others lay out the word “Jehovah” like a loaf of bread, and slicing it up into parts. They then attempt to butter the bread and flavor it. Essentially, they redefine the parts slice by slice. They turn a word that was already previously translated from Hebrew to English, and double or triple translate it into “buttered pieces” of English, and then mash it all together and call it a conclusive meaning. This does not work. The name has already been translated. Hebrew language “rules” must be taken into consideration to properly translate certain words or names. Masoretic vowel points are even critical to understand.
For example, the Masorites added the mappiq to the letters “jah” in order to remind the readers to say “Lord” (Adonai) instead of “Jah“. (See photo below) Their intentions were to prevent those in synagogues from saying God’s name. In addition, many names that ended in “yah” were translated “iah“, which some believe was also done by the Masorites out of fear of people speaking the holy name of God out loud.

“Jewah” and “Jehouah” were also written forms adapted and accepted through the ages. Christian theologians began to make the pronunciation or spelling as “Jehovah“, choosing to disregard or dismiss the Masoretic translations of the word. Further, some scholars prefer the pronunciation “Jehwah” over the name “Yahweh”, feeling that it is seen in the most reliable translations, including the Masoretic MSS, versions of the LXX (Septuagint) and the Samaritan Pentateuch. Still, the topic of translations is disputed, as it probably always will be.
 
God of Ruin? 
With the intricacies of the languages and tedious translations involved, it is beyond ludicrous for anyone to chop apart the name “Jehovah” and convert it to a meaning such as “God of ruin”. In fact, most language experts would find this uneducated, unscholarly nonsense as borderline ludicrous.
The Culprits
It should also be noted that there is a Guyanese woman who demands that “Jehovah” means “god of ruin”. She dedicates her website to this assertion,  as well as her alleged desire to “unite Israelites”. Her website reveals horrendous English, including grammar, punctuation and spelling. If one does not recognize the difference between “there” and “they’re”, and repeatedly capitalizes the word “history”, then credibility is that of a novice, at best. One might also deduce that repeatedly yelling to readers by using multiple exclamation points denotes poor judgement and suggests lack of basic intellectual written communication.
The Rumor Mill
Those who parrot these type of people also show their dangerous susceptibility to believe just about anything they read. In addition, the woman I refer to also states that one cannot “put yah in front of God’s name”. She calls herself a Hebrew, and believes Jesus Christ is “Ba’al”. Enough said on that.
God’s Name Mocked by Many
Please use caution when repeating what you hear or read. Many have lashed out in anger, believing that “Jehovah means evil”. Do you see what has just happened? One thinks they’re stating irrefutable fact, and begins telling the world, “Jehovah is evil… Jehovah is Satan”. Some even profess to be Christians, and spout off this unfounded jargon. Through a simple smokescreen, many self professed Christians are blaspheming in an effort to prove a religion wrong, as some sort of “dirt” they’ve uncovered. Many former JWs have fallen into the trap of saying “their God” (when referring to Jehovah’s Witnesses) and including abusive speech directly against God, possibly without even realizing it. Hence, the Jehovah’s Witnesses may in turn have grounds to view most of these people as unbelievers in God, or atheists, or even blasphemers. This may give Jehovah’s Witnesses more “ammunition” against former JWs and others, who already have a reputation and stereotype of being “tricked” by alleged “false information”, and led by Satan.
It is highly important then, that Christians and even non-Christians use extra caution in spreading false information that has no intellectual basis whatsoever."
So while the authors are not JW's, they seriously caution others about specious and false arguments in support of their hatred of JW's since it will ultimately backfire and actually make them look gullible and bad, rather than prove JW's wrong.

To me, the problem arises when you attempt to slice and dice a name/word that is not meant to be and infer meanings that were never intended. For instance just using the example of "fortune" listed earlier. "Fortune" is one word. But if I slice it up into "for" as in pro something and "tune" as in music, I might come up with the conclusion that "fortune" actually means someone is Pro-Music. An entirely wrong definition of what "fortune" really means. But to be sure, before I finish this response, I will attempt to find a better example that directly relates to this discussion. Be back in a while...
OK, I'm  back now...here is something you might find interesting: (Not written by JW's or the organization btw. I won't include the site because I don't want to direct people to a non-JW site but it/and others are easy enough to find...)                    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Culprits Turn “God” into “evil” (The Loaf of Bread Illustration)
Let’s call this my “loaf of bread” theory, for lack of a better illustration. Many former Jehovah’s Witnesses, as well as others who are either fooled by others or who denounce the name, suggest that the name of God Jehovah means “god of ruin”, or “god of destruction”. They take to this by watching others lay out the word “Jehovah” like a loaf of bread, and slicing it up into parts. They then attempt to butter the bread and flavor it. Essentially, they redefine the parts slice by slice. They turn a word that was already previously translated from Hebrew to English, and double or triple translate it into “buttered pieces” of English, and then mash it all together and call it a conclusive meaning. This does not work. The name has already been translated. Hebrew language “rules” must be taken into consideration to properly translate certain words or names. Masoretic vowel points are even critical to understand.
For example, the Masorites added the mappiq to the letters “jah” in order to remind the readers to say “Lord” (Adonai) instead of “Jah“. (See photo below) Their intentions were to prevent those in synagogues from saying God’s name. In addition, many names that ended in “yah” were translated “iah“, which some believe was also done by the Masorites out of fear of people speaking the holy name of God out loud.

“Jewah” and “Jehouah” were also written forms adapted and accepted through the ages. Christian theologians began to make the pronunciation or spelling as “Jehovah“, choosing to disregard or dismiss the Masoretic translations of the word. Further, some scholars prefer the pronunciation “Jehwah” over the name “Yahweh”, feeling that it is seen in the most reliable translations, including the Masoretic MSS, versions of the LXX (Septuagint) and the Samaritan Pentateuch. Still, the topic of translations is disputed, as it probably always will be.
 
God of Ruin? 
With the intricacies of the languages and tedious translations involved, it is beyond ludicrous for anyone to chop apart the name “Jehovah” and convert it to a meaning such as “God of ruin”. In fact, most language experts would find this uneducated, unscholarly nonsense as borderline ludicrous.
The Culprits
It should also be noted that there is a Guyanese woman who demands that “Jehovah” means “god of ruin”. She dedicates her website to this assertion,  as well as her alleged desire to “unite Israelites”. Her website reveals horrendous English, including grammar, punctuation and spelling. If one does not recognize the difference between “there” and “they’re”, and repeatedly capitalizes the word “history”, then credibility is that of a novice, at best. One might also deduce that repeatedly yelling to readers by using multiple exclamation points denotes poor judgement and suggests lack of basic intellectual written communication.
The Rumor Mill
Those who parrot these type of people also show their dangerous susceptibility to believe just about anything they read. In addition, the woman I refer to also states that one cannot “put yah in front of God’s name”. She calls herself a Hebrew, and believes Jesus Christ is “Ba’al”. Enough said on that.
God’s Name Mocked by Many
Please use caution when repeating what you hear or read. Many have lashed out in anger, believing that “Jehovah means evil”. Do you see what has just happened? One thinks they’re stating irrefutable fact, and begins telling the world, “Jehovah is evil… Jehovah is Satan”. Some even profess to be Christians, and spout off this unfounded jargon. Through a simple smokescreen, many self professed Christians are blaspheming in an effort to prove a religion wrong, as some sort of “dirt” they’ve uncovered. Many former JWs have fallen into the trap of saying “their God” (when referring to Jehovah’s Witnesses) and including abusive speech directly against God, possibly without even realizing it. Hence, the Jehovah’s Witnesses may in turn have grounds to view most of these people as unbelievers in God, or atheists, or even blasphemers. This may give Jehovah’s Witnesses more “ammunition” against former JWs and others, who already have a reputation and stereotype of being “tricked” by alleged “false information”, and led by Satan.
It is highly important then, that Christians and even non-Christians use extra caution in spreading false information that has no intellectual basis whatsoever."
So while the authors are not JW's, they seriously caution others about specious and false arguments in support of their hatred of JW's since it will ultimately backfire and actually make them look gullible and bad, rather than prove JW's wrong.

Why then did so many faithful Jews use "theophoric" names that incorporated the Divine Name as from the tetragrammaton in the names they used for their children if it's meaning was so disgusting? 
from Wikipedia:
The name of the Israelite deity YHWH (usually shortened to Yah or Yahu, and Yeho or Yo) appears as a prefix or suffix in many theophoric names of the First Temple Period. For example, Yirme-yahu (Jeremiah), Yesha-yahu (Isaiah), Netan-yah, Yedid-yah, Adoni-yah, Nekhem-yah, Yeho-natan (Jonathan), Yeho-chanan (John), Yeho-shua (Joshua), Yeho-tzedek, Zekharya (Zechariah).
"Yahū" or "Yah" is the abbreviation of YHWH when used as a suffix in Hebrew names; as a prefix it appears as "Yehō-", or "Yo". It was formerly thought to be abbreviated from the Masoretic pronunciation "Yehovah". There is an opinion[8] that, as Yahweh is likely an imperfective verb form, "Yahu" is its corresponding preterite or jussiveshort form: compare yiŝtahaweh (imperfective), yiŝtáhû (preterit or jussive short form) = "do obeisance".
The article then goes on to list many common Biblical Hebrew names we commonly use as being theophoric names that incorporate Yahweh and YHWH.
Although, to be fair to you, maybe I am not clear on what your contention is. It doesn't appear that the argument you propose above seems to be supported generally by scholars. I also checked the website you linked to in support of your argument. Apparently the author you are relying on for your facts has some other nuggets of "truth" he is proffering. Here are just a few:
- "Why Paul is a Fake Apostle"; "Near Death Testimonies by a Nigerian Pastor and a 15 Year Old of Heaven and Hell"; "The Messiah's Missing Years in the Far East in Search of the Lost Tribes": "The Earth is Not a Globe - "we live on a flat motionless earth."; "There are No Planets - Just Stars and One Sun"; "Gravity is a Fraud"...

Sometimes, I think we go overboard in insinuating the worst for words that have lost their original meaning in modern parlance and that have become just an expression for which there doesn't seem to be a better alternative. Years ago, (maybe even for some today) it was considered bad form to use the word "fortune" or "luck" - insinuating if we used those words we were invoking or crediting the "god of luck." Which to most people would seem absurd, but not to all - "unfortunately." I was reminded of how many people were on that bandwagon (along with other so-called deep insights people had dug up) when in our weekly Bible reading, I came across Genesis 30:11: "Then Leah said: "With good fortune!" So she name him Gad." Other translations use the word "luck." Was Leah a false worshipper who believed in the god of luck? Was she being disloyal, meriting capital punishment for worshipping/invoking false deities? Or could it be that sometimes a word-is a word-is a word. And everyone knows how it is used without reading all kinds of nefarious connotations to a word that simply doesn't have a better alternative? Nowadays, to most people it means that something happens by chance as in "time and unforeseen circumstance" - (which would be an unwieldy mouthful to use casually). Sometimes we just need to lighten up. 

Sometimes, I think we go overboard in insinuating the worst for words that have lost their original meaning in modern parlance and that have become just an expression for which there doesn't seem to be a better alternative. Years ago, (maybe even for some today) it was considered bad form to use the word "fortune" or "luck" - insinuating if we used those words we were invoking or crediting the "god of luck." Which to most people would seem absurd, but not to all - "unfortunately." I was reminded of how many people were on that bandwagon (along with other so-called deep insights people had dug up) when in our weekly Bible reading, I came across Genesis 30:11: "Then Leah said: "With good fortune!" So she name him Gad." Other translations use the word "luck." Was Leah a false worshipper who believed in the god of luck? Was she being disloyal, meriting capital punishment for worshipping/invoking false deities? Or could it be that sometimes a word-is a word-is a word. And everyone knows how it is used without reading all kinds of nefarious connotations to a word that simply doesn't have a better alternative? Nowadays, to most people it means that something happens by chance as in "time and unforeseen circumstance" - (which would be an unwieldy mouthful to use casually). Sometimes we just need to lighten up. 

Sometimes, I think we go overboard in insinuating the worst for words that have lost their original meaning in modern parlance and that have become just an expression for which there doesn't seem to be a better alternative. Years ago, (maybe even for some today) it was considered bad form to use the word "fortune" or "luck" - insinuating if we used those words we were invoking or crediting the "god of luck." Which to most people would seem absurd, but not to all - "unfortunately." I was reminded of how many people were on that bandwagon (along with other so-called deep insights people had dug up) when in our weekly Bible reading, I came across Genesis 30:11: "Then Leah said: "With good fortune!" So she name him Gad." Other translations use the word "luck." Was Leah a false worshipper who believed in the god of luck? Was she being disloyal, meriting capital punishment for worshipping/invoking false deities? Or could it be that sometimes a word-is a word-is a word. And everyone knows how it is used without reading all kinds of nefarious connotations to a word that simply doesn't have a better alternative? Nowadays, to most people it means that something happens by chance as in "time and unforeseen circumstance" - (which would be an unwieldy mouthful to use casually). Sometimes we just need to lighten up. 

Your questions would require a rehashing of things already identified many, many times on this forum, so I will respond instead with an observation:
Jehovah's Witnesses are a Nation, without territory.
Like any nation, they have to fight the good fight with the Army they have ... not the Army they WISH they had.
The Polish had to fight the Nazi Tanks, with horse drawn carriages of various sorts.
Until I could afford specialized tools, I had to use general tools for specific applications.
Those who expect perfection of others in all things, I strongly suspect will be judged by God, using those same standards... and their punishment now is having to live in a cartoon world of their own construct, and being oblivious to reality.
 
 

"...all the nations have fallen victim...Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins and do not want to receive part of her plagues..." So you are saying that means: "Get out of New York?" What about everyone else on this planet who is affected that doesn't live in New York? Or am I not understanding your thinking here?
I know you are convinced in your own mind about your interpretation, but if, after repeatedly writing the GB about your opinions to "correct" them and teach them (your) right interpretation and they didn't agree with you; the elders in your congregation didn't agree with you (although to be fair you said they weren't willing to entertain much that way); JWs in general don't agree with you; people on this website don't agree with you (and with good reasoning points); and even that other anti-JW posters have a different interpretation than you - you may want to humbly consider the possibility that you may need to rethink the direction you have taken over the last little while - and that you may be wrong. You are essentially asking us to believe that everyone else is wrong and you alone have a pipeline to the "real" truth from God. Most JW's have good reason for believing what they do and even when at times -as seen on this website - we may have questions about certain points we'd like to explore, we still respect the GB/JWs as being where we learned the basic truths we agree with and make JWs different from other religions. 
But for arguments' sake, even if someone accepted some or even all of what you (or other anti-JW posters) consider the truth, then what? What have you got to offer? Leave off being a JW - (which you and other posters here seem to despise and denigrate so much), to go where? To do what? Become part of what? It would be like a driver who picks up an unsuspecting hitchhiker who seems to be going the same way, and then drops them off in the middle of nowhere - with no food, no clothing or shelter. 

This hypothesis is based on the false premise that the use of a two beam cross has been established as a fact which, patently, it has  not.
We do not reject fact in preference to fiction, that is just the allegation of opposers. But we do reserve the right to support an alternative, where such exists, regardless of it being popularly accepted or not. When possibilities are established as facts, we will adjust our thinking. This is something which is not always the case with opposers, and is the subject of much of their crticism.

I've used this argument at the door and with Bible studies, too: that supposedly Christians, even if they claim they are not worshiping the item, should still find it wrong to carry around a model of the "murder weapon" that killed Jesus Christ! I've even heard the additional example from other Witnesses, such as: "If your own father had been murdered with an AK-47, or a .38 revolver, would you ever think about carrying around a small model of an AK-47, or a .38 revolver, on a chain around your neck?"
Of course, this seemed quite fair until I learned that a member of the Governing Body who had worn a cross in the past, remembered that it was the way in which they felt they were showing their agreement with the idea in Mark:
(Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [STAUROS] and follow me continually." It was the Bible that treated the STAUROS as a "symbol." And we would never have complained that Jesus was saying (Mark 8:34) . . .“If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his [MURDER WEAPON] and follow me continually."
Similarly, the apostle Paul would have been saying:
(1 Corinthians 2:2) For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and [his MURDER WEAPON]. Jesus and Paul knew that the STAUROS (whether cross or stake) was a proper symbol that could remind us of Christ's sacrifice, and it would remind us of our own need for daily sacrifice, and even a similar sacrifice to the death if need be. But this is not an external symbol like baptism by which we show we have dedicated our lives to God and associate ourselves with Christians of like faith. For we walk by faith and not by sight, and need no ongoing piece of jewelry to state our Christian status.

I suppose you are referring to the fact that most Witnesses think that "spirit-directed organization" refers to the idea that the persons responsible for directing the WT organization would therefore have a greater measure of Jehovah's holy spirit, or at least a special measure of holy spirit specifically for the work of guiding and directing what counts as "spiritual food."
*** wp17 No. 1 p. 15 Is It Just a Small Misunderstanding? ***
The holy spirit also moves more knowledgeable Christians to come to the aid of those seeking greater understanding.—Acts 8:26-35. *** w17 February p. 24 par. 5, 10-14 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? ***
Christians in the first century recognized that the governing body was directed by Jehovah God through their Leader, Jesus. How could they be sure of this? First, holy spirit empowered the governing body. (John 16:13) Holy spirit was poured out on all anointed Christians, but it specifically enabled the apostles and other elders in Jerusalem to fulfill their role as overseers. For example, in 49 C.E., holy spirit guided the governing body . . . .  In 1919, three years after Brother Russell’s death, Jesus appointed “the faithful and discreet slave.” For what purpose? To give his domestics “food at the proper time.” (Matt. 24:45) Even in those early years, a small group of anointed brothers who served at headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, prepared and distributed spiritual food to Jesus’ followers. . . . .  the Governing Body to focus on providing spiritual instruction and direction. Evidence of holy spirit. The holy spirit has helped the Governing Body to grasp Scriptural truths not previously understood. . . .  Surely, no human deserves credit for discovering and explaining these “deep things of God”! The Governing Body echoes the apostle Paul, who wrote: “These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit.” . . . . can anything other than holy spirit explain the rapid increase in spiritual understanding since 1919? Evidence of angelic assistance. The Governing Body today has the colossal task of overseeing an international preaching work involving over eight million evangelizers. Why has that work been so successful? For one, angels are involved. What I think that many persons might find confusing here is that the article specifically used examples of how wrong we have been in the past as proof of the direction of holy spirit, otherwise how would the Governing Body have been able to make so many changes to its own false doctrines. The same article included these words:
The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food. So how can we answer Jesus’ question: “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?” (Matt. 24:45) What evidence is there that the Governing Body is filling that role? Let us consider the same three factors that directed the governing body in the first century. 13 Evidence of holy spirit. The holy spirit has helped the Governing Body to grasp Scriptural truths not previously understood. For example, reflect on the list of beliefs clarified that was referred to in the preceding paragraph. Surely, no human deserves credit for discovering and explaining these “deep things of God”! I think the biggest source of confusion is the contradiction between the idea that we don't yet have perfect knowledge and yet Jesus promised his disciples:
(John 15:26-16:13) 26 When the helper comes that I will send you from the Father, the spirit of the truth, which comes from the Father, that one will bear witness about me; 27 and you, in turn, are to bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning. . . . . For if I do not go away, the helper will not come to you; but if I do go, I will send him to you. . . .  13 However, when that one comes, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own initiative, but what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things to come. The contradiction is pretty obvious:
The Governing Body claims to be directed by holy spirit; The holy spirit was supposed to guide Christians into all the truth when it was poured out in 33 CE after Jesus was no longer present; The Governing Body admits to a long list of errors going back over 100 years; Many of these new errors and false doctrines were introduced after Jesus was supposed to be present again in 1914. The Second Adventists (and Seventh Day Adventist branch) resolved the issue by calling their false doctrines "Present Truth." If doctrines were found to be false and therefore changed, then the new doctrines were "present truth" and those past false doctrines were "present truth" at the time, even if time proved them to actually be false. Clever! It was based on a mistranslation/misinterpretation of 2 Peter 1:12. But in the tradition of Second Adventists, we (Bible Students/JWs) also needed to adopt the same solution, especially because we were promoting pieces of a chronology that was continually being proven false. For many years, the Watchtower used 2 Peter 1:12 to defend the idea of "present truth." We now admit that it was based on a mistranslation/misinterpretation. But it remained in Watchtower vocabulary for many years. At one time the doctrine has been so important it was capitalized.
*** w52 4/1 p. 219 An International Assembly in Rome ***
those who had already come to the truth must keep up with present truth. They must appreciate what the Lord provides through his organization and study diligently. *** yb88 p. 139 Korea ***
The Watch Tower of August 15, 1914, printed a fascinating letter addressed to Brother Russell, stating: “I am a stranger to you in one sense; but I came to a knowledge of Present Truth through your writings just twenty-two months ago. For some time I have been anxious to write and tell you of my special appreciation of the Truth, but circumstances did not permit until now. The real solution, I think, is found in Jesus' words about what the "spirit of truth" would lead them to. Truth is not the same as "accurate knowledge." Jesus said it would focus on three things: the truth about sin, righteousness and judgment:
(John 16:7-11) . . .For if I do not go away, the helper will not come to you; but if I do go, I will send him to you. 8 And when that one comes, he will give the world convincing evidence concerning sin and concerning righteousness and concerning judgment: 9 first concerning sin, because they are not exercising faith in me; 10 then concerning righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; 11 then concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. For other things, like this issue of cross vs stake, we should have absolutely no problem telling the truth about it. The truth is that we cannot be dogmatic. The truth is that we don't really have proof one way or another. It is NOT the truth to say that "Jesus was therefore executed on a single upright stake." But the truth is very accessible. All we have to do is say that, based on current evidence, Jesus may have been executed on a single upright stake, but there is also evidence that he may have been executed on a dual-beamed cross. It appears that both of these methods, and several others, could fall within the meaning of the term "stauros" found in the Scriptures.
So we have no reason to believe that holy spirit has not already led Christians "into all the truth." We even know the truth about cross versus stake.

It is interesting to note that the (presumably) earliest forms of Christian art (Catacombs in Rome) date from late 2nd century and there is no depiction of a cross. But there is no depiction of a upright stake either (!) It has been argued that this omission could be because the early Christians didn't want to depict anything to do with Jesus' instrument of death for fear of idolatry. Which says a lot about the "Christians" that came after. They did a 180 degree turn and put crosses everywhere.
 

"The Greek word translated “hands” is cheir, which means literally “hands.” There is no Greek word for “wrists” in the New Testament, even though some versions translate Acts 12:7 to say that the chains fell off Peter’s wrists. But the Greek word in this verse is also cheir"
https://www.gotquestions.org/nails-hands-wrists.html
Of course this assumption is not 100% fool proof either....
Also there is an interesting debate here including an interesting comment "If one wants to get anatomically picky, the eight bones of the human wrist are counted among the 27 hand bones".
I can verify that in some languages there is no distinction between the whole arm or just the hand. In order to specify what one means you have to say either arm*, or forearm. Usually the context clarifies what one means; for example "wash your hands" wouldn't mean wash your whole arm, but it can get confusing  if you say you broke your arm, because that could mean your hand. Of course there are exact terms for the parts of the upper limb just as there are in English: shoulder, arm, elbow, forearm, wrist and hand. But as you can see the word arm* in English could include all those parts, excluding the hand . When I fractured my knee, people would say I broke my leg. Languages are interesting!
@JOHN BUTLER Bones of the hand include the wrist